DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for application 17/532,251. Receipt of the RCE, amendments, and arguments filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
Claims 1-21 are examined.
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.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cursetjee et al. (U.S. Publication 2011/0097986).
Regarding claim 21, Cursetjee et al. disclose a modular operating room ceiling system (#10; figure 10) comprising:
a frame (the frame formed by elements #12, #15, and #20) to be coupled to a ceiling of an operating room (see paragraphs 1 and 4), the frame defining a truss structure (see figures 1 and 10) having a plurality of openings therethrough (the openings between adjacent elements #20 and #16 as depicted in figure 1);
a supply air array (#28; see figure 10) mounted within a first group of the plurality of openings and configured to direct airflow downwardly toward a surgical target zone (see figure 10, where Cursetjee et al. disclose such a frame is to be used for supporting surgical equipment and thus would inherently direct air from the array toward a sterile field of a surgical area, where such an array #28 is provided within a respective set of the plurality of openings to direct the air therefrom);
a plurality of structural mounting cells included in a second group of the plurality of openings, each structural mounting cell including an opening bounded by opposed structural members of the truss structure, wherein the opposed structural members include a plurality of predefined coupling positioned within the opening (the cells formed by the openings between elements #20 of figure 10, which elements #20 are considered structural since mounting elements, such as element #48, can be mounted and supported thereto, wherein the opposed structural members include a plurality of predefined coupling positions within the opening, since the mounting elements #48 can be slid along the structural members #20 and screwed thereto, such members #20 are thus considered to comprise of predefined coupling locations where a screw can be mounted thereto);
one or more mounting plates (#48) selectively fastenable to selected ones of the plurality of predefined coupling positions within the structural mounting cells such that the one or more mounting plates are selectively mountable at different predefined locations within the structural mounting cells (see figure 10, where the mounting plates #48 are selectively fastenable to member #20 along the lengths of the members #20), and
one or more operating room components (#44/46) interchangeably coupled to the one or more mounting plates (mount #48 allows multiple equipment, such as lights #46, to be interchanged and attached thereto, where such interchanging is not positively defined and the mount of Cursetjee et al. is so configured), the one or more operating room components including at least one of an access panel, a light troffer, or a boom mount (element #46 can be considered a light troffer or boom mount, where paragraph 3 discloses such equipment can include a light or equipment boom),
wherein the structural mounting cells are positioned relative to the supply air array such that the one or more operating room components are supported by the truss structure outside airflow paths of the airflow directed from the supply air array toward the surgical target zone (see figure 10, where the mounting cells are positioned outside of the airflow path coming from the opening where array #28 is located and is configured to direct airflow therefrom toward a surgical site).
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) 1-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0265224).
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
a supply air array (#28; see figure 10) mounted within an opening of the frame and configured to direct airflow downwardly through the opening (see figure 10) toward a sterile field (Cursetjee et al. disclose such a frame is to be used for supporting surgical equipment and thus would inherently direct air from the array toward a sterile field of a surgical area);
one or more flex truss cells including an opening bounded by opposed structural members of the truss structure (the cells formed by the openings between elements #20 of figure 10, which elements #20 are considered structural since mounting elements, such as element #48, can be mounted and supported thereto), wherein the opposed structural members include a plurality of predefined coupling positions within the opening (since the mounting elements #48 can be slid along the structural members #20 and screwed thereto, such members #20 are thus considered to comprise of predefined coupling locations where a screw can be mounted thereto); and
one or more mounting plates (#48) selectively fastenable to selected ones of the plurality of predefined coupling positions within the one or more flex truss cells so that the one or more mounting plates are selectively mountable at different predefined locations within the one or more flex truss cells (see figure 10, where the mounting plates #48 are selectively fastenable to member #20 along the lengths of the members #20),
wherein the one or more mounting plates are configured to interchangeably mount surgical equipment to the truss structure at the one or more flux truss cells (mount #48 allows multiple equipment, such as lights #46, to be interchanged and attached thereto, where such interchanging is not positively defined and the mount of Cursetjee et al. is so configured), and
wherein the one or more flex truss cells are positioned outside airflow paths of the supply air array such that the surgical equipment is mounted to the truss structure outside the airflow paths of the airflow (see figure 10, where the flex truss cells are positioned outside of the airflow path coming from array #28).
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 with a second set of openings at least partially surrounding the perimeter of the first set of openings. 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. 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. Finally, since the openings in both the first and second plurality of openings of Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. would comprise of the same width dimensions, such mounting plates of Cursetjee et al. would thus be “selectively fastenable” to any of such openings and positions within the second set of openings as broadly defined.
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 2, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. 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.) and the 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. 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 boom arm is not considered positively recited since such a limitation is only configured to be mounted to the mounting plate and not positively defined as connected thereto. Figures 2 and 3 of Cursetjee et al. depict 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. 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 and receive and support a boom mount #44/46).
Regarding claim 5, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. 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. 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 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);
a mounting system (#10) coupled to the ceiling (the system #10 is attached to the ceiling of the operating room), the mounting system comprising: a frame (the frame formed by elements #15 and #20) defining a truss structure (the truss structure formed by elements #15 and #20) having a plurality of openings (the openings between elements #20);
a supply air array (#28; see figure 10) mounted within the openings and configured to direct airflow downwardly through the opening toward the surgical site (Cursetjee et al. disclose such a frame is to be used for supporting surgical equipment and thus would inherently direct air from the opening where the array is mounted toward a sterile field of a surgical area);
one or more flex truss cells including an opening bounded by opposed structural members of the truss structure (the cells formed by the openings between elements #20 of figure 10, which elements #20 are considered structural since mounting elements, such as element #48, can be mounted and supported thereto), wherein the opposed structural members include a plurality of predefined coupling positions within the opening (since the mounting elements #48 can be slid along the structural members #20 and screwed thereto, such members #20 are thus considered to comprise of predefined coupling locations where a screw can be mounted thereto); and
one or more mounting plates (#48) selectively fastenable to selected ones of the plurality of predefined coupling positions within the one or more flex truss cells so that the one or more mounting plates are selectively mountable at different predefined locations within the one or more flex truss cells (see figure 10, where the mounting plates #48 are selectively fastenable to member #20 along the lengths of the members #20),
wherein the one or more mounting plates are configured to interchangeably mount surgical equipment to the truss structure at the one or more flux truss cells (mount #48 allows multiple equipment, such as lights #46, to be interchanged and attached thereto, where such interchanging is not positively defined and the mount of Cursetjee et al. is so configured), and
wherein the one or more flex truss cells are positioned outside airflow paths of the supply air array such that the surgical equipment is mounted to the truss structure outside the airflow paths of the airflow (see figure 10, where the flex truss cells are positioned outside of the airflow path coming from array #28).
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. 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. Finally, since the openings in both the first and second plurality of openings of Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. would comprise of the same width dimensions, such mounting plates of Cursetjee et al. would thus be “selectively fastenable” to any of such openings and positions within the second set of openings as broadly defined.
Regarding claim 8, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. render obvious the frame of the mounting system extends around the surgical site outside of the first plurality 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 plurality 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);
a supply air array (#28; see figure 10) mounted within an opening of the frame (see figure 10) configured to direct downwardly through the opening to a sterile field (Cursetjee et al. disclose such a frame is to be used for supporting surgical equipment and thus would inherently direct air from the opening which the array is attached toward a sterile field of a surgical area);
one or more flex truss cells including an opening bounded by opposed structural members of the truss structure (the cells formed by the openings between elements #20 of figure 10, which elements #20 are considered structural since mounting elements, such as element #48, can be mounted and supported thereto), wherein the opposed structural members include a plurality of predefined coupling positions within the opening (since the mounting elements #48 can be slid along the structural members #20 and screwed thereto, such members #20 are thus considered to comprise of predefined coupling locations where a screw can be mounted thereto); and
one or more mounting plates (#48) selectively fastenable to selected ones of the plurality of predefined coupling positions within the one or more flex truss cells so that the one or more mounting plates are selectively mountable at different predefined locations within the one or more flex truss cells (see figure 10, where the mounting plates #48 are selectively fastenable to member #20 along the lengths of the members #20),
wherein the one or more mounting plates are configured to interchangeably mount one or more components to the truss structure for use in a sterile environment (mount #48 allows multiple equipment, such as lights #46, to be interchanged and attached thereto, where such interchanging is not positively defined and the mount of Cursetjee et al. is so configured), and
wherein the one or more flex truss cells are positioned outside airflow paths of the supply air array so that the one or more components are supported by the truss structure outside the airflow paths of the airflow (see figure 10, where the flex truss cells are positioned outside of the airflow path coming from array #28).
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. 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. Finally, since the openings in both the first and second plurality of openings of Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. would comprise of the same width dimensions, such mounting plates of Cursetjee et al. would thus be “selectively fastenable” to any of such openings and positions within the second set of openings as broadly defined.
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 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.; #44/#46) 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).
Regarding claim 17, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. 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. 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 perimeter of the first set of openings includes only a single flex truss cell (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. 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) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cursetjee et al. in view of Byer et al. and Mack (U.S. Publication 2013/0237139).
Regarding claim 16, Cursetjee et al. in view of Byers et al. render the claimed invention obvious except for the airflow creates a laminar airflow directly to a surgical target zone without turbulence. 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 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.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cursetjee et al. in view of Byer et al. 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 and 21 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, in view of claim 3 which positively defines such mounting plates, 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 airflow is required for surgical applications;
Claim 2 of the present application is defined in claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 3 of the present application is defined in claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 4 of the present application is defined in claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of claims 3 and 4 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and Byers et al. as explained above;
Claim 5 of the present application is defined in claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of claims 3 and 5 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and 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 claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and 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 and where it would have been obvious to positively define and use the mounting plates as defined in claim 19 within the room so as to mount equipment thereto;
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, where it would have also been obvious to provide such a system with mounting plates, as taught in claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in order to properly mount equipment thereto;
Claim 11 of the present application is defined in claim 13 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and 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 claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and 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 claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and 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 claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and 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 claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and 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 claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and 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 claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and 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 claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and 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.
Claim 21 of the present application is defined in claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘989, in view of claim 3 which positively defines such mounting plates, 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 airflow is required for surgical applications.
Claims 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of 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 2 of U.S. Patent ‘989 in view of claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘989 and 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 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “the claims now variously recite a particular structural interface: an opening bounded by opposed structural members of the truss structures” for such flex truss cells limitations, as explained above, figures 1 and 10 of Cursetjee et al. depict the perimeters #20 of the flex truss cells comprise elongated elements #20 which are of a material and structure that allow plates #48 to be attached thereto 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 structural elements/interfaces with predefined mounting locations extending along the entire length of such cells, thus meeting such limitations as broadly defined. Applicant does not provide further structure or function for such claim limitations over that which is already taught within Cursetjee et al. and thus Cursetjee et al. is still considered to define the flex truss cells as presently defined. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “the flex truss cells or structural mounting cells are positioned outside airflow paths of the supply air array” which is not taught in Cursetjee et al., figure 10 of Cursetjee et al. shows the supply air array #28 is centrally positioned within the array of openings where, as explained above, the openings provided on either side of the air array can be considered outside of the airflow paths of the supply air array. The supply air array of Cursetjee et al. cannot extend through more than one set of openings, as depicted in figure 10, and the openings are provided on the same horizontal plane of the structure so that the openings are not vertically offset from one another. Thus, the second set of openings, and thus the mounting plates of Cursetjee et al., would be positioned to the side of the supply air array and therefore outside of the airflow path which is directed downwardly and away from the mounting structure. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “Cursetjee uses the grid members as part of, or immediately associated with, the air-handling arrangement” where the claims instead require “a structural division between the air-flow supply region and the equipment-mounting region,” again all that is argued or defined are “regions” or “openings” in such a claimed invention, where the structural members #20 of the mounting system of Cursetjee et al. supply such a separation between the openings and mounting locations of the system, where such members #20 provide the structural members which bound an opening of the truss structure which the mounting plates are to be selectively fastened to. If Applicant intends to have a different structure formed by or between the first set of openings and the second set of openings, it is suggested to further define such a structure and how such structures are physically different within the claim limitations. However, as presently written, such limitations are disclosed by the structure of Cursetjee et al. as explained above. The rejections are considered proper and are upheld.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that the Byers and Mack references do not disclose a truss having flex truss cells or structural mounting cells as presently defined; however, such prior art were instead used to show the obviousness of providing large, grid shaped ceiling mounting structures, as taught in Byers, and the use of laminar airflow from supply air arrays of a ceiling mounting system, as taught in Mack. Applicant does not specifically argue such modifications done to Cursetjee et al. in view of such secondary references and thus such modifications and rejections are also considered proper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights