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 § 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.
Claims 100-101, 104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littow US 2021/0372117 A1 (hereinafter ‘Littow’).
In regard to claim 100, Littow teaches a hybrid residential building (1) comprising:
a first building section (5) which is an on-site construction at a final location, the first building section being self-supporting and defining an internal volume (19) that provides a living space within the building;
a module (3) forming at least part of a second building section (fig. 1) and being transportable to the final location in a substantially assembled form (see [0069]) and defining an internal volume (see fig. 2); and
a plurality of external walls (11);
in which the first and second building sections are connected at the final location to form the building (see [0070]);
in which the first building section comprises a cavity (20) which is shaped to receive the module (see fig. 1, and [0083]);
in which the module is positioned within the cavity and connected to the first building section (see fig. 2), and comprises a wall (12A) which provides at least part of one external wall of the building (fig. 1-2);
and in which the one of the external walls of the building comprises a main part defined by the first building section (portion 12B), and a further part defined by the module wall (12A).
Note that Littow appears to teach that the walls of the module are flush with the walls of the main building (see figs. 2, 4, 5 and 10 – the figures do not show an offset between the walls). Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the walls flush so as to facilitate installation of the module since it would be easier to determine the location of the module by aligning the walls.
Littow does not explicitly teach the module is releasably connected so that it can be removed from the cavity and it is silent on the type of connection between the module and the building, thus leaving it up the person of ordinary skill in the art to decide on a connecting method. Littow does disclose, however, that its module is an autonomous, self-contained module that can be completely independent of any building on a site (see [0142]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to make the module to be releasably connected to the building so that it can be removed from the cavity so as to enable the option of using the module on its own as i.e. in a campsite as stated by Littow in [0142]. Further, it would be obvious to make it releasably removable so as to facilitate repairs when needed or to enable replacement of the module.
In regard to claim 101, Littow teaches the claimed invention in which said main part of the one of the external walls is disposed in a main wall plane, and the module wall is disposed on or in the main wall plane (see fig. 1, the wall of the module (12A) joins wall (12B) and becomes part of the main wall plane 11 of the building).
In regard to claim 104, it is noted that the limitations recited in claim 104 amount to the limitations already recited in claim 100 (and rejected above) in addition to the following:
the internal volume of the module comprises a transition space (the space provided by doorway 42), and at least one enclosed room (31) providing a further living space within the building (see [0088]) the transition space providing access from within the module to both the living space provided by the internal volume of the first building section and the living space provided by the enclosed room (note that a person can access the shower room 31 and the living space in the first building section from the doorway 42 -see (fig. 2).
Claim 102 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Littow in view of Tsai 2028/0230691 A1 (hereinafter ‘Tsai’).
In regard to claim 102, Littow teaches a hybrid residential building (1) comprising:
a first building section (5) which is an on-site construction at a final location, the first building section being self-supporting and defining an internal volume (19) that provides a living space within the building;
a module (3) forming at least part of a second building section (fig. 1) and being transportable to the final location in a substantially assembled form (see [0069]) and defining an internal volume (see fig. 2); and
a plurality of external walls (11);
in which the first and second building sections are connected at the final location to form the building (see [0070]);
in which the first building section comprises a cavity (20) which is shaped to receive the module (see fig. 1, and [0083]);
in which the module is positioned within the cavity and connected to the first building section (see fig. 2), and comprises a wall (12A) which provides at least part of one external wall of the building (fig. 1-2);
and in which the one of the external walls of the building comprises a main part defined by the first building section (portion 12B), and a further part defined by the module wall (12A).
Note that Littow appears to teach that the walls of the module are flush with the walls of the main building (see figs. 2, 4, 5 and 10 – the figures do not show an offset between the walls). Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the walls flush so as to facilitate installation of the module since it would be easier to determine the location of the module by aligning the walls.
Littow does not explicitly teach the module is releasably connected so that it can be removed from the cavity and it is silent on the type of connection between the module and the building, thus leaving it up the person of ordinary skill in the art to decide on a connecting method. Littow does disclose, however, that its module is an autonomous, self-contained module that can be completely independent of any building on a site (see [0142]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to make the module to be releasably connected to the building so that it can be removed from the cavity so as to enable the option of using the module on its own as i.e. in a campsite as stated by Littow in [0142]. Further, it would be obvious to make it releasably removable so as to facilitate repairs when needed or to enable replacement of the module.
Littow’s cavity does not comprise a first and second sides on a vertical plane spaced apart and parallel.
Tsai teaches a hybrid building comprising a first building section (10) and a module (30) forming part of a second building section (fig. 2), the module positioned within a cavity (12) comprising a first and a second vertical plane (see side wall 19 and wall in the middle of each story) that are parallel and spaced apart (see fig. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide first and second sides in the cavity of Littow’s, as taught by Tsai, so as to enable the sliding of the module into a precise location thus avoiding having the module be shifted to one side.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 90 -99 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a hybrid building comprising a first building section and a module forming part of a second building section as recited within the context of the independent claim. The first building section comprising a cavity for receiving the module. The first building section comprises two living spaces comprising each a face bordering a respective side of the cavity and the module is configured to provide access between the first and second living spaces while they are isolated from one another, while the module also has a wall that provides at least part of the external walls of the building, as recited within the context of the claim.
Claims 103 and 105 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claim 103, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a hybrid residential building as recited in claim 102 such that the living space in the first building comprises first and second living spaces having a first and second faces respectively, the first face bordering the first side of the cavity and the second face bordering the second side of the cavity such that the first and second living spaces are isolated from one another and still within the first building section.
For claim 105, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a hybrid residential building as recited in claim 104 such that the cavity has first and second sides and the module comprises first and second walls that are adjacent the first and second sides respectively, each of the walls having a walkway providing access into the first building section as recited within the context of the claim.
Further, the Examiner would like to point out that is has been held that the phrase "configured to" has a narrower meaning than merely "capable of". See In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375,1381 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (the phrase "adapted to" construed narrowly to mean "configured to," as opposed to "capable of' or "having the capacity to," citing Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335,1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); Typhoon Touch Techs., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376,1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (construing "memory ... configured to" as "memory that must perform the recited function"); Boston Sci. Corp. v. Cordis Corp., 2006 WF 3782840 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("A widely accepted dictionary definition of the word 'configure' means '[t]o design, arrange, set up, or shape with a view to specific applications or uses.' American Heritage Dictionary 386 (4th ed. 2000).").
Thus, Applicant's specification supports a narrower meaning for "configured to" than "capable of" and makes clear that, at least in the independent claims, under broadest reasonable interpretation "configured to" means more than merely "capable of".
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights