DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on 07/28/2026 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked. The Applicant has overcome the claim objection of record and it has been withdrawn; see below for new claim objections. The Applicant has overcome the Drawing Objections of record, and they have been withdrawn. The Applicant has overcome the 112(b) rejection of record and it has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on pages 6-7 regarding newly amended claim language,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are directed to new amendments to the claim language, which have been addressed in the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites the limitation “the rails”, however, this element has yet to be invoked, while the line directly above this new limitation does give weight to “equipment support rails”. To obviate the objection, the Examiner would suggest amending “the rails” to “the equipment support rails”. Appropriate correction is required. All dependent claims are similarly objection to for depending from an objected to claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cursetjee et al (US 2011/0097986), hereinafter referred to as Cursetjee, in view of Gustin et al (US 4883511), hereinafter referred to as Gustin.
Regarding claim 1, Cursetjee (US 2011/0097986) shows a ceiling diffuser system comprising:
a. a grid support structure (10, Fig. 1/2) with members (34, 36, 38, 40, Fig. 4) releasably connected to form the grid support structure (¶0019, Lines 18-22),
b. a perimeter (14, Fig. 1 – ¶0004, Lines 14-18 – the perimeter facilitates equipment for ventilation) supported by the grid support structure (Fig. 1), and the perimeter is located below the grid support structure (Fig. 1/8 – as the Applicant shows wherein the array of laminar airflow diffusers 40 are located below the grid support structure 28 by showing the bottom of the structure of the laminar airflow diffusers 40, which are attached to the grid support system 28, being understood as being located below the grid support structure 28, as does Cursetjee show with the perimeter 14 being located below the grid support system 10),
c. an equipment support module (30, Fig. 2) releasably connected to and supported by the grid support structure (Fig. 1/4).
However, Cursetjee lacks showing an array of laminar airflow diffusers.
Gustin (US 4,883,511), a ceiling mounted HVAC system, is in the same field of endeavor as Cursetjee which is a ceiling mounted system with HVAC properties.
Gustin teaches an array of laminar airflow diffusers (Col. 3, Lines 50-62, Fig. 1 – elements 21a-h are an array of laminar airflow devices that diffuse of filtered air into the clean room 10) supported by the support structure (22, Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perimeter of Cursetjee to incorporate the teachings of the array of laminar airflow diffusers of Gustin, which would provide nearly 100% of effective laminar flow area of the ceiling, promoting cleanliness by including diffusing filtered air free from contaminants (Col. 2, Lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 3, Cursetjee shows wherein the perimeter is located below the grid support structure (Fig. 1/8 – as the Applicant shows wherein the array of laminar airflow diffusers 40 are located below the grid support structure 28 by showing the bottom of the structure of the laminar airflow diffusers 40, which are attached to the grid support system 28, being understood as being located below the grid support structure 28, as does Cursetjee show with the perimeter 14 being located below the grid support system 10 ),and the equipment support module (30, Fig. 2) is surrounded by the perimeter (Fig. 1/2/4).
However, Cursetjee lacks showing the array of laminar airflow diffusers.
Gustin teaches an array of laminar airflow diffusers (Col. 3, Lines 50-62, Fig. 1 – elements 21a-h are an array of laminar airflow devices that diffuse of filtered air into the clean room 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perimeter of Cursetjee to incorporate the teachings of the array of laminar airflow diffusers of Gustin, which would provide nearly 100% of effective laminar flow area of the ceiling including diffusing filtered air free from contaminants (Col. 2, Lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 4, Cursetjee shows wherein the perimeter is connected to a common air supply plenum (¶0004, Lines 5-9, Fig. 4 – the perimeter 14, which is attached to the equipment support module 30, is attached to what the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand is a common air supply plenum).
However, Cursetjee lacks showing the array of laminar airflow diffusers.
Gustin teaches an array of laminar airflow diffusers (Col. 3, Lines 50-62, Fig. 1 – elements 21a-h are an array of laminar airflow devices that diffuse of filtered air into the clean room 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perimeter of Cursetjee to incorporate the teachings of the array of laminar airflow diffusers of Gustin, which would provide nearly 100% of effective laminar flow area of the ceiling including diffusing filtered air free from contaminants (Col. 2, Lines 7-8).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cursetjee et al (US 2011/0097986), hereinafter referred to as Cursetjee, in view of Gustin et al (US 4,883,511), hereinafter referred to as Gustin.
Regarding claim 5, Cursetjee (us 2011/0097986) shows a ceiling diffuser system comprising:
a. an upper grid support structure (see Annotated Figure 1) with members (34, 36, 38, 40, Fig. 4, see Annotated Figure 1) releasably connected to form the upper grid support structure (¶0019, Lines 18-22);
b. a lower grid support structure (see Annotated Figure 1) with members (see Annotated Figure 1) releasably connected to form the lower grid support structure (¶0019, Lines 18-22, see Annotated Figure 1 – the lower grid support structure comprises of the same elements 36 & 38 that are releasable members) wherein the lower grid support structure is supported by the upper grid support structure by vertical members (see Annotated Figure 1);
c. a perimeter (14, Fig. 1 – ¶0004, Lines 14-18 – the perimeter facilitates equipment for ventilation) supported by the upper grid support structure (Fig. 1/2);
d. at least one support strut (see Annotated Figure 1) connected to the lower grid support structure (see Annotated Figure 2); and
e. equipment support rails (see Annotated Figure 1) connected to and supported by the at least one support strut (see Annotated Figure 2),
wherein the rails are configured to support rolling or sliding loads of equipment (Fig. 2/4/see Annotated Figure 2, ¶0023 – The Merriam-Websters Dictionary defines Slide: “to move or pass smoothly or easily”; the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand that the equipment support rails are configured to support sliding loads of equipment 44 by supporting both the weight of the load of the equipment and the smooth movement of the equipment as it is repositioned).
However, Cursetjee lacks showing an array of laminar airflow diffusers.
Gustin (US 4,883,511), a ceiling mounted HVAC system, is in the same field of endeavor as Cursetjee which is a ceiling mounted system with HVAC properties.
Gustin teaches an array of laminar airflow diffusers (Col. 3, Lines 50-62, Fig. 1 – elements 21a-h are an array of laminar airflow devices that diffuse of filtered air into the clean room 10) supported by the support structure (22, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perimeter of Cursetjee to incorporate the teachings of the array of laminar airflow diffusers of Gustin, which would provide nearly 100% of effective laminar flow area of the ceiling including diffusing filtered air free from contaminants (Col. 2, Lines 7-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
493
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
462
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 6, Cursetjee shows (see Compact prosecution section above) wherein the perimeter is located below and supported by the upper grid support structure (Fig. 2, see Annotated Figure 1/2).
However, Cursetjee lacks showing the array of laminar airflow diffusers.
Gustin teaches an array of laminar airflow diffusers (Col. 3, Lines 50-62, Fig. 1 – elements 21a-h are an array of laminar airflow devices that diffuse of filtered air into the clean room 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perimeter of Cursetjee to incorporate the teachings of the array of laminar airflow diffusers of Gustin, which would provide nearly 100% of effective laminar flow area of the ceiling including diffusing filtered air free from contaminants (Col. 2, Lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 7, Cursetjee shows (see Compact prosecution section above) wherein the perimeter is connected to a common air supply plenum (¶0004, Lines 5-9, Fig. 4 – the perimeter 14, which is attached to the equipment support module 30, is attached to what the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand is a common air supply plenum).
However, Cursetjee lacks showing the array of laminar airflow diffusers.
Gustin teaches an array of laminar airflow diffusers (Col. 3, Lines 50-62, Fig. 1 – elements 21a-h are an array of laminar airflow devices that diffuse of filtered air into the clean room 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perimeter of Cursetjee to incorporate the teachings of the array of laminar airflow diffusers of Gustin, which would provide nearly 100% of effective laminar flow area of the ceiling including diffusing filtered air free from contaminants (Col. 2, Lines 7-8).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cursetjee et al (US 2011/0097986), hereinafter referred to as Cursetjee, in view of Gustin et al (US 4,883,511), hereinafter referred to as Gustin, in further view of Walters (US 2016/0258165).
Regarding claim 8, Cursetjee (us 2011/0097986) shows a ceiling diffuser system comprising:
a grid support structure (10, Fig. 1/2) with members (34, 36, 38, 40, Fig. 4) releasably connected to form the grid support structure (¶0019, Lines 18-22);
an equipment support module (30, Fig. 2) releasably connected to and supported by the grid support structure (Fig. 1/4),
However, Cursetjee lacks showing an array of laminar airflow diffusers.
Gustin (US 4,883,511), a ceiling mounted HVAC system, is in the same field of endeavor as Cursetjee which is a ceiling mounted system with HVAC properties.
Gustin teaches an array of laminar airflow diffusers (Col. 3, Lines 50-62, Fig. 1 – elements 21a-h are an array of laminar airflow devices that diffuse of filtered air into the clean room 10) supported by the support structure (22, Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the perimeter of Cursetjee to incorporate the teachings of the array of laminar airflow diffusers of Gustin, which would provide nearly 100% of effective laminar flow area of the ceiling, promoting cleanliness by including diffusing filtered air free from contaminants (Col. 2, Lines 7-8).
However, Cursetjee lacks showing wherein the equipment support module is located outboard of the grid support structure.
Walters (US 2016/0259165), an operating room ceiling truss for hanging equipment, is in the same field of endeavor as Cursetjee which is an operating room ceiling truss for hanging equipment.
Walters teaches wherein the equipment support module (701, Fig. 7) is located outboard of the grid support structure (104, Fig. 7, ¶0035 – element 107 is a module for supporting equipment comprising of element 726 which is an equipment plate for hanging and supporting various pieces of equipment, of which is located outboard of the grid support structure as can be seen in Fig. 7 with the structure of the grid support structure being further outboard than the structure of the grid support structure 104, as the Applicant has not disclosed the word outboard in the Specifications to give a special definition to the metes and bounds of the term outboard means).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the equipment support module of Cursetjee to incorporate the teachings of the equipment support module of Walters, which would provide extra space internally for the routing of cables, medical gas lines, and electrical conduits for electrical power (¶0006).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and is provided in the Notice of References Cited.
The following prior art teaches related equipment mounted ceiling structures:
US 10,071,177 - Kellogg Jr. discloses ceiling mounted suspension structure that has equipment modules mounted on an outboard thereof.
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 RYAN L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
