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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 29- 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 29, 30, and 32, line 1, the claims should depend from 28 and have been examined as such.
Regarding claim 31, the claim should depend from claim 28 to eliminate issues with antecedent basis. The claim has been examined as such.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 8-10, and 22-27 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.
Regarding claim 5, line 1 and 2, the recitations “a bottom portion” and “a top portion” appears to be reversed. One would assume that the bottom portion of the stud should extend past the bottom plate, etc.
Claims 8 and 9 recite the limitation "the first studs" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 22, lines 3 and 4, the recitation “extending” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear where the plate is extending from or extending to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 20 2014 002 800 U1 to Lavenier.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lavenier discloses a wooden module connectable with one or more additional wooden modules to construct a building, the module comprising: a wooden ceiling assembly (See Figure above); a plurality of wooden side wall assemblies (See Figure above) configured for attachment to opposite sides of the wooden ceiling assembly; and a wooden floor assembly (See Figure above) configured for attachment to the wooden side wall assemblies, the wooden side wall assemblies extending to a top of the wooden ceiling assembly and to a bottom of the wooden floor assembly such that the wooden ceiling assembly and the wooden floor assembly contact inner sides of the wooden side wall assemblies when the wooden ceiling assembly and wooden floor assembly are attached to the wooden side wall assemblies (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 2, further comprising a wooden end wall assembly (wall assembly perpendicular to the side wall assembly) configured for attachment to ends of the wooden ceiling assembly, wooden side wall assemblies, and wooden floor assembly (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the wooden side wall assemblies each include a top plate assembly (9 at the top of the wall panel, Fig.6), a bottom plate assembly (9 at the bottom of the wall assembly, Fig.6), and a plurality of studs (studs of the sidewall assembly 3, Fig.6) extending between the top and bottom plate assemblies.
Regarding claim 28, Lavenier discloses a wooden module assembly comprising: a first wooden module (See Figure above) including a first wooden ceiling assembly (See Figure above), a plurality of first wooden side wall assemblies (See Figure above) configured for attachment to opposite sides of the first wooden ceiling assembly, and a first wooden floor assembly (See Figure above) configured for attachment to the first wooden wall assemblies; and a second wooden module (See Figure above) including a second wooden ceiling assembly (See Figure above), a plurality of second wooden side wall assemblies (See Figure above) configured for attachment to opposite sides of the second wooden ceiling assembly, and a second wooden floor assembly (See Figure above) configured for attachment to the second wooden wall assemblies, the first wooden module being attached to the second wooden module at the first and second wooden side wall assemblies (See Figure above).
Regarding claim 30, further comprising a third wooden module attached to the second wooden module (next module above the second module).
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,439,957 to Raasakka et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
513
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Raasakka et al. disclose a wooden module connectable with one or more additional wooden modules (Fig.3) to construct a building, the module comprising: a wooden ceiling assembly (See Fig. above); a plurality of wooden side wall assemblies (See Fig. above) configured for attachment to opposite sides of the wooden ceiling assembly; and a wooden floor assembly (See Fig. above) configured for attachment to the wooden side wall assemblies, the wooden side wall assemblies extending to a top of the wooden ceiling assembly (See Fig. above) and to a bottom of the wooden floor assembly (See Fig. above) such that the wooden ceiling assembly and the wooden floor assembly contact inner sides of the wooden side wall assemblies when the wooden ceiling assembly and wooden floor assembly are attached to the wooden side wall assemblies (See Fig. above).
Regarding claim 2, further comprising a wooden end wall assembly (walls perpendicular to the side wall assemblies) configured for attachment to ends of the wooden ceiling assembly, wooden side wall assemblies, and wooden floor assembly.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the wooden side wall assemblies each include a top plate assembly (36, Fig.6), a bottom plate assembly (24, Fig.6), and a plurality of studs (34) extending between the top and bottom plate assemblies.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the bottom plate assembly comprises a first bottom plate (24) and a header (22) mounted directly on top of the first bottom plate.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the top plate assembly comprises a top plate (36) and a header mounted directly on a bottom of the top plate (header board mounted beneath 36, Fig.6).
Claim(s) 22-25 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 9823824 A1 to Brungraber.
Regarding claim 22, Brungraber discloses a ceiling assembly for use in a module for constructing a building, the ceiling assembly comprising: a first ceiling plate extending (12, left of Fig.2); a second ceiling plate (12, right of Fig.2) extending; a plurality of ceiling joists (14) extending between the first and second ceiling plates (Fig.2), each ceiling joist comprising a truss assembly (14) including a plurality of truss members (20); and a support block (18) attached to at least one of the truss members, the support block providing a support surface for supporting MEP (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing) components extending through the ceiling joists (Fig.4).
Regarding claims 23-25, the limitations of indicia providing information, markings, arrows, writing are considered non-functional printed matter and cannot be considered patentably distinguishing.
Per MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims
III. PRODUCT CLAIMS – NONFUNCTIONAL PRINTED MATTER DOES NOT DISTINGUISH CLAIMED PRODUCT FROM OTHERWISE IDENTICAL PRIOR ART PRODUCT.
Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai, **>367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004)< (Claim at issue was a kit requiring instructions and a buffer agent. The Federal Circuit held that the claim was anticipated by a prior art reference that taught a kit that included instructions and a buffer agent, even though the content of the instructions differed.). See also In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983)("Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. [T ]he critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.").
Regarding claim 27, wherein the support block is positioned at the desired location of the MEP component prior to installation of the MEP component (Fig.1).
Claim(s) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 117145070 A to Al.
Regarding claim 28, Al discloses a wooden module assembly comprising: a first wooden module (lower left 2) including a first wooden ceiling assembly (ceiling 25, Fig.4), a plurality of first wooden side wall assemblies (25, sides of Fig.4) configured for attachment to opposite sides of the first wooden ceiling assembly, and a first wooden floor assembly (lower surface of Fig.4, 10) configured for attachment to the first wooden wall assemblies; and a second wooden module (another one of the modules 2, Fig.1) including a second wooden ceiling assembly (same as module above), a plurality of second wooden side wall assemblies (same as module above) configured for attachment to opposite sides of the second wooden ceiling assembly, and a second wooden floor assembly (same as module above) configured for attachment to the second wooden wall assemblies, the first wooden module being attached to the second wooden module at the first and second wooden side wall assemblies (both modules 2 on the first story of Fig.1).
Regarding claim 29, further comprising a splice place (24, 1221, Fig.7) connecting the first wooden module to the second wooden module.
Regarding claim 30, further comprising a third wooden module (third module 2) attached to the second wooden module.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,439,957 to Raasakka et al.
Regarding claim 12, Raasakka et al. do not specifically disclose further comprising fasteners extending through the headers to attach the wooden side wall assemblies to the wooden ceiling assembly and wooden floor assembly.
It is notoriously well known in the art of building construction to insert fasteners through headers or reinforced framing members to secured modules to one another. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided fasteners through the headers and top and bottom plate members to secure the assemblies to one another to form the module. The fasteners through the header will create a stronger module when all secured.
Regarding claim 13, Raasakka et al. discloses a base plate and a header but does not disclose wherein the bottom plate assembly comprise a second bottom plate disposed directly on top of the header, the at least one second stud being disposed on top of the second bottom plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a second base plate to the module of Raasakka et al. thereby to increase the strength and rigidity of the module. The number of horizontal plate members will not yield unexpected results.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 9823824 A1 to Brungraber.
Regarding claim 26, although Brungraber may not specifically disclose pre-installing components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the MEP components pre-installed on the ceiling assembly prior to attachment of the ceiling assembly in the module in order make installation easier by preventing the mechanical installers from weaving or routing components post installation.
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,439,957 to Raasakka et al. in view of US 3206903 A to Johnson.
Regarding claim 4, Raasakka et al. disclose wherein the plurality of studs comprises first studs (34) extending between the top and bottom plate assemblies and at least one second stud (other of 34) extending between the top and bottom plate assemblies.
Raasakka et al. do not disclose the first studs each having a length that is longer than the at least one second stud.
Johnson discloses providing a module having first and second studs (24, 27) each having a length that is longer than the at least one second stud (Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the module of Raasakka with studs of different lengths as taught by Johnson so to provide a stronger module due to the engagement of the studs with the base plate and top plate since the studs have positioning aids and physical engagement with the plates.
Regarding claim 5, Johnson discloses wherein the first studs each include a bottom portion extending past a bottom of the top plate assembly and a top portion extending past a top of the bottom plate assembly (40’, Fig.1), and the at least one second stud (24, 27) extends to the bottom of the top plate assembly and to the top of the bottom plate assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Johnson discloses wherein the at least one second stud is disposed at an end (27) of the side wall assembly.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,439,957 to Raasakka et al. in view of CA 2718674 A1 to Malo.
Regarding claim 8, Raasakka et al. do not disclose wherein the first studs extend past the header to the bottom plate.
Malo discloses providing studs (8) extend past the header (2) to the bottom plate (1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided studs which interact and engage with the header and base plate so to create an interlocking connection and increasing the strength of the module.
Regarding claim 9, Malo discloses wherein the first studs have a notch (formed by cuts 10 and 11) formed therein configuring end portions of the first studs to extend around the header to the bottom plate (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 10, Malo does not specifically disclose wherein the end portion attached to the header at two locations spaced apart along the length of the first stud.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have secured the studs to the header at two spaced locations so to prevent rotation of the studs relative to the header and therefore increasing the stability and strength of the module.
Claim(s) 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2718674 A1 to Malo in view of US 3206903 A to Johnson.
Regarding claim 16, Malo discloses a wall assembly for use in a module for constructing a building, the wall assembly comprising: a top plate assembly (18) including a header (18); a bottom plate assembly (1, 2, 14) comprises a bottom plate (1) and a header (2) mounted directly on top of the bottom plate (Fig.6); and a plurality of studs (8) extending between the top and bottom plate assemblies (Fig.1), the plurality of studs comprising first studs (8) extending between the top and bottom plate assemblies (Fig.1).
Malo discloses the bottom plate structure but does not disclose the top plate, the header mounted directly to the topo plate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the top plate assembly in the same manner as the bottom plate assembly so to make each module of Malo easier and cheaper to manufacture and further to increase the strength of the module.
Malo does not disclose at least one second stud, wherein the first studs being longer than the second studs.
Johnson discloses first and second studs having different lengths (24, 27 and 40’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the assembly of Malo with studs of different lengths as taught by Johnson so to provide a stronger module due to the engagement of the studs with the base plate and top plate since the studs have positioning aids and physical engagement with the plates.
Regarding claim 17, Malo discloses wherein the top plate, bottom plate, and headers extend continuously along an entire length of the wall assembly (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 18, Malo discloses wherein the first studs (8) extend past a bottom of the top plate assembly ( top of Fig.3) and past a top of the bottom plate assembly (bottom of Fig.3).
Johnson discloses the at least one second stud extends to the bottom of the top plate assembly and to the top of the bottom plate assembly (24, 27).
Regarding claim 19, Johnson discloses wherein the at least one second stud (27, Fig.1) is disposed at an end of the side wall assembly.
Regarding claim 20, Malo discloses wherein the first studs (8) extend past the header on the top plate to the top plate at the top plate assembly (top of Fig.3), and extend past the header to the bottom plate to the bottom plate at the bottom plate assembly (bottom of Fig.3).
Regarding claim 21, Malo discloses wherein the first studs (8) have first notches (lower notches formed by cuts 10 and 11) formed therein configuring bottom portions of the first studs to extend around the header on the bottom plate, and second notches (notches formed in the studs 8 at the top portions of Fig.3) formed therein configuring top portions of the first studs to extend around the header on the top plate (Fig.3).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 117145070 A to Al in view of EP 3 842 598 A2 to Sturris.
Regarding claim 31, Al discloses wherein the third wooden module comprises a wooden floor assembly (floor of the third module 2) and a wooden ceiling assembly (ceiling assembly of third module 2).
Although Al discloses a porch/balcony type, Al does not specifically disclose a module having a floor and ceiling without walls.
Sturris discloses wooden modules having a floor assembly and a ceiling assembly and free from walls (Fig.2, 28, 29, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided modules free from walls as taught by Sturris within the building structure of Al so to provide areas of walk-through portions of the building, or to provide larger rooms within the building, etc. Changing the configuration of a modular building does not yield unexpected results.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 117145070 A to Al.
Regarding claim 32, Al discloses the modules integrated with utilities but does not specifically disclose a dry module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selectively provided modules with utilities and some without by need thereby creating the desired configuration of modules without unnecessary utilities traveling through the modules. Further, some areas of a building just do not require any sort of plumbing components, thereby reducing costs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights