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
Claim 1 is objected to because, at line 1, “Rotating” should be --A rotating--.
Claim 1 is objected to because, at line 1, “for integration in a substrate” should be –configured to be integrated into a substrate-- because the device purpose is not to be in a substrate.
Claim 1 is objected to because, at line 3, “can be” should be –are configured to be--.
Claims 2-26 are objected to because, at line 1, “Rotating” should be –The rotating--.
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, 7-8, 13, and 21 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 1, the phrase "preferably" and “more particularly” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the" circumference. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no circumference is previously recited.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the" rotation axis X. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no X rotation axis previously recited.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-14, 19-20, 23-24, 26-29, 33, and 35 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meserini (8,919,049) in view of Holland (5,467,562).
Meserini teaches a building (100 and 500) comprising:
a modular building unit 100 defining an internal volume, the modular building unit being transportable to a final location for the building in a substantially assembled form (“prefabricated”);
a further building unit 500 defining an internal volume which provides a living space within the building; and in which the modular building unit and the further building unit are connected to define at least part of the building; and in which the modular building unit is configured so that its internal volume communicates directly with the internal volume of the further building unit.
Meserini does not teach at least one service pod mounted within the internal volume of the modular building unit as a self-contained structure, the at least one service pod providing a service function within the building, the modular building unit internal volume capable of communicating directly with the further building unit internal volume to facilitate access into the at least one service pod from the living space of the further building unit.
Holland teaches a service pod 500 mounted within the internal volume of a building room as a self-contained structure, the service pod providing a service function within the building (providing the service of clothing storage, light 426, ventilation 420a), the building room internal volume capable of communicating directly with a further building unit (the house) internal volume to facilitate access into the service pod from the living space of the further building unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a service pod mounted within the internal volume of the modular building unit as a self-contained structure, the at least one service pod providing a service function within the building, the modular building unit internal volume capable of communicating directly with the further building unit internal volume to facilitate access into the at least one service pod from the living space of the further building unit for the efficiency of building a dedicated, specialty closet unit that can be inserted into either the modular building unit bathroom or bedroom.
2. Meserini in view of Holland teaches the building as claimed in claim 1, Holland further teaching the service pod comprises an enclosed space forming a room (“a partitioned part of the inside of a building usually serving a designated purpose”, websters) in the building.
3. Meserini in view of Holland does not expressly teach a plurality of closets which are each mountable within the internal volume of the modular building unit as self-contained structures, each providing a respective service function within the building. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have, for example, two closets, for additional storage.
4. Meserini in view of Holland teaches the building as claimed in claim 1, Holland further teaching the service function is a technical function (lighting).
6. Meserini in view of Holland teaches the building as claimed in claim 1, Holland further teaching the service pod is releasably mounted within the internal volume of the modular building unit because of the modular nature of the prefabricated closet.
7. Meserini in view of Holland teaches the building as claimed in claim 1, Meserini further teaching the modular building unit comprises a structural frame, fig. 4B, which provides structural support during use of the modular building unit, and Holland teaches the pod connected to a structural frame 84.
8. Meserini in view of Holland teaches the building as claimed in claim 1, Holland further teaching the service pod comprises a perimeter structure, the perimeter structure comprising a wall 42.
11. Meserini in view of Holland teaches the building as claimed in claim 8, Holland further teaching the service pod defines an internal volume which is bordered by the perimeter structure, the perimeter structure comprising a roof, fig. 3.
12. Meserini in view of Holland teaches the building as claimed in claim 1, Holland further teaching the service pod defines at least part of at least one wall of building room (the room wall at the closet back).
13. Meserini in view of Holland teaches the building as claimed in claim 1, Holland further teaching the at least one service pod defines an internal volume which houses equipment (lighting) providing the service function, and a doorway 66 which provides access into the internal volume of said pod.
14. Meserini in view of Holland teaches the building as claimed in claim 13, Holland further teaching at least some of the equipment is mounted to a roof of said service pod, fig. 4.
19. Meserini in view of Holland teaches the building as claimed in claim 1, Meserini in view of Holland further teaching the at least one service pod communicates directly with the internal volume of the further building unit so that the pod is accessible directly from the living space of the further building unit because you can go from the closet to the bedroom to the further building.
20. Meserini in view of Holland teaches the building as claimed in claim 1, Meserini in view of Holland further teaching the modular building unit has a perimeter (the outside perimeter) which defines a boundary of its internal volume, and in which the at least one service pod is disposed within said perimeter.
23. Meserini in view of Holland teaches the building as claimed in claim 1, Meserini further teaching the further building unit is an on-site (existing) construction at the final location for the building.
24. Meserini in view of Holland teaches does not expressly teach are a plurality of service pods, at least one of the service pods being connected to at least one other service pod to form a service pod assembly mounted within the internal volume of the modular building unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of service pods, at least one of the service pods being connected to at least one other service pod to form a service pod assembly mounted within the internal volume of the modular building unit to have side by side closets for more storage.
26. Meserini teaches a building (100 and 500) system comprising:
a modular building unit 100 defining an internal volume, the modular building unit being transportable to a final location for the building in a substantially assembled form (“prefabricated”);
a further building unit 500 defining an internal volume which provides a living space within the building; and in which the modular building unit and the further building unit are connected to define at least part of the building; and in which the modular building unit is configured so that its internal volume communicates directly with the internal volume of the further building unit.
Meserini does not teach at least one service pod mounted within the internal volume of the modular building unit as a self-contained structure, the at least one service pod providing a service function within the building, the modular building unit internal volume capable of communicating directly with the further building unit internal volume to facilitate access into the at least one service pod from the living space of the further building unit.
Holland teaches a service pod 500 mounted within the internal volume of a building room as a self-contained structure, the service pod providing a service function within the building (providing the service of clothing storage, light 426, ventilation 420a), the building room internal volume capable of communicating directly with a further building unit (the house) internal volume to facilitate access into the service pod from the living space of the further building unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a service pod mounted within the internal volume of the modular building unit as a self-contained structure, the at least one service pod providing a service function within the building, the modular building unit internal volume capable of communicating directly with the further building unit internal volume to facilitate access into the at least one service pod from the living space of the further building unit for the efficiency of building a dedicated, specialty closet unit that can be inserted into either the modular building unit bathroom or bedroom.
27-29, 33, and 35. The claims recite an obvious method of constructing the Meserini in view of Holland building, the claims essentially reciting the Meserini in view of Holland building structure as defined above in terms of method steps.
Claim 21 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meserini in view of Holland and in further view of Scott (4,622,787).
21. Meserini in view of Holland does not expressly teach, as best understood, a plurality of modular building units which are connected to define at least part of the building, the modular building units each comprising at least one service pod. Scott, figs. 5-10, teaches a plurality of modular building units which are connected to define at least part of the building, the Meserini in view of Holland and in further view of Scott modular building units each comprising at least one service pod. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of modular building units which are connected to define at least part of the building (to have a Meserini bathroom and bedroom, both with closets), the modular building units each comprising at least one service pod to expand the building.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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 Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights