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 Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments filed 13 July, 2026.
Disposition of Claims
Claims 1-17 are pending.
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) 1, 5, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by QUAST (DE 102013102423 A1 – published 11 September, 2014; provided on the IDS filed on 16 January, 2024; see provided English machine translation).
As to claim 1, QUAST discloses a ceiling element (1; par. 1 and 20) for a cooling and/or heating ceiling (par. 1, 2 and 20), comprising:
a ceiling panel (2) with a ceiling panel upper side (upper side of the panel, 2; figure 1-3);
a pipe system arranged on the ceiling panel upper side with pipes (10; par. 25) extending in the longitudinal direction (length direction shown in figure 1) of the ceiling panel for transporting a heat-carrying fluid (par. 25);
an air outlet box (7) arranged on the ceiling panel upper side with a supply air inlet (16, 17) and a plurality of air outlets (19; par. 25) open to the surroundings (par. 25), wherein the pipes of the pipe system extend through the air outlet box (figure 3, in view of par. 25), wherein the air outlets are each arranged around a pipe of the pipe system(figures 1 and 3, in view of the air routing within par. 25 to provide the air outlets arranged around a pipe, at least one 10, as shown and described), and wherein the air outlets are arranged such that air exiting from the air outlets is freely emitted to the surroundings and no longer routed in closed ducts and thus the air freely runs on the ceiling panel upper side (par. 25).
As to claim 5, QUAST discloses wherein insulation (22) are arranged on the ceiling panel upper side between the pipes of the pipe system only on the part of the ceiling panel upper side being uncovered by the air outlet box (figure 3).
As to claim 12, QUAST discloses wherein a ceiling panel lower side arranged opposite the ceiling panel upper side, is closed, free of air outlets (par. 25, wherein the air must exit through the open ends, 19, and does not pass through openings along the ceiling panel lower side).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH (DE 202004020334 U1 – published 31 March, 2005; see provided English machine translation).
As to claim 1, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses a ceiling element (10) for a cooling and/or heating ceiling (par. 28), comprising:
a ceiling panel (11) with a ceiling panel upper side (12);
a pipe system arranged on the ceiling panel upper side with pipes (20; par. 29; figures 1-2) extending in the longitudinal direction (X) of the ceiling panel for transporting a heat-carrying fluid (par. 29);
an air outlet box (combination of 22, 30, and 36) arranged on the ceiling panel upper side with a supply air inlet (opening into the air outlet box provided at the location of 37) and a plurality of air outlets (exit at location of open ends of duct, 30) open to the surroundings (figure 1; par. 30-32), wherein the pipes of the pipe system extend through the air outlet box (figures 1-2), wherein the air outlets are each arranged around a pipe of the pipe system(figure 1; par.30-32), and wherein the air outlets are arranged such that air exiting from the air outlets is freely emitted to the surroundings and no longer routed in closed ducts and thus the air freely runs on the ceiling panel upper side (figure 1; par. 30-32).
As to claim 2, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses wherein the air outlets are arranged such that air exiting from the air outlets runs along the pipes (figures1; par. 30-32) extending in the longitudinal direction (X).
As to claim 3, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses wherein the air outlets are arranged such that the majority of the air exiting the air outlets is ejected from the ceiling element longitudinally (figures 1 and 4; par. 31-32, in view of the effect of the baffle to control the fluid flow along the longitudinal direction; MPEP § 2114 - II).
As to claim 4, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses wherein the air outlets of the air outlet box are each arranged around a pipe of the pipe system (figures 1-2).
As to claim 6, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses wherein the pipes of the pipe system are each fastened to the ceiling panel upper side by a heat conducting plate (24; MPEP § 2114 – II, wherein 24 is made of a material which is capable of heat conduction).
As to claim 7, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses wherein the air outlet box defines an air chamber which has a volume (see interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth herein; figures 1-2 wherein the defined air outlet box is provided with an interior air chamber that comprises a volume).
As to claim 8, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses wherein the air outlet box extends in the transverse direction (Y) at least 905 of the extension of the ceiling panel upper side in the transverse direction, over the ceiling panel upper size (figure 2).
As to claim 10, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses additionally comprising a supply air pipe (37) connected to the air supply inlet (figure 1-2)
As to claim 11, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses wherein the air outlets of the air outlet box are each arranged in the longitudinal direction (X) of the ceiling panel (figures 1-2).
