DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/955,734.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 1-11 are examined.
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 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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 defines “a variable building plane structure to which a precast concrete (PC) structure and a double floor are applied,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since one would not know if such a PC structure and double floor are required elements of the variable building plane structure and whether such a PC structure and double floor are in addition to the elements of the variable building plane structure or formed by the elements, such as the pillars, beams, and slab, of such a variable building plane structure. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, the pillars, beams, and slab of the variable building plane structure are considered to form the PC structure and double floor which can be applied to the variable building plane structure. Moreover, claims 2-11 are rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 1.
Claim 11 defines “a matrix of the plurality of PC pillars is a matrix having two rows,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since a matrix has already been defined in claim 1, from which claim 11 depends from, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether a separate matrix is being defined or whether the matrix of claim 1 is being referred back to. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, claim 11 is considered to refer back to the matrix of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Teron (U.S. Patent 9,670,670) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Teron (U.S. Patent 9,670,670).
Regarding claim 1, Teron discloses a variable plane structure to which a precast concrete structure and a double floor are applied, the variable building plane structure comprising:
a plurality of PC pillars (#430) spaced apart from each other to form a matrix along an edge of a residential space (see figure 4, where pillars #430 are provided around the perimeter of the structure to form a matrix of rows and columns);
a plurality of PC perimeter beams (#420) arranged between a pair of PC pillars (see figures 4 and 5), arranged adjacent to each other in a same row (see figures 4 and 5), among the plurality of PC pillars (see figures 4 and 5);
at least one PC slab (#110/410) disposed between a pair of PC perimeter beams (see figures 4 and 5), arranged in adjacent rows (see figures 4 and 5), among the plurality of PC perimeter beams (see figures 4 and 5); and
a top slab (#11; see figure 4) placed on the at least one PC slab (see col. 13, ll. 11-19)
Col. 16, ll. 37-44 disclose the modules #100 are constructed from concrete and col. 16, ll. 52-58 disclose the building #400 is comprised predominantly of concrete, such that the pillars and beams are also considered to comprise of concrete. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret such pillars and beams as also being formed of concrete and thus meeting such limitations as defined, the Examiner takes Official Notice that such concrete buildings are highly well known in the art to be formed from concrete beams and pillars which are to support concrete slab panels in order to form a strong and cost effective building structure and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the pillars and beams of Teron out of concrete to form a strong and cost-effective building structure and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
As a note, the claims are directed to a final product, where the precast pillars, beams, and slabs are considered product-by-process limitations. In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the concrete pillars, beams, and slabs, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the pillars, beams, and slabs are precast. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the present case, Teron discloses such slabs and beams are precast in order to properly place such elements upon the pillars, where whether such pillars are precast or poured in place does not affect the final construction of such an assembly and thus Teron disclosing/rendering obvious concrete pillars is considered to meet such limitations as presently defined.
Regarding claim 2, Teron discloses at least one PC cross beam disposed adjacent to the PC slab between the pair of PC pillars, arranged in a same column in adjacent rows, among the plurality of PC pillars and having a smaller width than the PC slab (As depicted in figures 4 and 5, the cross beams #420 disposed to support adjacent slabs #410 comprise of a width substantially equal to the width of the pillars #430 and substantially smaller than the width of slabs #410).
Regarding claim 3, Teron discloses a riser piper extending vertically for a liquid to flow and passing through the PC cross beam vertically (figure 8 depicts apertures #821 provided within the beams #420 which extend vertically through the beams, where a tube or duct #1021 can extend therethrough to supply air or other utilities to the slabs #410 as needed; see col. 21, ll. 6-16 and col. 16, ll. 17-26.).
Regarding claim 4, Teron discloses the PC cross beam through which the riser pipe passes is disposed at a distal end of the residential space (see figures 8 and 10, where the beam with riser pipe can be situated at ends of the space, where such a space can be broadly interpreted to include a space between four adjacent pillars that forms a rectangular space therebetween, enclosed by two opposing beams).
Regarding claim 5, Teron discloses the top slab is placed on the at least one PC slab and the at least one PC cross beam (see figure 4, where top slab covers the entire supporting structure, including the slabs #410, beams #420, and pillars #430), and the PC slab and the PC cross beam are spaced apart from the top slab to form a floor space (As depicted in figure 7, the top slab #11 is provided on top of the slabs #410 so as to be spaced apart from the beams #420. Col. 13, ll. 11-19 also disclose radiant heating/cooling tubing can be positioned on top of slabs #410 and be embedded within the top slab #11 so as to thus space the slabs #410 from the top slab #11.).
Regarding claim 6, Teron discloses a faucet or a sewer is formed inside the residential space, and the variable building plane structure further comprises a floor pipe connecting the faucet or the sewer and the riser pipe to the floor space for a liquid to flow (Col. 16, ll. 19-26 disclose plumbing supply or plumbing return pipes are to be provided within utilicores #100 of the slabs #410 and thus the building would inherently comprise of a faucet connected to the plumbing supply line to supply water to the residential area or a sewer, such as a toilet, connected to the plumbing return pipe to remove such waste water from the residential area. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Teron as meeting such limitations, the Examiner takes Official Notice that plumbing supply lines are provided within a building to supply a faucet with water and plumbing return lines are provide to remove waste water therefrom and it would have been obvious to have provided a faucet and or a sewer within the residential space of Teron in order to provide water services for occupant use as needed or to meet certain building codes as required.).
Regarding claim 7, Teron discloses the PC cross beam includes a plate part having a flat upper surface (the top flat wall with apertures #821 as depicted in figure 8) and extending parallel to a longitudinal direction of the PC slab (see figure 6, where the longitudinal direction extends in the x-axis direction, which the top surface extends parallel to), and a pair of rib parts (the left and right vertical ribs as depicted in figure 8) protruding downward from both corners of the plane part in a width direction and extending parallel to a longitudinal direction of the plate part (see figure 8, where the vertical ribs extend parallel to the top horizontal surface in the longitudinal direction and downwardly from the left and right corners of the top surface in a transverse, width direction).
Regarding claim 9, Teron discloses the PC cross beam is provided as a plurality of PC cross beams (see figures 4 and 5), and the plurality of PC cross beams and the at least one PC slab are alternatively arranged (see figure 4, where a beam #420 is initially provided, then a slab #410, then a second beam #420 is provided at the other end of the slab #410 so as to alternate such elements and properly support the slab on pillars to form a floor).
Regarding claim 10, Teron discloses a reinforced concrete core adjacent to the residential space, extending vertically and made of reinforced concrete (a plurality of elements are provided in Teron, where one of such elements #410 can be considered a slab while another element #410 can be considered to comprise of a reinforced core #120, formed with a reinforcing rod #320 and thus formed from reinforced concrete and extends vertically adjacent an upper and/or lower residential space, thus meeting such limitations as broadly defined).
Regarding claim 11, Teron discloses a matrix of the plurality of PC pillars is a matrix having two rows, and the PC pillar is not disposed inside the residential space (As depicted in figure 4, the matrix can be considered formed by the two bottom rows of pillars #430, where the residential space can be considered positioned inwardly of such columns, such as when a cladding is attached to such pillars to further enclose the residential, usable space. As a note, Applicant does not specifically point out what such a residential space is to encompass, where claim 1 defines the pillars are to be provided along an edge of a residential space and thus are to be spaced outside of such a hypothetical residential space positioned inwardly thereof.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teron in view of Meyer et al. (U.S. Patent 7,975,443) and Andrews (U.S. Publication 2010/0275531).
Regarding claim 8, Teron discloses a poured concrete floor part configured to integrally couple the plurality of PC pillars, the plurality of PC perimeter beams, the at least one PC slab, and the at least one PC cross beam (see figures 4 and 7, where element #11 can be considered the poured concrete floor part that is to integrally couple and cover the pillars, beams and slabs as defined). However, when element #11 is considered the poured concrete floor, such an element can thus not comprise of a top slab placed on the at least one PC slab as defined in claim 1, from which claim 8 depends from. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Meyer et al., that such precast concrete slabs #18 can be constructed so as to comprise of pedestal support legs #16 so as to form a raised floor surface formed from floor panels #14. Furthermore, Andrews teaches that such pedestal supported floor assemblies can comprise of wood or stone tiles, concrete pavers, granite slabs, or other floor elements as wanted by the end user to provide the aesthetics as needed. See paragraph 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the assembly of Teron to comprise of a top slab formed by granite slabs or another type of material slab spaced above the concrete precast slabs using pedestals, as taught in Meyer et al. and Andrews, in order to provide an aesthetic floor surface for the residential space as wanted by the end user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights