DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 as filed on 07/07/2026 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in People’s Republic of China on 04/26/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202420880153.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 18-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/912503 (herein 503’)(reference application) in view of Dale Brisson (US 20230183977A1)(Herein with Brisson). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim the same inventive entity.
In regards to Claim 18 of the pending application and claim 16 of ‘503, both disclose A modular shed structure made of molded plastic panels, comprising: a floor comprising a plurality of floor panels; a plurality of wall panels coupled with the plurality of floor panels; a plurality of door panels; and a roof that comprises a central roof panel that is foldable via an embedded folding groove to form a roof peak, and one or more side roof panels connected to the central roof panel. However, 502’ fails to disclose a beam support frame configured to support the roof, wherein the beam support frame comprises at least one central beam column and a central crossbar positioned in the middle of the at least one central beam column; and a plurality of roof panels coupled with the beam support frame
Furthermore, Brisson discloses a beam support frame [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] (see examiners comments) configured to support the roof assembly [Abstract], wherein the beam support frame [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] comprises at least one central beam column [Unnumbered, Fug 20](see examiners comment) and a central crossbar (78) [Fig 20B] positioned in the middle of the at least one central beam column [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] (see examiners comment) and a plurality of roof panels (23) [Fig 20C] coupled with the beam support frame [Unnumbered, Fig 20B].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof assembly as disclosed by the immediate application to further include beam support frame configured to support the roof, wherein the beam support frame comprises at least one central beam column and a central crossbar positioned in the middle of the at least one central beam column; and a plurality of roof panels coupled with the beam support frame as disclosed by Brisson. When modified, the beam support frame with all limitation involve allows for a sturdier vertical structure against wind, snow, rain further providing a redundance support system for the roof.
Claim 1-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 11-13, 16-17, 20 of copending Application No. 18/912486 (herein 486’)(reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications claim the same inventive entity.
In regards to Claim 1, both the immediate application and 486’ (claims 11-12, 17) disclose
A roof assembly of a blow-molded modular shed, comprising: a beam support frame configured to support the roof assembly, wherein the beam support frame comprises at least one central beam column and a central crossbar positioned in the middle of the at least one central beam column; and a plurality of roof panels coupled with the beam support frame, wherein the plurality of roof panels comprises a central roof panel that is foldable via an embedded folding groove to form a roof peak, and one or more side roof panels connected to the central roof panel.
In regards to Claim 13, both the immediate application and 486’ (claims 1-3, 11-13) disclose A roof assembly of a blow-molded modular shed, comprising: a beam support frame configured to support the roof assembly; a plurality of roof panels coupled with the beam support frame, wherein the plurality of roof panels comprise a central roof panel that is foldable via an embedded folding groove to form a roof peak, and one or more side roof panels connected to the central roof panel; and at least one door lintel installed under the plurality of roof panels.
In regards to claim 18, both the immediate application and 486’ (claims 2, 16, 17, 20) disclose a modular shed structure made of molded plastic panels, comprising: a floor comprising a plurality of floor panels; a plurality of wall panels coupled with the plurality of floor panels; a plurality of door panels; and a roof that comprises: a beam support frame configured to support the roof, wherein the beam support frame comprises at least one central beam column and a central crossbar positioned in the middle of the at least one central beam column; and a plurality of roof panels coupled with the beam support frame, wherein the plurality of roof panels comprise a central roof panel that is foldable via an embedded folding groove to form a roof peak, and one or more side roof panels connected to the central roof panel.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to Claim 6, the term “the top edge” as used in line 1 lacks antecedent basis. It appears the top edge is intended to recite “a top edge”.
In regards to Claim 7, the term “a top edge” as used in line 1 is unclear. “the top end” is used in claim 6, Line 1 (although not properly introduced), due to the dependency of claim 7 onto claim 6 it is unclear if both recitations of top edge is the same top edge. For examination purposes it has been interpretated as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mower et al. (US20050223653A1)(Herein Mower) in view of Dale Brisson (US 20230183977A1)(Herein with Brisson)
In regards to Claim 1, Mower discloses
A roof assembly [0168] of a blow-molded modular shed [Fig 1-2] [Abstract, a shed is considered a building/modular enclosure to one of ordinary skill in the art] [0041, “shed”], comprising:
a beam support frame (64) [Fig 14, 4] configured to support [0180, “The roof truss 64 may be sized and configured to assist in connecting the roof panels to the shed 10” “For example, as shown in FIG. 17, an exemplary support beam 66 of a truss 64 may have a channel that is sized and configured to receive at least a portion of the lower roof panels 72a and 72b. In particular, the support beam 66 may help connect the lower roof panels 72a, 72b.”] the roof assembly [0168]; and
a plurality of roof panels (74A-74B, 76A-C, 72A-72H) [Fig 4] [0170] coupled with the beam support frame (64) [Fig 14, 4], wherein the plurality of roof panels (74A, 76A-C, 72A-72H) [Fig 4] [0170] comprises a central roof panel (74A, 76A) [Fig 4] [0175-0176] that is foldable [0175-0176] via an embedded folding groove (84, 92, “living hinge”) [Fig 4] [0175-0176] to form a roof peak [As shown in Figure 3/4], and one or more side roof panels (72A-H) [Fig 4] connected [0178, “As shown in the accompanying figures, the end roof cap portions 74a, 74b, the intermediate roof cap portions 76a-c and the lower roof panels 72a-h can be connected to form the roof 20.”] to the central roof panel (74, 76) [Fig 18].
However, Mower fails to disclose
wherein the beam support frame comprises at least one central beam column and a central crossbar positioned the middle of the at least one central beam column
Furthermore, Brisson discloses
wherein the beam support frame (64, Mower) [Fig 14, 4] comprises at least one central beam column [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] (see examiners comment) and a central crossbar (78) [Fig 14] [0148, “Roof Peak Beam”] positioned the middle [As shown in Figure 20B] of the at least one central beam column [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] (see examiners comment)
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof assembly by Mower to further include wherein the beam support frame comprises at least one central beam column and a central crossbar positioned the middle of the at least one central beam column as disclosed by Brisson. When modified the at least one central column and central crossbar allows for structural stability of the beam support frame, including but not limited to allowing for load transfer, simplified load path and resistance to lateral forces.
Examiners Interpretation: To one of ordinary skill in the art, a beam support frame (or truss system (64) as disclosed by Mower), is intended to be used as a support system.
In regards to Claim 2, Mower discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 1 and the beam support frame (64) [Fig 14, 4]
However, fails to disclose
wherein the beam support frame further comprises a plurality of side crossbars in parallel to the central crossbar , and wherein the central crossbar and the plurality of side crossbars are distributed on the central beam column at intervals.
Furthermore, Brisson discloses
wherein the beam support frame (64, Mower) [Fig 14, 4] further comprises a plurality of side crossbars (80) [Fig 20B] [0148, “cross beams 80”] in parallel to the central crossbar (78) [Fig 14] [0148, “Roof Peak Beam”], and wherein the central crossbar (78) [Fig 14] [0148, “Roof Peak Beam”] and the plurality of side crossbars (80) [Fig 20B] [0148, “cross beams 80”] are distributed on the central beam column [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] (see examiners comment) at intervals [As shown, Fig 20B].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof assembly by Mower to further include wherein the beam support frame further comprises a plurality of side crossbars in parallel to the central crossbar , and wherein the central crossbar and the plurality of side crossbars are distributed on the central beam column at intervals as disclosed by Brisson. When modified, the plurality of crossbars in parallel to the central cross bar allows for load distribution when in use during weather events. Reducing stress on any single point.
In regards to Claim 8, Mower discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 1, wherein the embedded folding groove (84, 92, “living hinge”) [Fig 4] [0175-0176] has plastic material [0042, “The roof cap is preferably constructed from blow-molded plastic and it may include a living hinge that allows a portion of the roof cap to be disposed on each side of the roof”]
However, Mower fails to disclose
wherein the embedded folding groove has thinner plastic than rest of the central roof panel.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify embedded folding groove (i.e., living hinge) of Mower to have thinner plastic material than the rest of the central roof panel in order to facilitate flexible positing between a flat, planar portion for facilitating packaging an angled portion for use [as described in Mower, 0176]. When modified, the thinner plastic material would allow for a change in position based on use (either in use or packaged for transportation). In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to Claim 9, Mower discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 1, wherein top surfaces of the central roof panel (74A, 76A-C) [Fig 4] [0170] and the one or more side roof panels (72A-H) [Fig 4] form a stepped structure that gradually descends from a center to both sides [As shown in Figs 3-4, stepped structure that gradually descends from the center to the sides]
In regards to Claim 18, Mower discloses
A modular shed [Fig 1-2] [Abstract, a shed is considered a building/modular enclosure to one of ordinary skill in the art] [0041, “shed”], structure made of molded plastic panels [Abstract] , comprising:
a floor (22) [Fig 2] [0203] comprising a plurality of floor panels (138A, 138b, 140a, 140b) [Fig 4];
a plurality of wall panels (24a, 24b, 24c, 26a, 26b) [Fig 4] coupled [0208, “The protrusions 38 extending outwardly from the wall panels 24a, 24b are at least partially disposed within the receiving portions 144 formed in the floor panels 138, 140.”] with the plurality of floor panels (138A, 138b, 140a, 140b) [Fig 4];
a plurality of door panels (28a, 28b) [Fig 3] [0217] ; and
a roof (20) [Fig 2] [0105] that comprises:
a beam support frame (64) [Fig 14, 4] configured to support [0180, “The roof truss 64 may be sized and configured to assist in connecting the roof panels to the shed 10” “For example, as shown in FIG. 17, an exemplary support beam 66 of a truss 64 may have a channel that is sized and configured to receive at least a portion of the lower roof panels 72a and 72b. In particular, the support beam 66 may help connect the lower roof panels 72a, 72b.”] the roof (20) [Fig 2] [0105]; and
a plurality of roof panels (74A, 76A-C, 72A-72H) [Fig 4] [0170] coupled with the beam support frame (64) [Fig 14, 4], wherein the plurality of roof panels (74A, 76A-C, 72A-72H) [Fig 4] [0170] comprise a central roof panel (74A, 76A) [Fig 4] [0175-0176] that is foldable [0175-0176] via an embedded folding groove (84, 92, “living hinge”) [Fig 4] [0175-0176] to form a roof peak [As shown in Figure 4] [0176, “an angled or use position”], and one or more side roof panels (72A-H) [Fig 4 and 18] connected to the central roof panel (74, 76) [Fig 18]
However, Mower fails to disclose
wherein the beam support frame comprises at least one central beam column and a central crossbar positioned in a middle of the at least one central beam column
Furthermore, Brisson discloses
wherein the beam support frame (64, Mower) [Fig 14, 4] comprises at least one central beam column [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] (see examiners comment) and a central crossbar (78) [Fig 14] [0148, “Roof Peak Beam”] positioned the middle [As shown in Figure 20B] of the at least one central beam column [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] (see examiners comment)
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof assembly by Mower to further include wherein the beam support frame comprises at least one central beam column and a central crossbar positioned the middle of the at least one central beam column as disclosed by Brisson. When modified the at least one central column and central crossbar allows for structural stability of the beam support frame, including but not limited to allowing for load transfer, simplified load path and resistance to lateral forces.
Examiners Interpretation: To one of ordinary skill in the art, a beam support frame (or truss system (64) as disclosed by Mower), is intended to be used as a support system.
In regards to Claim 19, Mower discloses
The modular shed [Fig 1-2] [Abstract, a shed is considered a building/modular enclosure to one of ordinary skill in the art] [0041, “shed”], structure of claim 18,
However, fails to disclose
wherein the beam support frame further comprises a plurality of side crossbars in parallel to the central crossbar and wherein the central crossbar and the plurality of side crossbars are distributed on the central beam column at intervals.
Furthermore, Brisson discloses
wherein the beam support frame (64, Mower) [Fig 14, 4] further comprises a plurality of side crossbars (80, Brisson) [Fig 20B] [0148, “cross beams 80”] in parallel to the central crossbar (78) [Fig 14] [0148, “Roof Peak Beam”] and wherein the central crossbar (78) [Fig 14] [0148, “Roof Peak Beam”] and the plurality of side crossbars (80) [Fig 20B] [0148, “cross beams 80”] are distributed on the central beam column [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] (see examiners comment) at intervals [As shown in Fig 20B] .
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof assembly by Mower to further include wherein the beam support frame further comprises a plurality of side crossbars in parallel to the central crossbar , and wherein the central crossbar and the plurality of side crossbars are distributed on the central beam column at intervals as disclosed by Brisson. When modified, the plurality of crossbars in parallel to the central cross bar allows for load distribution when in use during weather events. Reducing stress on any single point.
In regards to Claim 20, Mower discloses
The modular shed [Fig 1-2] [Abstract, a shed is considered a building/modular enclosure to one of ordinary skill in the art] [0041, “shed”], structure of claim 18, wherein the embedded folding groove (84, 92, “living hinge”) [Fig 4] [0175-0176] has plastic material [0042, “The roof cap is preferably constructed from blow-molded plastic and it may include a living hinge that allows a portion of the roof cap to be disposed on each side of the roof”]
However, Mower fails to disclose
wherein the embedded folding groove has thinner plastic than rest of the central roof panel.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify embedded folding groove (i.e., living hinge) of Mower to have thinner plastic material than the rest of the central roof panel in order to facilitate flexible positing between a flat, planar portion for facilitating packaging an angled portion for use [as described in Mower, 0176]. When modified, the thinner plastic material would allow for a change in position based on use (either in use or packaged for transportation). In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 4, 5, 3, 6-7, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mower et al. (US20050223653A1)(Herein Mower) in view of Dale Brisson (US 20230183977A1)(Herein with Brisson) and Bree (US20150152631A1)
In regards to Claim 4, Mower discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 1 and the central roof panel (74A, 76A) [Fig 4] [0175-0176] and the one or more side roof panels (72A-H) [Fig 18]
However, fails to disclose
wherein a plurality of downward slots are embedded at a bottom edge of the central roof panel and the one or more side roof panels
Furthermore, Bree discloses
wherein a plurality of downward slots (503) [Fig 6] [0057, “Each tile includes a transverse groove 503 (see FIGS. 5 and 6) intended to be placed over and attached to the top course of the wall blocks, near the lower end 505 of the tile 112.”] are embedded at a bottom edge [As shown in Fig 6, Embedded] of the central roof panel (74A, 76A, Mower) [Fig 4] [0175-0176] and the one or more side roof panels (72A-H, Mower) [Fig 18]
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof assembly by Mower to further include wherein a plurality of downward slots are embedded at a bottom edge of the central roof panel and the one or more side roof panels as disclosed by Bree. When modified, the slot with all limitations allows for fastening and attaching as is the intended purpose of a slot. [See Bree; 0057, “Each tile includes a transverse groove 503 (see FIGS. 5 and 6) intended to be placed over and attached to the top course of the wall blocks, near the lower end 505 of the tile 112. The angle of this transverse groove, which is formed obliquely into the underside of the tile, partially determines the angle of the tiles from a vertical plane--since as shown in FIG. 1 this groove sits over the top of the wall. Fastening as described elsewhere in this section is intended to be used to fix the tiles down to the wall, and at free surface 501, to another array of tiles.”]
In regards to Claim 5, Mower as modified discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 2, and the plurality of roof panels (74A, 76A-C, 72A-72H) [Fig 4] [0170].
However fails to disclose
at least one door lintel installed under the plurality of roof panels
Furthermore, Bree discloses
at least one door lintel (111) [Fig 1] [0048, “the door has a lintel comprised of a half-height block 111”] installed under [0057, “Each tile includes a transverse groove 503 (see FIGS. 5 and 6) intended to be placed over and attached to the top course of the wall blocks, near the lower end 505 of the tile 112.”] the plurality of roof panels (74A, 76A-C, 72A-72H, Mower) [Fig 4] [0170].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof assembly by Mower to further include at least one door lintel installed under the plurality of roof panels as disclosed by Bree. When modified, the lintel with all limitations allows for structural stability, as a person of ordinary skill in the art understands a door lintels purpose in construction is to support and redistribute the weight of the wall or structure above it.
In regards to Claim 3, Mower as modified discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 5, wherein the central crossbar (78) [Fig 14] [0148, “Roof Peak Beam”, Brisson] is affixed [via element (45), connector Fig 26A-B, Brisson] to at least one door lintel (111, Bree) [Fig 1] [0048, “the door has a lintel comprised of a half-height block 111”, Bree] installed under [0057, “Each tile includes a transverse groove 503 (see FIGS. 5 and 6) intended to be placed over and attached to the top course of the wall blocks, near the lower end 505 of the tile 112.”, Bree] and the plurality of side crossbars (80) [Fig 20B] [0148, “cross beams 80”, Brisson] are affixed [0069] to the plurality of roof panels (74A, 76A-C, 72A-72H) [Fig 4] [0170].
In regards to Claim 6, Mower as modified discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 5
Bree discloses
wherein the top edge of the at least one door lintel (111) [Fig 1] [0048, “the door has a lintel comprised of a half-height block 111”] is inserted [0057, “placed or attached”] into the plurality of downward slots (503) [Fig 6] [0057, “Each tile includes a transverse groove 503 (see FIGS. 5 and 6) intended to be placed over and attached to the top course of the wall blocks, near the lower end 505 of the tile 112.”] embedded [As shown in Figures 5-6, embedded] at a bottom edge of the central roof panel (74A, 76A-C, Mower) [Fig 4] [0170] and the one or more side roof panels (72A-H, Mower) [Fig 4].
In regards to Claim 7, Mower as modified discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 6
However, fails to disclose
wherein a top edge of the door lintel further comprises limiting protrusions, and the plurality of downward slots further provide limiting grooves into which the limiting protrusions are engaged with.
Furthermore, Bree discloses
wherein a top edge of the door lintel (111) [Fig 1] [0048, “the door has a lintel comprised of a half-height block 111”] further comprises limiting protrusions [0048, “The door has a lintel comprised of a half-height block 111. That block has tongues on each side (not shown)”], and the plurality of downward slots (503) [Fig 6] [0057, “Each tile includes a transverse groove 503 (see FIGS. 5 and 6) intended to be placed over and attached to the top course of the wall blocks, near the lower end 505 of the tile 112.”] further provide limiting grooves [Unnumbered, Fig 5, Angled Sidewall of 503] [See examiners comment] into which the limiting protrusions [0048, “The door has a lintel comprised of a half-height block 111. That block has tongues on each side (not shown)”] are engaged with [Fig 1, Showing engagement of the roof and walls].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof assembly by Mower to further include wherein a top edge of the door lintel further comprises limiting protrusions, and the plurality of downward slots further provide limiting grooves into which the limiting protrusions are engaged with as disclosed by Bree. When modified, the limiting protrusion with all limitations facilitates a groove and tongue connection between the wall and/or door lintel and the roof. Allowing for a securement between the roof and the connecting structure. [see Bree; 0048]
Examiners Interpretation: A tongue is common in the art and is known to be a protrusion.
In regards to Claim 13, Mower discloses
A roof assembly [0168] of a blow-molded modular shed [Fig 1-2] [Abstract, a shed is considered a building/modular enclosure to one of ordinary skill in the art] [0041, “shed”] [0182 “blow-molded”], comprising:
a beam support frame (64) [Fig 14, 4] configured to support [0180, “The roof truss 64 may be sized and configured to assist in connecting the roof panels to the shed 10” “For example, as shown in FIG. 17, an exemplary support beam 66 of a truss 64 may have a channel that is sized and configured to receive at least a portion of the lower roof panels 72a and 72b. In particular, the support beam 66 may help connect the lower roof panels 72a, 72b.”] the roof assembly [0168];
a plurality of roof panels (74A, 76A-C, 72A-72H) [Fig 4] [0170] coupled with the beam support frame (64) [Fig 14, 4], wherein the plurality of roof panels (74A, 76A-C, 72A-72H) [Fig 4] [0170] comprise a central roof panel (74A, 76A) [Fig 4] [0175-0176] that is foldable [0175-0176] via an embedded folding groove (84, 92, “living hinge”) [Fig 4] [0175-0176] to form a roof peak [As shown in Figure 4] [0176, “an angled or use position”] , and one or more side roof panels (72A-H) [Fig 3] connected to the central roof panel (74A, 76A) [Fig 4] [0175-0176];
However fails to disclose
at least one door lintel installed under the plurality of roof panels
Furthermore, Bree discloses
at least one door lintel (111) [Fig 1] [0048, “the door has a lintel comprised of a half-height block 111”] installed under [0057, “Each tile includes a transverse groove 503 (see FIGS. 5 and 6) intended to be placed over and attached to the top course of the wall blocks, near the lower end 505 of the tile 112.”] the plurality of roof panels (74A, 76A-C, 72A-72H, Mower) [Fig 4] [0170].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof assembly by Mower to further include at least one door lintel installed under the plurality of roof panels as disclosed by Bree When modified, the lintel with all limitations allows for structural stability, as a person of ordinary skill in the art understands a door lintels purpose in construction is to support and redistribute the weight of the wall or structure above it.
Examiners Interpretation: To one of ordinary skill in the art, a beam support frame (or truss system (64) as disclosed by Mower), is intended to be used as a support system.
In regards to Claim 14, Mower as modified discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 13, wherein the embedded folding groove (84, 92, “living hinge”) [Fig 4] [0175-0176] has plastic material [0042, “The roof cap is preferably constructed from blow-molded plastic and it may include a living hinge that allows a portion of the roof cap to be disposed on each side of the roof”]
However, Mower fails to disclose
wherein the embedded folding groove has thinner plastic than rest of the central roof panel.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify embedded folding groove (i.e., living hinge) of Mower to have thinner plastic material than the rest of the central roof panel in order to facilitate flexible positing between a flat, planar portion for facilitating packaging an angled portion for use [as described in Mower, 0176]. When modified, the thinner plastic material would allow for a change in position based on use (either in use or packaged for transportation). In general, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In regards to Claim 15, Mower as modified discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 13,
However, fails to disclose
wherein the beam support frame comprises at least one central beam column and a central crossbar positioned in a middle of the at least one central beam column.
Furthermore, Brisson discloses
wherein the beam support frame (64, Mower) [Fig 14, 4] comprises at least one central beam column [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] (see examiners comment) and a central crossbar (78) [Fig 14] [0148, “Roof Peak Beam”] positioned the middle [As shown in Figure 20B] of the at least one central beam column [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] (see examiners comment)
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof assembly by Mower to further include wherein the beam support frame comprises at least one central beam column and a central crossbar positioned the middle of the at least one central beam column as disclosed by Brisson. When modified the at least one central column and central crossbar allows for structural stability of the beam support frame, including but not limited to allowing for load transfer, simplified load path and resistance to lateral forces.
Examiners Interpretation: To one of ordinary skill in the art, a beam support frame (or truss system (64) as disclosed by Mower), is intended to be used as a support system.
In regards to Claim 16, Mower as modified discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 15, wherein the beam support frame (64) [Fig 14, 4]
However, fails to disclose
wherein the beam support frame further comprises a plurality of side crossbars in parallel to the central crossbar, and wherein the central crossbar and the plurality of side crossbars are distributed on the central beam column at intervals.
Furthermore, Brisson discloses
wherein the beam support frame (64, Mower) [Fig 14, 4] further comprises a plurality of side crossbars (80) [Fig 20B] [0148, “cross beams 80”] in parallel to the central crossbar (78) [Fig 14] [0148, “Roof Peak Beam”], and wherein the central crossbar (78) [Fig 14] [0148, “Roof Peak Beam”] and the plurality of side crossbars (80) [Fig 20B] [0148, “cross beams 80”] are distributed on the central beam column [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] (see examiners comment) at intervals [As shown in Figure 20B].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof assembly by Mower to further include wherein the beam support frame further comprises a plurality of side crossbars in parallel to the central crossbar , and wherein the central crossbar and the plurality of side crossbars are distributed on the central beam column at intervals as disclosed by Brisson. When modified, the plurality of crossbars in parallel to the central cross bar allows for load distribution when in use during weather events. Reducing stress on any single point.
In regards to Claim 17, Mower as modified discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 16, wherein the central crossbar (78, Brisson) [Fig 14] [0148, “Roof Peak Beam”] is affixed [via element (45), connector Fig 26A-B, Brisson] to the at least one door lintel (111, Bree) [Fig 1] [0048, “the door has a lintel comprised of a half-height block 111”] and the plurality of side crossbars (80, Brisson) [Fig 20B] [0148, “cross beams 80”] are affixed [Via Fig 16, 0069] to the plurality of roof panels (74A, 76A-C, 72A-72H) [Fig 4] [0170].
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mower et al. (US20050223653A1)(Herein Mower) in view of ) in view of Dale Brisson (US 20230183977A1)(Herein with Brisson) and Sean Coyle (GB2560803A)(Herein Coyle)
In regards to Claim 10, Mower discloses
The roof assembly [0168] claim 1, wherein at least one of the central beam column [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] (see examiners comment) and the central crossbar (78, Brisson) [Fig 14] [0148, “Roof Peak Beam”]
However fails to disclose
wherein at least one of the central beam column and the central crossbar is collapsable before installation.
Furthermore, Coyle discloses
wherein at least one of the central beam column [Unnumbered, Fig 20B] (see examiners comment) and the central crossbar (78, Brisson) [Fig 14] [0148, “Roof Peak Beam”] is collapsable before installation [Abstract, “The structural roof module 1 is movable between an expanded in-use configuration and a collapsed configuration for stowage”] [Figs 1-4].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the roof assembly by Mower to further include wherein at least one of the central beam column and the central crossbar is collapsable before installation as disclosed by Barker. When modified, the central crossbar and central beam column being collapsable allows for ease of transport and storage [See Coyle; Abstract]
In regards to Claim 11, Mower as modified discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 10,
wherein top surfaces [Top of 72-76] of the central roof panel (74A, 76A-C, 72A-72H) [Fig 4] [0170] and the one or more side roof panels (72A-H) [Fig 4] form a stepped structure that gradually descends from a center to both sides. [As shown in Figs 3-4, stepped structure that gradually descends from the center to the sides]
In regards to Claim 12, Mower as modified discloses
The roof assembly [0168] of claim 11,
wherein the one or more side roof panels (72A-H) [Fig 4] are connected with one or more wall panels (24a, 24b, 24c, 26a, 26b) [Fig 4] via positioning slots (39) [Fig 17] [0181] and connectors [0181, “For example, as shown in FIG. 17, the wall panels 24 may include one or more screw bosses 39 that are sized and configured to receive a screw or other fastener to connect the wall panels to the roof”].
Examiners Comment
PNG
media_image1.png
642
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brisson, Figure 20B
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting Rejection: Applicant' s argument with respect to the double patenting rejections have been considered but are not persuasive. A statement that Applicant is willing to submit a terminal disclaimer (such as upon Allowance) is not sufficient to overcome a double patenting rejection. “A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.” See MPEP 804(I)(B)(1). Applicant has neither replied by showing that the claims are patentably distinct, or filed a terminal disclaimer. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Objections to the Claims: Applicant' s argument with respect to the claims is persuasive and objection to the claims is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant' s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is partially persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby partially withdrawn but for those remaining in the above, due to not having any remarks or amendments provided.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant' s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered and are persuasive. The previous grounds of rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-6335. The examiner can normally be reached M through F 7:30 to 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Z.K.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights