DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/339,911. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 20, 21, 23, 24, 27-29, 31-33, 35, 36, 41, 43-45, 47, 54, and 55 are pending.
Claims 1-19, 22, 25, 26, 30, 34, 37-40, 42, 46, and 48-53 are cancelled.
Claims 20, 21, 23, 24, 27-29, 31-33, 35, 36, 41, 43-45, 47, 54, and 55 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) 20, 24, 28, 32, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wendt (U.S. Patent 4,227,355).
Regarding claim 20, Wendt discloses a suspended ceiling comprising:
a system for vertical suspension of an acoustic baffle, the system comprising:
a frame element (#41) comprising a foldable tab (the vertical, outer tab #42 as depicted in figure 1 is the tab which is considered foldable due to the sheet metal material of such a tab (support for use of sheet metal for such a tab is found by the use of sheet metal fasteners #48 to secure thereto)) comprising a second aperture (the aperture through which fastener #48 extends through);
a clip (the right clip #11 of figure 1) configured for connection to the frame element (see figure 1), wherein the clip comprises a body plate (elements #21 and #13 are integrally formed to form an L-shaped body plate), one or more fastening elements (#48/24) for securing the clip to the frame element (see figure 1), and a first aperture (#25/23), wherein the body plate comprises a cut-out (the cutout formed by punchout element #14) configured to accommodate the foldable tab of the frame element (see figures 1 and 5, where the cut-out is configured to accommodate and receive the tab of the frame element); and
an acoustic baffle (#45), the acoustic baffle having two major face (the vertical outer faces of figure 1) and having minor faces (the side, top, and bottom faces of figure 1) extending between the major faces (see figure 1),
wherein the acoustic baffle is supported by a frame comprising the frame element (the frame comprising of elements #41 and #43, which surround and support the baffle #45),
wherein the frame element is a side profile of the frame and is attached to one of the minor faces of the acoustic baffle (see figure 1, where the frame element #41 is attached to the top, minor face of the baffle #45),
wherein the major faces of the acoustic baffle extend substantially vertically (see figures 1 and 4), and
wherein the body plate of the clip is parallel to an upper minor face of the acoustic baffle (see figures 1, 2 and 5, where the L-shaped body plate extends along the outer right corner/edge of the upper minor face of the acoustic baffle and thus be parallel thereto).
Regarding claim 24, Wendt discloses the clip comprises one or more substantially planar legs (#19) joined to the body plate by an upwardly-angled joint (#20) such that the one or more substantially planar legs are parallel to the body plate (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 28, Wendt discloses the body plate of the clip comprises an upper part (#13) substantially parallel to a lower part (#16), the upper part and lower part connected by a fold (#15; see figure 3).
Regarding claim 32, Wendt discloses the frame comprises two frame elements, and wherein each of the two frame elements is a side profile of the frame and the two frame elements are attached to opposing minor faces of the acoustic baffle (See figures 1 and 4, where the two frame elements can be considered the left and right side profiles #41, that can be attached to one another using the same clip #11. Alternatively, the frame elements can be considered elements #41 and #43 of the same baffle #45 with comprises of the same structure with a foldable tab and aperture, where the claims do not positively define that the cutout portion of the clip need to positively engage the tab of the second frame element.).
Regarding claim 44, Wendt discloses wherein the clip comprises one or more legs (#19) joined to the body plate by an upwardly angled joint (#20) such that the one or more legs are parallel to the body plate (see figure 3), wherein the body plate of the clip comprises an upper part (#13) substantially parallel to a lower part (#16), the upper and the lower part connected by a fold (#15; see figure 3).
Regarding claim 54, Wendt discloses the minor faces of the acoustic baffle comprise two side minor faces, the upper minor face, and a lower minor face (see figure 4, where the acoustic baffle #45 comprises a rectangular panel with top, bottom, and side edges that form minor faces as defined), and wherein the frame element is attached to one of the side minor faces of the acoustic baffle (see figure 1, where the frame element can be considered element #43 that attaches to the side vertical face of the acoustic baffle #45 and is attached to the clip through fastener #24).
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) 23, 27, 31, 35, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt in view of Bergman (U.S. Publication 2012/0291397).
Regarding claim 23, Wendt discloses a system for vertical suspension of an acoustic baffle, the system comprising:
a frame element (#41);
a clip (#11) configured for connection to the frame element (see figure 1), wherein the clip comprises a body plate (elements #21 and #13 are integrally formed to form an L-shaped body plate of the clip) and a first aperture (the aperture through which fastener #48/24 extends);
a beam hanger (#51) configured for connection to the clip (see figure 5), wherein the beam hanger comprises a substantially rectangular first plate (see figures 4 and 5); and
an acoustic baffle (#45), the acoustic baffle having two major faces (the vertical outer faces of figure 1) and having minor faces (the side, top, and bottom faces of figure 1) extending between the major faces (see figure 1),
wherein the acoustic baffle is supported by a frame comprising the frame element (the frame comprising of elements #41 and #43, which surround and support the baffle #45),
wherein the frame element is a side profile of the frame and is attached to one of the minor faces of the acoustic baffle (see figure 1, where the frame element #41 is attached to the top, minor face of the baffle #45),
wherein the major faces of the acoustic baffle extend substantially vertically (see figures 1 and 4), and
wherein the body plate of the clip is parallel to an upper minor face of the acoustic baffle (see figures 1, 2 and 5, where the L-shaped body plate extends along the outer right corner/edge of the upper minor face of the acoustic baffle and thus be parallel thereto).
However, Wendt does not disclose the beam hanger comprises of a second plate and a third plate such that the second plate and the third plate are substantially parallel and face each other and the first plate is connected at opposing edges to such second and third plates. Wendt does disclose that such hangers #51 can desirably be subpurlins or other substructures depending from an upper ceiling. See col. 8, ll. 51-57. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bergman, that such beam hangers can comprise of I-beam hangers formed from a central, first plate #38 between parallel second #40/42 and third (the plate at the bottom of slot #32 of figure 6) plates such that a clip #10 can still be fastened to the first plate thereof. See figure 6. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the beam hanger of Wendt to comprise of a first plate with parallel second and third plates at opposite edges thereof, as taught in Bergman, in order to allow the assembly to attach to different ceiling supports as needed by the end user and provide a stronger beam hanger.
Regarding claim 27, Wendt in view of Bergman render obvious the clip comprises one or more substantially planar legs (Wendt; #19) joined to the body plate by an upwardly-angled joint (Wendt; #20) such that the one or more substantially planar legs are parallel to the body plate (see figure 3 of Wendt).
Regarding claim 31, Wendt in view of Bergman render obvious the body plate of the clip comprises an upper part (Wendt; #13) substantially parallel to a lower part (Wendt; #16), the upper part and the lower part connected by a fold (Wendt; #15).
Regarding claim 35, Wendt in view of Bergman render obvious the frame comprises two frame elements, and wherein each of the two frame elements is a side profile of the frame and the two frame elements are attached to opposing minor faces of the acoustic baffle (See figures 1 and 4 of Wendt, where the two frame elements can be considered the left and right side profiles #41, that can be attached to one another using the same clip #11. Alternatively, the frame elements can be considered elements #41 and #43 of the same baffle #45 with comprises of the same structure with a foldable tab and aperture, where the claims do not positively define that the cutout portion of the clip need to positively engage the tab of the second frame element.).
Regarding claim 47, Wendt in view of Bergman render obvious wherein the clip comprises one or more fastening elements (Wendt; #48/24) for securing the clip to the frame element (see figure 1 of Wendt), wherein the clip comprises one or more legs (Wendt; #19) joined to the body plate by an upwardly angled joint (Wendt; #20) such that the one or more legs are parallel to the body plate (see figure 3 of Wendt), wherein the body plate of the clip comprises an upper part (Wendt; #13) substantially parallel to a lower part (Wendt; #16), the upper and the lower part connected by a fold (Wendt; #15).
Regarding claim 55, Wendt in view of Bergman render obvious the minor faces of the acoustic baffle comprise two side minor faces, the upper minor face, and a lower minor face (see figure 4 of Wendt, where the acoustic baffle #45 comprises a rectangular panel with top, bottom, and side edges that form minor faces as defined), and wherein the frame element is attached to one of the side minor faces of the acoustic baffle (see figure 1 of Wendt, where the frame element can be considered element #43 that attaches to the side vertical face of the acoustic baffle #45 and is attached to the clip through fastener #24).
Claim(s) 23, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt ‘644 (U.S. Patent 4,031,664) in view of Langeveld (U.S. Publication 2018/0127984).
Regarding claim 23, Wendt ‘644 discloses a system for vertical suspension of an acoustic baffle, the system comprising:
a frame element (#33);
a clip (the left, L-shaped clip formed by elements #21 and #22 of figure 1) configured for connection to the frame element (see figure 1), wherein the clip comprises a body plate (the L-shaped body plate formed by elements #21 and #22) and a first aperture (#28);
a beam hanger (#37) configured for connection to the clip (see figure 5); and
an acoustic baffle (#29), the acoustic baffle having two major faces (the vertical outer faces of figure 1) and having minor faces (the side, top, and bottom faces of figure 1) extending between the major faces (see figure 1),
wherein the acoustic baffle is supported by a frame comprising the frame element (the frame comprising of elements #33, which surround and support the baffle #29),
wherein the frame element is a side profile of the frame and is attached to one of the minor faces of the acoustic baffle (see figure 1, where the frame element #33 is attached to the side, minor face of the baffle #45),
wherein the major faces of the acoustic baffle extend substantially vertically (see figures 1 and 45), and
wherein the body plate of the clip is parallel to an upper minor face of the acoustic baffle (see figure 1, where the L-shaped body plate #21/22 of the clip extends horizontally and parallel to the horizontal top minor face of the baffle).
However, Wendt ‘644 does not disclose the beam hanger comprises of first, second, and third plates such that the second plate and the third plate are substantially parallel and face each other and the first plate is connected at opposing edges to such second and third plates. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Langeveld, that such beam hangers #11 can comprise of a first plate #15, with second #18 and third #18 plates extending upwardly from opposing ends of the first plate, where the second and third plates comprising of hinged tabs #14 in order to attach the beam hanger to a C-shaped channel #30 that supports the ceiling assembly. See figure 12b. Langeveld discloses the beam hanger #11 first plate #15 can comprise of an aperture for receiving a fastener #42 to attach the beam hanger to a U-shaped clip #41 extending therebelow that is configured to attach to a vertical baffle #38. See figure 15. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the beam hanger of Wendt ‘644 to comprise of a first plate with parallel second and third plates extending upwardly at opposite edges thereof, as taught in Langeveld, in order to allow the assembly to attach to an upper U-shaped support channel in a quicker manner.
Regarding claim 35, Wendt ‘644 in view of Langeveld render obvious the frame comprises two frame elements, and wherein each of the two frame elements is a side profile of the frame and the two frame elements are attached to opposing minor faces of the acoustic baffle (See figures 1 and 5 of Wendt ‘644, where the two frame elements can be considered the left and right side profiles #33, that can be attached to one another using the same clip #22.).
Regarding claim 36, Wendt ‘644 in view of Langeveld render obvious each of the second plate and the third plate each comprise a hinged tab (Langeveld; #14) configured for connection to a C-profile beam (see figure 15 of Langeveld, where such features would be provided within Wendt ‘644 as explained above).
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 20, 21, 23, 24, 27-29, 31-33, 35, 36, 41, 43-45, 47, 54, and 55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,725,385 in view of Wendt.
Claim 20 of the present application is defined in claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘385, where the wings of the clip of claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘385 are considered to form the cutout as defined in present claim 20, except for use of an acoustical baffle as defined with a frame and the frame element of the frame is attached to a minor face of the baffle and the body plate of the clip is parallel to an upper minor face of the baffle; however, Wendt teaches the obviousness of providing a frame element #41/43 attaching to the minor faces of an acoustical baffle so as to attach the baffle vertically to such a ceiling system and the clip comprising of a body plate extending horizontally and parallel to an upper horizontal minor face of the baffle and it would have been obvious to use such a baffle and parallel body plate within U.S. Patent ‘385 for acoustical damping purposes and for proper alignment purposes;
Claim 21 of the present application is defined in claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘385, except for use of an acoustical baffle as defined; however, Wendt teaches the obviousness of providing a frame element #41/43 attaching to the minor faces of an acoustical baffle so as to attach the baffle vertically to such a ceiling system and it would have been obvious to use such a baffle within U.S. Patent ‘385 for acoustical damping purposes;
Claim 23 of the present application is defined in claim 13 of U.S. Patent ‘385, except for use of an acoustical baffle as defined or the body plate of the clip is parallel to an upper minor face of the baffle; however, Wendt teaches the obviousness of providing a frame element #41/43 attaching to the minor faces of an acoustical baffle so as to attach the baffle vertically to such a ceiling system and the clip comprising of a body plate extending horizontally and parallel to an upper horizontal minor face of the baffle and it would have been obvious to use such a baffle and parallel body plate within U.S. Patent ‘385 for acoustical damping purposes and for proper alignment purposes;
Claim 24 of the present application is defined in claim 3 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 27 of the present application is entirely defined in claim 13 of U.S. Patent ‘385, in view of claim 3 which teaches the substantially planar legs feature and in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 28 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 29 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 31 of the present application is defined in claim 13 of U.S. Patent ‘385, in view of claim 9 for the upper and lower part limitations and in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 32 of the present application is defined in claim 11 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 33 of the present application is defined in claim 11 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 35 of the present application is defined in claim 13 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 36 of the present application is entirely defined in claim 13 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 41 of the present application is defined in claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 43 of the present application is defined in claim 13 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 44 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 45 of the present application is defined in claim 9 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 47 of the present application is defined in claim 13 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above;
Claim 54 of the present application is defined in claim 2 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above, where Wendt teaches the obviousness of provided rectangular baffles with upper, lower, and side minor faces which a frame element is to attach to;
Claim 55 of the present application is defined in claim 13 of U.S. Patent ‘385 in view of Wendt as explained above, where Wendt teaches the obviousness of provided rectangular baffles with upper, lower, and side minor faces which a frame element is to attach to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 29, 33, and 45 would be allowable if the double patenting issues above were resolved.
Claims 41 and 43 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as to fix any double patenting issues as explained above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 20, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 44, 47, 54, and 55 have been considered but are unpersuasive
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the Wendt prior art references do not meet such newly added claim limitations as presently defined with regards to the body plate of the clip being parallel to an upper minor face of the acoustic baffle, Applicant does not limit the structure or orientation of such a body plate, where the body plate of Wendt can be considered formed by elements #13 and #21 (as well as elements #21 and 32 of Wendt ‘664) which form an L-shaped body plate that extends horizontally and thus parallel to the upper horizontal minor face of such an acoustic baffle it is to be attached to and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined. The rejections are considered proper and are upheld.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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