DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for application 17/532,251. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
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 2 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 2 defines “the second set of openings extends around an entirely of the perimeter of the supply air array,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since claim 1, from which claim 2 depends from, defines that the second set of openings extends only around a portion of the first set of openings and thus the second set of openings cannot extend entirely around the array yet only extend around a portion of the first set of openings, which the array is part of and centrally positioned within. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, the mounting arrangement of the second set of openings is considered to extend only around a portion of the first set of openings while the second set of openings can be positioned entirely around the first set of openings, such as when there is one unused opening of the second set positioned around the perimeter of the first set of openings.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cursetjee et al. (U.S. Publication 2011/0097986) in view of Byers et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0265224) and Mack (U.S. Publication 2013/0237139).
Regarding claim 1, Cursetjee et al. disclose a mounting system (#10; figure 10) comprising:
a frame (the frame formed by elements #12, #15, and #20) that defines a truss structure (see figures 1 and 10), the frame including a top support structure (elements #12 and/or #18 form the top support structure of the frame) and a bottom support structure (the structure formed by elements #20 and #16), wherein the bottom support structure includes openings (the openings between adjacent elements #20 and #16 as depicted in figure 1), and wherein one or more flex truss cells are fixed at multiple locations (the cells formed by the openings between elements #20 of figure 10); and
a plurality of mounting locations within the openings (the mounting locations are considered located within the openings between elements #20, where mounts #48 can be attached as depicted in figure 1), the plurality of mounting locations configured to couple to one or more mounting plates (#48) to interchangeably mount surgical equipment therefrom at the one or more flex truss cells (such a mounting plate and surgical equipment are not positively defined, where such elements are configured to be coupled to the mounting locations of Cursetjee et al. as depicted in figure 1), wherein the one or more flex truss cells include a plurality of predefined mounting locations configured to selectively mount the one or more mounting plates at different predefined locations within the one or more flex truss cells (as depicted in figures 1 and 10, the perimeters #20 of the flex truss cells comprise elongated elements #20 and the plates #48 are smaller in length than the cells and are attached using fasteners extending into the perimeter elements #20, where the plates can be slid along and fastened to the perimeter #20 so as to be mounted where needed and thus such cells comprise of predefined mounting locations extending along the length of such cells and formed by the material and surface of such a perimeter, thus meeting such limitations as broadly defined); and
a supply air array (#28; see figure 10) within the frame and surrounded along a perimeter by the plurality of mounting locations (see figure 10) such that the plurality of mounting locations are outside of airflow paths of the supply air array (see figure 10), wherein the plurality of mounting locations are configured to mount the surgical equipment only at locations outside of a sterile field (Because the mounting locations are positioned around the supply air array #28 and the supply air array #28 is the element which directs air towards the sterile field of the operating table of the room where the mounting system is to be positioned within, such mounting locations are thus considered to mount equipment outside of such a direct airflow and thus outside of a sterile field as defined. Alternatively, the mounting system of Cursetjee et al. can be installed upon a tall ceiling of an auditorium where the ceiling is much higher than and thus outside of a sterile field around an operating table and thus is configured to be positioned at a location so as to provide mounting locations outside of a sterile field as broadly defined.).
As depicted in figures 1 and 10 of Cursetjee et al., the supply air array #28 is depicted as being positioned within an opening and surrounded by other openings formed between grid members #20. However, Cursetjee et al. do not specifically disclose a first set of openings surrounded only at a portion of a perimeter thereof by a second set of openings or wherein one or more flex truss cells are fixed at multiple locations along one or more sides of the perimeter of the first set of openings that is less than an entire length of the one or more sides. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Byers et al., that such ceiling support structures can comprise of grid support structures which form a grid of a plurality of openings which are configured to receive panels #121-128, lighting #160, ceiling vent #169, and whatever other apparatuses needed within the ceiling for proper and comfortable use of the room. See paragraph 27. Figure 1 of Byers et al. depicts a 5 x 8 grid formed, where the outer perimeter of openings formed between grid support members can be considered to comprise a second set of openings and flex truss cells which surround a first inner set of openings which apparatuses can be attached within. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the grid of Cursetjee et al. to comprise of a plurality of openings which form a grid of a second set of openings and flex truss cells that surround a perimeter of a first set of openings, as taught in Byers et al., in order to increase the amount of spaces where mechanisms and apparatuses can be attached and hung from the ceiling structure while also constructing the ceiling support structure to conform to the size of the room as needed. Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the supply air array is positioned centrally within the first set of openings since figure 10 of Cursetjee et al. depicts the array #28 positioned inward from the ends of the ceiling support structure and Byers et al. similarly depicts the ventilation element #169 can be positioned within the inner, first set of openings, where one can position the supply air array where needed in order to properly reach an area there below and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). As a note, the limitations defining “one or more flex truss cells” appears to not further define the structure or function of such cells, where one can consider such “truss cells” as perimeter openings that form part of the second set of openings and which openings are flexible since they are capable of allowing different apparatuses to be attached thereto. Thus, if Cursetjee et al. is modified in view of Byers et al. to comprise of, for example, a 5 x 8 grid, the second set of openings can be considered the entire perimeter of the 5 x 8 grid minus two or three of such openings in the perimeter, where the other two or three openings can be considered part of the first set of openings so that the second set of openings and flux truss cells extend less than an entire length of the side of the perimeter of the first set of openings.
Furthermore, Cursetjee et al. do not specifically disclose the air supply array is configured to create laminar airflow. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Mack, that low-turbulence or laminar downward flow from a ceiling air supply #16 to an operating room and procedure area is required in order to ensure a protected area where the operation takes place. See paragraph 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the air supply array of Cursetjee et al. to comprise of a laminar air flow output, as taught in Mack, in order to protect the area where surgery is to take place so as to provide germ-free air and prevent infections or other debris from entering such an area during the procedure. Such a modification of Cursetjee et al. in view of would thus further bolster the interpretation above that the mounting locations for the equipment of Cursetjee et al. are only outside of the sterile field as such mounting locations are outside of such a laminar airflow of the supply air array directed towards the sterile field of the operating room.
Regarding claim 2, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. and Mack render obvious the second set of openings extends around an entirety of the perimeter of the supply air array (see figure 10 of Cursetjee et al. and the explanation above in the rejection of claim 1, where the second set of openings can extend around the entirety of the first set of openings and thus entirely around the array when modified to include an array of openings as taught in Byers et al., where one of the second set of openings would not comprise of an element mounted thereto and thus be considered to not comprise of a mounting location) and the laminar airflow directs air into the sterile field of an operating room under the first set of openings and allow at least a portion of the surgical equipment to extend into the sterile field (The frame of Cursetjee et al. is for supporting a surgical apparatus and other objects when the frame is attached to the ceiling of a surgical/operating room or other clean room, where such a frame is positioned over the sterile field of such a surgical or operating room in order to allow the surgical apparatuses to extend into the operating area for use.). The invention of Cursetjee et al. is to be attached to the ceiling of a surgical/operating room which is inherently considered to comprise of a sterile field in order to prevent infections during and after conducting operations and the frame of Cursetjee et al. is considered to extend over such a sterile field where the surgery is to be conducted in order to allow the surgical apparatuses to extend within such an operating area. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the invention of Cursetjee et al. as meeting such limitations, the Examiner takes Official Notice that surgical and operating rooms comprise of sterile fields in order to prevent infections during and after conducting operations, where the tools used within such a surgery must also be placed in such a sterile field in order to allow use of such tools during the surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the frame of Cursetjee et al. within a sterile field of an operating room in order to allow the surgical tools extending from the frame to be used within the sterile field of the operating room and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention, i.e. rearranging the frame of Cursetjee et al. such that it is positioned upon the ceiling in the surgery room within the sterile area of the room, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 3, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. and Mack render obvious wherein the one or more mounting plates comprises a boom mount that is coupled to the truss structure and a boom arm is configured to extend from the truss structure (For Examining purposes, the mounting plate and boom arm are not considered positively recited since such limitations were only configured to be mounted to the openings and not positively defined as connected thereto. However, for compact prosecution purposes, see figures 2 and 3 of Cursetjee et al., where a mounting plate #42/48 is configured to be attached to the mounting location, where the plate #42/48 is considered a boom mount that is to support a boom arm #44/46.).
Regarding claim 4, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. and Mack render obvious the plurality of mounting locations are sized and shaped to receive therein mounting portions of one or more of an access panel, a light troffer and a boom mount (see figures 1-3 and 10 of Cursetjee et al., where the mounting locations are sized and shaped to receive mounting plates #48 and #42 of such elements to be attached to the structure).
Regarding claim 5, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. and Mack render obvious the plurality of mounting locations are configured to include one or more predefined mounting configurations (see figures 1 and 10 of Cursetjee et al., where the mounting locations are provided within predefined positions and thus are considered to include a predefined mounting configuration) and wherein the frame comprises side walls that prevent air flow into or around the plurality of mounting locations (the grid elements #20 and walls #15 of Cursetjee et al. and the walls around the air supply array device #28 are considered to prevent air flow into and around the plurality of mounting locations).
Regarding claim 6, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. and Mack render obvious the mounting locations extend along two sides of the supply air array around a sterile field of an operating room under the first set of openings, and the first set of openings is configured to receive one or more air flow control elements therein (As depicted in figure 10 of Cursetjee et al. and as explained above, a plurality of mounting locations are located around the array #28, where such mounting locations would be provided within the second set of openings provided around the first set of openings and the array #28. Furthermore, such a first set of openings of Cursetjee et al. are configured to receive air flow control elements, where such elements are not positively defined. Finally, the frame of Cursetjee et al. is for supporting a surgical apparatus and other objects when the frame is attached to the ceiling of a surgical/operating room or other clean room, where such a frame is positioned within the sterile field of such a surgical or operating room in order to allow the surgical apparatuses to extend into the operating area for use.). The invention of Cursetjee et al. is to be attached to the ceiling of a surgical/operating room which is inherently considered to comprise of a sterile field in order to prevent infections during and after conducting operations and the frame of Cursetjee et al. is considered to extend within such a sterile field in order to allow the surgical apparatuses to extend within such an operating area. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the invention of Cursetjee et al. as meeting such limitations, the Examiner takes Official Notice that surgical and operating rooms comprise of sterile fields in order to prevent infections during and after conducting operations, where the tools used within such a surgery must also be placed in such a sterile field in order to allow use of such tools during the surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the frame of Cursetjee et al. within a sterile field of an operating room in order to allow the surgical tools extending from the frame to be used within the sterile field of the operating room and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention, i.e. rearranging the frame of Cursetjee et al. such that it is positioned upon the ceiling in the surgery room within the sterile area of the room, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 16, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. and Mack render obvious the airflow creates a laminar airflow directly to a surgical target zone without turbulence (as explained above, the supply air array of Cursetjee et al. is modified so as to create a laminar airflow therefrom, where Cursetjee et al. teach such a ceiling is to be provided within a surgical/operation room and thus the assembly would direct flow to a surgical target zone as needed).
Regarding claim 17, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. and Mack render obvious the supply air array forms a plenum that is sealed from the plurality of mounting locations and wherein the plurality of mounting locations are located outside of the plenum and blocked from airflow from the supply air array (see figure 10 of Cursetjee et al., where the supply air array #28 is an enclosed system and thus does not use the frame #10 as a plenum as does the previous embodiments of figures 8 and 9, where figure 10 also depicts the array #28 is sealed from the plurality of mounting locations by elements #20 that surround the array #28 and the mounting locations between elements #20 are formed outside of the plenum formed by array #28).
Regarding claim 18, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. and Mack render obvious the plurality of mounting locations define configurable mounting arrangements for the surgical equipment (see figure 1 of Cursetjee et al., where such mounting locations can be used to attach plates #48 or other elements to support surgical equipment therefrom), and wherein one side of the one or more sides of the perimeter of the first set of openings includes only a single flex truss cell (as explained above, only one of the openings placed on one side of the perimeter of the first set of openings can be considered the single flex truss cell provided on such a side thereof, where the “multiple locations” limitations of claim 1 can be met by including a flex truss cell on an adjacent side of the perimeter of the first set of openings).
Regarding claim 19, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. and Mack render obvious the first set of openings are in a middle portion of the frame and do not include any mounting locations (the first set of openings of Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. are positioned within the second set of openings and thus formed in a middle portion of the frame, where Cursetjee et al. depicts and Byers et al. teach such mounts #48 and other elements to be attached to the ceiling device can be positioned where needed and thus the first set of openings can be considered the openings where the supply air array #28 is located and without any other mounting location located therein, where it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention, such as the mounting locations, involves only routine skill in the art and thus picking and choosing where to mount mechanisms to the ceiling device of the prior art is only routine skill in the art to adjust the ceiling as needed by the end user. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).)
Claim(s) 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al.
Regarding claim 7, Cursetjee et al. disclose an operating room (the disclosure teaches the frame of figures 1 and 10 is to be attached to a ceiling of an operating room) comprising:
a floor connected to walls (it is inherent that such an operating room would comprise of walls that are supported on a floor in order to support users and tools and enclose the area from other areas);
a ceiling connected to the walls (it is inherent that the operating room would comprise of a ceiling in order to enclose the area from the environment and to also support the frame as depicted in figures 1 and 10), wherein a surgical site is disposed at an area between the floor, the walls, and the ceiling (the operating room would inherently comprise of an area where operations are conducted on patients); and
a mounting system (#10) coupled to the ceiling (the system #10 is attached to the ceiling of the operating room), the mounting system having a frame (the frame formed by elements #15 and #20) defining a truss structure (the truss structure formed by elements #15 and #20) and a plurality of mounting locations (rails #18 and #16 and the spaces between elements #20 provide mounting locations) within the truss structure (see figures 1 and 10), the plurality of mounting locations configured to couple to one or more mounting plates to interchangeably mount surgical equipment therefrom at one or more flex truss cells (such plates are not positively defined, where plates #48 and #42 are configured to attach surgical equipment to the mounting locations formed by the flex truss cells between elements #20), wherein the one or more flex truss cells include a plurality of predefined mounting locations configured to selectively mount the one or more mounting plates at different predefined locations within the one or more flex truss cells (as depicted in figures 1 and 10, the perimeters #20 of the flex truss cells comprise elongated elements #20 and the plates #48 are smaller in length than the cells and are attached using fasteners extending into the perimeter elements #20, where the plate can be slid along and fastened to the perimeter #20 so as to be mounted where needed and thus such cells comprise of predefined mounting locations extending along the length of such cells and formed by the material and surface of such a perimeter, thus meeting such limitations as broadly defined); and
a supply air array (#28; see figure 10) within the frame and surrounded along a perimeter by the plurality of mounting locations (see figure 10) such that the plurality of mounting locations are outside of airflow paths of the supply air array (see figure 10), wherein the plurality of mounting locations are configured to mount the surgical equipment only at locations outside of a sterile field (Because the mounting locations are positioned around the supply air array #28 and the supply air array #28 is the element which directs air towards the sterile field of the operating table of the room where the mounting system is to be positioned within, such mounting locations are thus considered to mount equipment outside of such a direct airflow and thus outside of a sterile field as defined. Alternatively, the ceiling which the mounting system of Cursetjee et al. is installed upon can be considered higher than and thus outside of a sterile field around an operating table which air is to be directed into and thus is configured to be positioned at a location so as to provide mounting locations outside of a sterile field, as broadly defined.).
As depicted in figures 1 and 10 of Cursetjee et al., the supply air array #28 is depicted as being positioned within an opening and surrounded by other openings formed between grid members #20. However, Cursetjee et al. do not specifically disclose a first set of openings surrounded at a perimeter thereof by a second set of openings or wherein the one or more mounting plates are coupled to one or more flex truss cells fixed at multiple locations along one or more sides of the perimeter of the first plurality of openings that is less than an entire length of the one or more sides. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Byers et al., that such ceiling support structures can comprise of grid support structures which form a grid of a plurality of openings which are configured to receive panels #121-128, lighting #160, ceiling vent #169, and whatever other apparatuses needed within the ceiling for proper and comfortable use of the room. See paragraph 27. Figure 1 of Byers et al. depicts a 5 x 8 grid formed, where the outer perimeter of openings formed between grid support members can be considered formed by a second set of openings and flex truss cells which surround a first inner set of openings which apparatuses can be attached within. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the grid of Cursetjee et al. to comprise of a plurality of openings which form a grid of a second set of openings and flex truss cells that surround a perimeter of a first set of openings, as taught in Byers et al., in order to increase the amount of spaces where mechanisms and apparatuses can be attached and hung from the ceiling structure while also constructing the ceiling support structure to conform to the size of the room as needed. Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the supply air array is centrally positioned within the first set of openings since figure 10 of Cursetjee et al. depicts the array #28 positioned inward from the ends of the ceiling support structure and Byers et al. similarly depicts the ventilation element #169 can be positioned within the inner, first set of openings, where one can position the supply air array where needed in order to properly reach an area there below and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Moreover, the enclosed sides of the supply air array #28 of Cursetjee et al. also prevent the air from travelling laterally through the ceiling support device and thus configures the air flow path to only pass through the first plurality of openings where the supply device #28 is located. As a note, the limitations defining “one or more flex truss cells” appears to not further define the structure or function of such cells, where one can consider such “truss cells” as perimeter openings that are part of the second set of openings and which openings are flexible since they are capable of allowing different apparatuses to be attached thereto. Thus, if Cursetjee et al. is modified in view of Byers et al. to comprise of, for example, a 5 x 8 grid, the second set of openings can be considered the entire perimeter of the 5 x 8 grid minus two or three of such openings in the perimeter, where the other two or three openings can be considered part of the first set of openings and the “one or more flex truss cells” can be considered one or more cells positioned at one or more sides of the first set of openings perimeter within the second set of openings and which cells extend along a length that is less than an entire length of the side of the perimeter. Since claim 7 positively defines the one or more mounting plates coupled to one or more of the flex truss cells, it would have thus been obvious to have attached mounting plates and surgical equipment to any of the outer, perimeter openings of the mounting grid of Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al., which would be considered the flex truss cell as explained above, in order to properly position such equipment for appropriate use and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 8, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. render obvious the frame of the mounting system extends around the sterile field of an operating room outside of the first set of openings (The frame of Cursetjee et al. is for supporting a surgical apparatus and other objects when the frame is attached to the ceiling of a surgical/operating room or other clean room, where such a frame is positioned above and around the sterile field of such a surgical or operating room in order to allow the surgical apparatuses to extend into the operating area for use and provide light and airflow to such a surgical site and thus the sterile field would be considered outside of the first set of openings since the sterile field is located below the frame assembly.). The invention of Cursetjee et al. is to be attached to the ceiling of a surgical/operating room which is inherently considered to comprise of a sterile field in order to prevent infections during and after conducting operations and the frame of Cursetjee et al. is considered to extend above and around such a sterile field in order to allow the surgical apparatuses to extend within such an operating area. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the invention of Cursetjee et al. as meeting such limitations, the Examiner takes Official Notice that surgical and operating rooms comprise of sterile fields in order to prevent infections during and after conducting operations, where the tools used within such a surgery must also be placed approximate such a sterile field in order to allow use of such tools during the surgery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have positioned the frame of Cursetjee et al. above a sterile field of an operating room such that the first set of openings are positioned above and outside of the sterile field in order to allow the surgical tools extending from the frame to be used within the sterile field of the operating room and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention, i.e. rearranging the frame of Cursetjee et al. such that it is positioned upon the ceiling in the surgery room above the sterile area of the room, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. render obvious the truss structure comprises a plurality of truss elements being of plural different types, each type of the plural types having at least one of different shapes or sizes and located at a plurality of spaced apart locations within the second set of openings (elements #15 and #20 as well as element #30 of Cursetjee et al. can be considered part of the truss structure, where such elements comprise of different types and shapes in order to provide a plurality of mounting locations that are configured to different loads, where such elements are positioned in the outer perimeter of the ceiling device and thus would be positioned within the second set of openings as explained above).
Regarding claim 10, Cursetjee et al. disclose a mounting system (#10) comprising:
a frame (the frame formed by elements #15 and #20) that defines a truss structure (see figure 1) having a plurality of cross members (#20) defining openings therethrough (see figures 1 and 10), and wherein one or more flex truss cells are fixed at multiple locations (the flex truss cells can be considered one of the cells formed between elements #20 that form an opening which a plate #48 can be fixed within as depicted in figure 10);
a plurality of mounting locations within the truss structure at the openings (the locations formed on the edges of elements #20 where the openings are located), the plurality of mounting locations configured to interchangeably couple to one or more components at the one or more flex truss cells for use in a sterile environment (a panel, light troffer or boom mount is configured to be mounted at any one of such locations due to the size and support strength of such elements #20 at the locations, where such a frame is configured for use within a sterile environment of an operating room), wherein the one or more flex truss cells include a plurality of predefined mounting locations configured to selectively mount the one or more mounting plates at different predefined locations within the one or more flex truss cells (as depicted in figures 1 and 10, the perimeters #20 of the flex truss cells comprise elongated elements #20 and the plates #48 are smaller in length than the cells and are attached using fasteners extending into the perimeter elements #20, where the plate can be slid along and fastened to the perimeter #20 so as to be mounted where needed and thus such cells comprise of predefined mounting locations extending along the length of such cells and formed by the material and surface of such a perimeter, thus meeting such limitations as broadly defined); and
supply air array (#28; see figure 10) within the frame and surrounded along a perimeter by the plurality of mounting locations (see figure 10) such that the plurality of mounting locations are outside of airflow paths of the supply air array (see figure 10), wherein the plurality of mounting locations are configured to mount the surgical equipment only at locations outside of a sterile field (Because the mounting locations are positioned around the supply air array #28 and the supply air array #28 is the element which directs air towards the sterile field of the operating table of the room where the mounting system is to be positioned within, such mounting locations are thus considered to mount equipment outside of such a direct airflow and thus outside of a sterile field as defined. Alternatively, the mounting system of Cursetjee et al. can be installed upon a tall ceiling of an auditorium where the ceiling is much higher than and thus outside of a sterile field around an operating table and thus is configured to be positioned at a location so as to provide mounting locations outside of a sterile field as broadly defined.).
As depicted in figures 1 and 10 of Cursetjee et al., the supply air array #28 is depicted as being positioned within an opening and surrounded by other openings formed between grid members #20. However, Cursetjee et al. do not specifically disclose a first set of openings surrounded at a perimeter thereof by a second set of openings and wherein one or more flex truss cells are fixed at multiple locations along one or more sides of the perimeter of the first set of openings that is less than an entire length of the one or more sides. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Byers et al., that such ceiling support structures can comprise of grid support structures which form a grid of a plurality of openings which are configured to receive panels #121-128, lighting #160, ceiling vent #169, and whatever other apparatuses needed within the ceiling for proper and comfortable use of the room. See paragraph 27. Figure 1 of Byers et al. depicts a 5 x 8 grid formed, where the outer perimeter of openings formed between grid support members can be considered to comprise a second set of openings and flex truss cell(s) which surround a first inner set of openings which apparatuses can be attached within. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the grid of Cursetjee et al. to comprise of a plurality of openings which form a grid of a second set of openings and flex truss cells that surround a portion of the perimeter of a first set of openings, as taught in Byers et al., in order to increase the amount of spaces where mechanisms and apparatuses can be attached and hung from the ceiling structure while also constructing the ceiling support structure to conform to the size of the room as needed. Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the supply air array is centrally positioned within the first set of openings since figure 10 of Cursetjee et al. depicts the array #28 positioned inward from the ends of the ceiling support structure and Byers et al. similarly depicts the ventilation element #169 can be positioned within the inner, first set of openings, where one can position the supply air array where needed in order to properly reach an area there below and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Moreover, the enclosed sides of the supply air array #28 of Cursetjee et al. also provide the air from travelling laterally through the ceiling support device and thus configures the air flow path to only pass through the first plurality of openings where the supply device #28 is located. As a note, the limitations defining “one or more flex truss cells” appears to not further define the structure or function of such cells, where one can consider such “truss cells” as perimeter openings that are part of the second set of openings and which openings are flexible since they are capable of allowing different apparatuses to be attached thereto. Thus, if Cursetjee et al. is modified in view of Byers et al. to comprise of, for example, a 5 x 8 grid, the second set of openings can be considered the entire perimeter of the 5 x 8 grid minus two or three of such openings in the perimeter, where the other two or three openings can be considered part of the first set of openings so as to position the flex truss cells at multiple locations along one or more sides of the first set of openings perimeter that is less than an entire length of the side of the perimeter.
Regarding claim 11, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. render obvious the truss structure includes a plurality of types of truss elements having at least one of different shapes or sizes, wherein each of the types of truss elements is configured for supporting different components or modules along a perimeter of the first set of openings (elements #20 and #30 of Cursetjee et al. are considered elements of the truss structure, where such elements comprise of different lengths or sizes and thus are considered different types are configured to support different loads from plates #42 and #48, where such elements are also provided within the second set of openings along the perimeter of the first set of openings as explained above).
Regarding claim 12, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. render obvious the plurality of mounting locations are configured for adjustable height coupling of a component therein (plates #48 and #42 of Cursetjee et al. are configured to be coupled to the mounting locations, where threaded fasteners or other types of height adjustable couplings are configured to be attached to such plates or directly to the elements #20 and thus configure such mounting locations for adjustable height coupling for a component therein and thus meet such limitations).
Regarding claim 13, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. render obvious the supply air array (Cursetjee et al.; #28) is mounted within only the first set of openings (see figure 10 of Cursetjee et al., where the array #28 is located only within a middle portion of the mounting locations of the frame and surrounded by the mounting locations formed by elements #20 and thus would only be provided within the first set of openings explained above).
Regarding claim 14, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. render obvious surgical room equipment (Cursetjee et al.; #42/#44) is mounted only within the second set of openings (see figure 10 of Cursetjee et al., where the mounting plates #48 and #42 which are used to attach surgical room equipment to the frame can be considered positioned within the second set of openings outside of the middle portion where the array #28 and first set of openings are located).
Regarding claim 15, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. render obvious the frame defines a rectangular configuration (see figures 1 and 10 of Cursetjee et al.) with the first set of openings within the rectangular configuration and the second set of openings outside of the rectangular configuration (see figures 1 and 10 of Cursetjee et al. and figure 1 of Byers et al., where both references teach the use of rectangular shaped mounting locations and openings and thus the first set of openings can be considered formed within a rectangular configuration and the second set can be considered outside such a rectangular configuration).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cursetjee et al. in view of Byer et al., Mack, and Nilsson (U.S. Patent 6,089,518).
Regarding claim 20, Cursetjee et al. do not specifically disclose use of one or more pivoting members coupled to the frame in order to allow for access to the first set of openings. However, it is highly well known in the art as evidenced by Nilsson, that such ceiling support structures can comprise of plates #40 which are configured to pivot relative to the support structure flanges #37 using hooks #41 in order to hide the openings formed between the support structure elements but pivot in order to allow access to the opening between such support structure elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the invention of Cursetjee et al. to comprise of plates which are pivotally attached to the support structure, as taught in Nilsson, in order to provide an aesthetic cover for such openings while also allowing access to the openings when needed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 10-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,186,989 in view of Byers et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 of the present application is defined in claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘989, where the mounting locations configured to mount surgical equipment only at locations outside of a sterile field are considered met by claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘989 which defines the air supply array directing air towards a sterile field and the mounting locations are located around such an array, however, U.S. Patent ‘989 does not specifically define the first and second set of openings or flex truss cells but such features are common in ceiling mounting systems as taught in Byers et al. in order to provide locations for attachment of mechanisms and other features needed within the room and where laminar airflow is required for surgical applications, as defined in claim 10 of U.S. Patent ‘989;
Claim 2 of the present application is defined in claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 3 of the present application is defined in claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 4 of the present application is defined in claim 4 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 5 of the present application is defined in claim 5 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 6 of the present application is defined in claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 7 of the present application is defined in claim 19 of U.S. Patent ‘989, where U.S. Patent ‘989 does not specifically define the first and second set of openings and flex truss cells but such features a common in ceiling mounting systems as taught in Byers et al. in order to provide locations for attachment of mechanisms and other features needed within the room;
Claim 8 of the present application is defined in claim 19 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 9 of the present application is defined in claim 20 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 10 of the present application is defined in claim 12 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 11 of the present application is defined in claim 13 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 12 of the present application is defined in claim 14 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 13 of the present application is defined in claim 15 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 14 of the present application is defined in claim 16 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 15 of the present application is defined in claim 17 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 16 of the present application is defined in claim 10 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 17 of the present application is defined in claim 11 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 18 of the present application is defined in claim 4 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above, where the light troffer, boot mount and/or access panel of claim 4 of U.S. Patent ‘989 can be considered surgical equipment as broadly defined and any of the openings positioned on the perimeter of the first set of openings can be considered the single flex truss cell;
Claim 19 of the present application is defined in claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above, where Byers et al. teach that such openings of the frame structure can be used with any mechanism for any application as needed by the room below.
Claims 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1of U.S. Patent No. 11,186,989 in view of Byers et al. and Nilsson. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 20 of the present application is defined in claim 1 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of Byers et al. as explained above, where although U.S. Patent ‘989 does not disclose the pivoting members features, Nilsson teaches such pivoting members are known and commonly used in the art of such ceiling mounting systems.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “the structure of the one or more flex truss cells is further defined to include a plurality of predefined mounting locations configured to selectively mount the one or more mounting plates at different predefined locations. . . which the cited art fails to teach or suggest,” Applicant does not further define such “predefined mounting loc