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 § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harvey US 2007/0209294 A1 (hereinafter ‘Harvey’).
In regard to claim 1, Harvey teaches a collapsible and deployable building unit (20) comprising:
a base frame (40) having adjustable base frame supports (10);
a roof frame (32);
a right wall (30) and a left wall (28), each hingedly mounted (via 158 and 138 respectively) to the base frame (at 58 and 56) and having rollers (198) at top corners that engage roller tracks (192) on an interior of the roof frame;
a front wall (24) hingedly attached (at hinge 88) to the base frame (at 52);
a rear wall (26) hingedly attached (via hinge 108) to a rear wall support panel (54) mounted to the base frame;
wherein the right wall, left wall, front and rear walls are configured to fold between:
a collapsed configuration where the walls lay horizontally with the front wall against the base frame (seen in fig. 4) and the rea wall positioned horizontally above the front wall (fig. 4 showing the rear wall 26 (in dotted lines) being moved into a horizontal position on top of the front wall 24), and
a deployed configuration where the walls are positioned vertically to form an enclosed space (see figs. 1-2).
In regard to claim 3, Harvey teaches the claimed invention wherein the rear support wall panel has a height that is at least equal to a thickness of the front wall (see [0026]) to enable the rear wall to sit horizontally without interfering with the front wall in the collapsed configuration (See fig. 4).
In regard to claim 6, Harvey teaches a method of deploying a collapsible building unit comprising:
providing a building unit having a base frame (40), a roof frame (32), and right (30), left (28), front (24) and rear (26) walls hingedly mounted (via 158, 138, 52 and 54 respectively) in a collapsed configuration (fig. 5 -see [0024]);
pivoting the right wall and left wall upward from a horizontal position to a vertical position while rolling top corners (198) of the right and left walls along tracks (192) in the roof frame to raise the roof frame (see [0030]);
after the right and left walls are vertical, pivoting the rear wall upward from a horizontal position to a vertical position (see [0030] and fig. 4); and
pivoting the front wall upward from a horizontal position to a vertical position to complete deployment (see [0030] and fig. 3).
In regard to claim 8, Harvey teaches the claimed invention wherein the right and left walls are pivoted with assistance from mechanical lifting devices (220, see [0030]).
In regard to claim 11, Harvey teaches a collapsible building unit (20) comprising:
a base frame (40);
a roof frame (32);
side walls (28, 30) hingedly mounted (via 138 and 158 respectively) to the base frame and having rollers (198) engaging tracks (192) in the roof frame; and
end walls (24, 26) hingedly mounted (via 88, 108) to fold horizontally in a collapsed state (fig. 5);
wherein the side walls are configured to pivot upward while the rollers move along the tracks to raise the roof frame to a deployed height, and wherein the end walls are configured to pivot upward after the side walls are deployed to form an enclosed space (see [0030] and fig. 5).
In regard to claim 14, Harvey teaches the claimed invention wherein the end walls comprise a front wall (24) hingedly mounted (via 88) directly to the base frame (part 52 of the base frame) and a rear wall (26) hingedly mounted (via 108) to a raised support panel (54).
In regard to claim 15, Harvey teaches the claimed invention wherein multiple units are configured to be stacked atop one another in the collapsed configuration (see fig. 12).
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 2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey in view of Kangro US 2023/0366166 A1 (hereinafter ‘Kangro’).
In regard to claim 2, the supports of Harvey are height adjustable, but not via threaded elements engaging adjustable feet.
Kangro teaches a base frame of a building (fig. 9) having adjustable base frame supports (figs. 1-2) that are adjustable via threaded elements (4) engaging adjustable feet (see fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to use the adjustable mechanism of Kangro in the structure of Harvey because both are well known means for providing adjustability and have been known in the art for being used interchangeably. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation that substituting the known threaded adjustment mechanism of Kangro for the pins used by Harvey would successfully provide an adjustable support and would have yield no more than the predictable result of allowing adjustment of the height of the structure (see MPEP 2144.06) while providing a more precise adjustment.
In regard to claim 12, Harvey teaches the claimed invention wherein the base frame includes adjustable supports (10) at each corner but does not explicitly teach them at an underside.
Kangro teaches a base frame of a building (fig. 9) having adjustable at underside corners (see fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide the supports of Harvey on an underside of the corners, as taught by Kangro so as to provide a compact layout of the structure and maximize the space by not going outside of the perimeter of the structure with the supports.
Claims 4, 7, 9, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey.
In regard to claims 4 and 13, Harvey teaches the claimed invention wherein each of the right and left walls is pivotally mounted to the base frame at a hinge (158, 138). Note that fig. 5 discloses the hinges appear to be inward from a side panel of the base frame provided by 58 and 56 but its not explicitly disclosed by Harvey. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to locate the hinges inward from a side panel of the base frame so as to maintain the side panels flush with the supports as shown in fig. 5 because this facilitates storage and transportation of the structure in the collapsed configuration.
In regard to claim 7, Harvey teaches the step of adjusting the base frame supports to level the building (see [0039]) when erecting the building, but does not explicitly disclose it is done prior to deployment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to adjust the frame supports prior to deployment because it is easier to perform the adjustment when the building is collapsed (less volume to be adjusted).
In regard to claim 9, Harvey teaches installing “additional items, such as air conditioner” are provided after deployment (see [0030]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to install other internal elements such as furniture and shelving so as to make a comfortable stay for occupants.
In regard to claim 10, Harvey s silent regarding the specific dimensions of the building, thus leaving it up to the person of ordinary skill in the art to select suitable dimensions.
Wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed dimensions as a matter of routine design optimization, for ease of transportation. See MPEP 2144.05. (In the instant case, size differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such dimensions are critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey in view of Robinson US 4,035,964 (hereinafter ‘Robinson’).
In regard to claim 5, Harvey does not explicitly teach each of the right and left walls provides an interior space defined by outer bottom and side edges to accommodate the front wall and rear wall when in the collapsed configuration.
Robinson teaches a deployable building comprising right and left walls that each provide an interior space defined by outer edges to accommodate front and rear walls of the building in the collapsed configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide the left and right walls of Harvey with an interior space to accommodate front and rear walls, as taught by Robinson because doing so provides for a more compact collapsed structure that saves space when in storage or being transported.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harvey in view of Czyznikiewicz US 7,841,136 B2 (hereinafter ‘Czyz’).
In regard to claim 16, Harvey teaches the claimed invention further comprising integrated mechanical systems (220) to facilitate controlled expansion and contraction.
Harvey does not explicitly teach integrated hydraulic systems.
Czyz teaches a deployable building comprising hydraulic systems to facilitate deployment and collapsing (see col. 3, ln. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to provide hydraulic systems to facilitate controlled expansion and contraction, as taught by Czyz, so as to expedite the processes of collapsing or erecting in a safe manner.
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