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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the sloping roof must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites wherein “the weight of the packaging system is reduced from 40% to 75% relative to comparable modules”. Comparable modules are relative and it is unclear what the weight range would be for comparable modules. Therefore, the limitation is unclear.
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, 5, 7-9, 12-14, 19-20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schiltz (US-11174095-B1).
Schiltz discloses:
1. A reduced weight packaging system (10) for industrial equipment (Fig. 1): a first module (30) defining a baseplate; and a second module (14) superimposable on the baseplate, the second module defining an interior where the industrial equipment is to be housed during operation (Fig. 1), wherein at least a first portion of the first module is made from a wood-based material and wherein the second module is made from the wood- based material (col. 1, ll. 1; col. 4, ll. 42 – col. 5, ll. 17).
2. The packaging system of claim 1, wherein the wood-based material comprises mass timber (col. 4, ll. 42 – col. 5, ll. 17).
3. The packaging system of claim 1, wherein the first module is entirely made of mass timber (col. 4, ll. 42 – col. 5, ll. 17).
5. The packaging system of claim 1, wherein the weight of the packaging system is reduced from 40% to 75% relative to comparable modules made of metal, concrete or both (depending on the module).
7. The packaging system of claim 1, wherein the first module comprises a number of cavities defined in part by beams (36) transversely positioned relative to a longitudinal axis of the packaging system (Fig. 1).
8. The packaging system of claim 7, wherein the beams are distributed to structurally support mounting points of the industrial equipment to be housed in the interior defined by the second module (Fig. 1).
9. The packaging system of claim 7, wherein respective bottommost portions of the cavities are closed by a panel (Fig. 1) lined with a geomembrane (col. 4, ll. 67- co. 5, ll. 3).
12. The packaging system of claim 1, wherein the industrial equipment comprises turbomachinery equipment (intended use).
13. The packaging system of claim 12, wherein the packaging system further comprises a third module (16) superimposable on the second module (Fig. 1), the third module defining a plenum (between 44) to convey a flow of main air to the turbomachinery.
14. The packaging system of claim 13, wherein the third module further comprises venting equipment (20) to convey venting air to the interior defined by the second module.
19. The packaging system of claim 14, wherein the third module comprises panels (Fig. 1) formed of cross-laminated timber (col. 6, lines 60-62).
20. The packaging system of claim 19, wherein at least some of the panels of the third module have at least one access opening (20), wherein the access opening is each closable with a respective plug obtained from a respective panel of the at least some of the panels of the third module, the respective plug being pre-cut from the respective panel to a desired shape of the access opening or the access door (the opening is capable of being plugged).
22. The packaging system of claim 1, wherein the industrial equipment is selected from the group consisting of turbomachinery equipment, electrical grid equipment, energy storage equipment, power-to-X equipment, energy decarbonizing equipment, hydrogen production equipment and a combination of two or more of said equipment types (intended use).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiltz (US-11174095-B1) in view of Ramon et al. (US-20190135487-A1).
Schiltz fails to teach wherein the first module comprises a hybrid structure further comprising a second portion of concrete.
Ramon teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a module with a hybrid structure further comprising a second portion of concrete (par. 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the module with concrete in order to strengthen the module.
Claim(s) 6, 10, 15-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schiltz (US-11174095-B1) in view of Sirowatka (US-20150225114-A1).
Regarding claims 6, 10, 11 and 21, Schiltz teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above but fails to teach a monocoque structure with cross laminated or glue laminated timber, wherein some of the panels of the second module have a liner arranged to provide acoustic attenuation and/or thermal insulation.
Schiltz teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a wood module with cross-lamination (par. 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the module with cross lamination in order to improve the properties of the module and in order to better protect contents of the module. The modified structure would be monocoque and a have a liner that provide at least some thermal insulation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the laminate with glue, in order to secure layers together and 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.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the modified system of Schiltz teaches all the claimed limitations as shown above and a panel configured to define a sloping roof disposed at a topmost portion of the third module (Schiltz, col. 4, lines 35-41), the panel lined with a membrane to further define the sloping roof (Sirowatka, par. 0031), wherein the sloping roof has a slope ratio in a range from 10:1 to 3:1 (depending on the slope that the module is placed at).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have to have manufactured the laminate to be water resistant, in order to better protect contents of the module and 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.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, the modified system of Schiltz fails to teach wherein at least some of the panels of the second module have at least one of the following: an access opening or an access door, wherein the access opening or the access door is each closable with a respective plug obtained from a respective panel of the at least some of the panels of the second module, the respective plug being pre-cut from the respective panel to a desired shape of the access opening or the access door, wherein a periphery of the respective plug having a respective seal so that the interior of the second module comprises an airtight interior.
Sirowatka teaches that it is known in the art to manufacture a package system with an access opening (58) or an access door, wherein the access opening or the access door is each closable with a respective plug obtained from a respective panel of the at least some of the panels of the second module, the respective plug being pre-cut from the respective panel to a desired shape of the access opening or the access door, wherein a periphery of the respective plug having a respective seal so that the interior of the second module comprises an airtight interior (intended use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have manufactured the module with openings, in order to connect panels together and such a modification would be the use of a known connection structure to manufacture a packaging system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY R ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7426. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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.
/JEFFREY R ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733