Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/798,001

ACOUSTIC INSULATED CEILING SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 05, 2022
Examiner
BUCKLE JR, JAMES J
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Spantech International
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
621 granted / 952 resolved
+13.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +15% lift
Without
With
+14.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
969
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
40.7%
+0.7% vs TC avg
§102
33.4%
-6.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.5%
-20.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 952 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 14-15 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1, 4 and 12 have been amended. Claims 16-18 have been added. Currently, claims 1-13 and 16-18 are pending and examined below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-11, 13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alderman (U.S. Patent No. 6,857,238). Regarding claims 1 and 13, Alderman discloses an insulated ceiling system (10, Fig. 6), the system comprising a first profile (66, Fig. 6) and a second profile (66); a carrier layer (14) connected to the first profile (66) and the second profile (66), and as such suspended with a curvature between the first profile (66) and the second profile (66); a bottom layer (12) in a high density material supporting on the carrier layer (14) and extending from the first profile (60) to the second profile (60), wherein the bottom layer has sufficient flexibility to follow the curvature of the carrier layer suspended between the first profile and the second profile; an intermediate layer (22) in a low density insulation material supporting on the bottom layer (12); and a top layer (68) in a high density material supporting on the intermediate layer and extending from the first profile to the second profile. Alderman discloses the insulated ceiling system (10) and the top layer (68) as set forth above, but does not disclose the insulated ceiling being acoustic or wherein the top layer has sufficient flexibility to follow the curvature of the carrier layer suspended between the first profile and the second profile. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an insulated ceiling system that comprised of materials that had acoustic properties and to have a top layer that comprised of a material that was sufficiently flexible to a degree to follow the counter of the roof and capable of following the curvature of the carrier layer if necessary, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from selecting materials that comprised of properties that were capable of achieving similar results. Regarding claim 2, Alderman discloses the bottom layer (12) is configured for pressing against the first profile (66) and the second profile (66). Regarding claim 3, Alderman discloses wherein the edges of the at least one layer (12, Fig. 6) is bended upwards and slightly outwards for pressing against the first profile (60) and the second profile (60). Regarding claim 4, Alderman discloses the edges of the top layer (68) are bended outwards (Fig. 12), but does not disclose the edges being bent for at least 0.5 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an edge of a layer to have a slight bend of at least 0.5 degrees to help facilitate the attachment to an adjacent member, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having a slight bend in a flexible layer. Regarding claim 5, Alderman discloses the top layer (68) having bended edges having a length, but does not disclose the length of the edges being at least 2cm or at most 8 cm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the length of the edges to be at least 2cm and at most 8cm to help facilitate the attachment to an adjacent member, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having a edges of a layer having a sufficient length to help facilitate attachment. Regarding claim 6, Alderman discloses the intermediate layer (22) is substantially thicker than the bottom layer (12) and the top layer (68). Regarding claim 7, Alderman discloses at least the top layer (68) of the bottom has a thickness, but does not disclose the thickness as being at least 0.5 mm and at most 1.5 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness to be at least 0.5mm and at most 1.5mm to provide the minimum sufficient material strength needed while producing a light weight system, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having layers with minimum and maximum thicknesses. Regarding claim 8, Alderman discloses the intermediate layer has a thickness, but does not disclose the thickness of the intermediate layer as being at least 15 cm and at most 35 cm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness to be at least 15cm and at most 35cm to provide the minimum sufficient material strength needed while producing a light weight system, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having layers with minimum and maximum thicknesses. Regarding claim 9, Alderman discloses at least the bottom layer (12) comprises a metallic material (Col. 5, lines 51-55), but does not disclose a steel plate. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to have a metallic bottom later that comprised of a steel plate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results from having a metallic material that comprised of steel. Regarding claim 10, Alderman discloses the intermediate layer (22) being composed of an insulation material (Col. 5, lines 18-22), but does not disclose the material as being particles of foam. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to comprise of a well-known insulating material such as foam, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having an insulation comprised of a foam. Regarding claim 11, Alderman discloses at least one profile (40, Fig. 12) is provided with connection means (approximate 48) for connecting to the carrier layer (24), and wherein the at least one profile (40) extends upwards from the connection means (48) for contacting the bottom layer (226) and the top layer (24). Regarding claim 16, Alderman discloses the carrier layer (14), but does not disclose the carrier layer as being a fabric liner. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date before the claimed invention to have a carrier layer that comprised of a fabric liner, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having a carrier layer comprised of a suitable material. Regarding claims 17 and 18, Alderman discloses the top and bottom layers, but does not disclose either of them as being plate shaped structures. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the top and bottom layers being comprised of plate shaped structures, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having the top and bottom layers comprised of a suitable material. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alderman (U.S. Patent No. 6,857,238) in view of Sprung (U.S. Patent No. 7,849,639). Regarding claim 12, Alderman discloses at least one profile (66) and carrier layer (14), but does not disclose the at least one profile is a kedar profile or the carrier layer being provided with a kedar bead and arranged in a kedar guild track of the at least one profile. However, Sprung teaches it is known to have a roof or ceiling system that comprised of kedar profiles (Fig. 12), and wherein the carrier layer (24) is provided with a keder (ends of 24) of which a keder bead is arranged in a keder guide track (48) of the at least one profile (40) for connecting the carrier layer (24) to the at least one profile (40) for a more secure connection. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a kedar profile and carrier layer with a kedar bead that provided a system with an easier and more secure connection alternative. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST. 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 Glessner can be reached at 5712726754. 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. /JAMES J BUCKLE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 05, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 14, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 04, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 07, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595650
OUTDOOR TO INDOOR SWIMMING POOL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595675
INFLATABLE STABILIZED ENCLOSURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590454
SYSTEM FOR BUILDING PREFABRICATED MODULAR, SEALED, AND PRESSURIZED HABITATS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587126
SNAP-IN MOUNTING SYSTEMS FOR LAMINATE SOLAR PANELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12546106
Drywall Hanger
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+14.9%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 952 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month