As to claim 13, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses wherein the air outlets of the air outlet box are arranged on both sides in the longitudinal direction (X) of the ceiling panel in such a way that some air outlets are arranged on opposite sides of the air outlet box (figures 1 and 3).
As to claim 14, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses wherein the air outlets are delimited by an end wall of the air outlet box(end of walls 22 and 30) and by the ceiling panel upper side(11) (figure 1).
As to claim 15, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses wherein the air outlet box comprises a cover holder(36) and a cover (31) inserted in to the cover holder (figure 1), wherein the cover comprises one or more air outlets (figures 1-2; par. 30).
As to claim 16, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses a use of a ceiling element according to claim 1 for heating or cooling a room (see rejection of claim 1), wherein air is fed into the air outlet box via the supply air inlet (figures 1-3; par. 30-32)and exchanges heat energy with a heat-carrying fluid located in the pipes(figures 1-3; par. 30-32) and subsequently runs from the air outlet box via the air outlets(figures 1-3; par. 30-32) and subsequently on the ceiling panel upper side (figures 1-3; par. 30-32).
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) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH (DE 202004020334 U1 – published 31 March, 2005; see provided English machine translation).
As to claim 9, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses wherein the air outlet box, and the air outlets, is spaced apart from the longitudinal ends of the ceiling element (figure 1).
However, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH does not expressly disclose wherein the spacing is by at least 40 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify the device of THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH to have the spacing be at least 40 cm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP § 2144.04 – IV(A). IN the instance case, the device of THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH would not operate differently with the claimed spacing, and since the end of the air outlets is necessarily intended to be spaced from the longitudinal ends of the ceiling element (figures 1 and 3), such that it would function appropriately having the claimed spacing dimension. Further, it appears the Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (see page 7 of the originally-filed specification).
As to claim 17, THERMOSOFT KLIMATECHNIK GMBH discloses a ceiling element (10) for a cooling and/or heating ceiling (par. 28), comprising:
a ceiling panel (11) with a ceiling panel upper side (12);
a pipe system arranged on the ceiling panel upper side with pipes (20; par. 29; figures 1-2) extending in the longitudinal direction (X) of the ceiling panel for transporting a heat-carrying fluid (par. 29);
an air outlet box (combination of 22, 30, and 36) arranged on the ceiling panel upper side with a supply air inlet (opening into the air outlet box provided at the location of 37) and a plurality of air outlets (exit at location of open ends of duct, 30) open to the surroundings (figure 1; par. 30-32), wherein the air outlets are arranged such that air exiting from the air outlets is freely emitted to the surroundings and no longer routed in closed ducts and thus the air freely runs on the ceiling panel upper side (figure 1; par. 30-32).
THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH does not expressly disclose “wherein the air outlet box extends in the longitudinal direction over less than 50% of the ceiling panel”.
However, THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH teaches the air outlet box(combination of 22, 30, and 36) wherein the longitudinal length of the air outlet of THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH is defined by the longest length of channel and rail(22 and 30) of the defined air outlet box. THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH expressly states wherein the length thereof are known to be adjusted, i.e., a result effective variable, which achieves the recognized result of obtaining a desired amount of air to be supplied/volumetric flow(par. 31). One having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, would have a reasonable expectation of success obtaining the desired length as claimed to be “less than 50% of the ceiling panel), as this would only result in the change in the longest length of the defined air outlet box of THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 – II(A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, to modify THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH to include the longitudinal extension of the air outlet box to be less than 50% of the ceiling panel so as to obtain, through routine optimization, a desired amount of air to be supplied/volumetric flow.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments, see page 2, filed 13 July, 2026, with respect to the objection of claim 1, see page 2, mailed 13 April, 2026, has been fully considered. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments, see page 3, filed 13 July, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), see pages 3-4, mailed 13 April, 2026, have been fully considered. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 5 and 7 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 13 July, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At pages 7-8, Applicant argues against the teachings of QUAST by stating “Quast does not teach or suggest that the air outlets (element 19, as identified by the Examiner) are each arranged around a pipe of the pipe system. Such air outlets are not arranged around a pipe of the pipe system nor are they arranged such that air exiting from the air outlets runs on the ceiling panel upper side (because the air only air which can be considered as exiting air would be directly ejected into the room at the position of reference sign 5).” However, the evidence of record, as further expressly acknowledged by the Applicant within the presented arguments, supports the anticipation of the claimed invention set forth by claim 1, at least. Specifically, Applicant acknowledges the air exits to the surroundings of a room for which the ceiling element is provided at 19. In addition, it is well-known and old concept of state of matter, in particularly gaseous matter that takes the volumetric space and shape of the “container” for which encompasses it. In this case, gas being discharged into a room, as evidenced by the disclosure of QUAST (par. 25, in view of par. 1-2) and by the admission of the Applicant(MPEP § 2145 – I.), necessarily provides the discharged air to take up the space and shape of the room, including the upper side of the ceiling panel. See page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments, filed 13 July, 2026, “In Quast, the air moves away from the alleged air outlet box inside channels 14(dotted line shown below) and, as acknowledged by the Examiner, is only exposed to the open environment/surroundings at the open ends 19 of the channels (solid arrow shown below)”. See page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments, filed 13 July, 2026, “According to par. [0025] of Quast, the air exits only at open ends 19 from which it is expelled to the room”. More so, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims (MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.01) the open endings, 19, are structurally the same as the plurality of air outlets, as set forth by the claim. Particularly,
(1) the open endings, 19, discharge air from the air outlet box, 7, to the surroundings (see page 7 and 8 of Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments, filed 13 July, 2026, quotations above; par. 25), such that these open endings are air outlets of the air outlet box,
(2) the open endings, 19, are each arranged around a pipe, 10, of the pipe system (figures 1 and 3, in view of the air routing within par. 25 to provide the air outlets arranged around a pipe, at least one 10, as shown and described), and
(3) the open endings, 19, are arranged such that the air exiting therefrom is freely emitted (nothing at the open endings, 19, prevents the air from being discharged therefrom) to the surroundings and
(4) no longer routed in closed ducts(par. 25, wherein discharge from the open endings, 19, is emitted to the surrounding air for which the ceiling element is positioned; see page 7 and 8 of Applicant’s Remarks/Amendments, filed 13 July, 2026, quotations above) and thus the air freely runs on the ceiling panel upper side, 2 (upper side thereof, as a result of the structure of the openings, 19, in addition to the known principles of gaseous matter, such as air, taking the shape and volume of the space for which it is contained, i.e., a room),
, such that the structure of QUAST meets the structural requirements of the air outlets, as claimed. For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive, and the claimed invention of independent claim 1 remains anticipated by QUAST.
At page 9, Applicant alleges a “clear definition” of the air outlets. However, the presented recitation, seemingly page 4, lines 5-7 of the originally-filed disclosure of the instant application, is not a special definition (MPEP § 2111.01 – IV), but rather a mere description of air outlets of the instant disclosed invention for which the Applicant includes these structural designations within independent claim 1, at least. Further, as indicated above, the structural requirements, as claimed, are that the air outlet openings (1) “open to the surroundings”, (2) “are each arranged around a pipe of the pipe system”, (3)“arranged such that air exiting from the air outlets is freely emitted to the surroundings”, (4)“no longer routed in closed ducts”, for which QUAST discloses. See discussion related to QUAST and the claimed structural requirements above. For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive, and the claimed invention of independent claim 1 remains anticipated by QUAST.
At page 10, Applicant argues against the teachings of THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH by stating, “The Thermosoft reference does not teach or suggest air outlets that are each arranged around a pipe of the pipe system, as required in Claim 1. Instead, Thermosoft, like Quast, teaches air outlets at open ends of the duct”. Similarly to discussion provided with Quast, the air outlets of THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH provide the structural requirements, as claimed. Particularly, the air outlet openings (exit at location of open ends of duct, 30) of THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH (1) “open to the surroundings” (figure 1; par. 30-32), (2) “are each arranged around a pipe of the pipe system” (figure 2, wherein the air outlets are arranged around a pipe, such as 20, as shown), (3)“arranged such that air exiting from the air outlets is freely emitted to the surroundings” (figure 1; par.30-32), (4)“no longer routed in closed ducts” (par. 31, in view of figure 1,wherein the air outlet discharges to the surroundings which to not include further routing through closed ducts). For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive, and the claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 17 are anticipated/obvious by the teachings of THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH.
At pages 9-10, Applicant argues THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH does not teach or suggest “the air outlet box (4) extends in the longitudinal direction over less than 50% of the ceiling panel (2)”, and states such “would not be possible in Thermosoft”. However, THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH is considered to include the air outlet box(combination of 22, 30, and 36), wherein the longitudinal length of the air outlet of THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH is defined by the longest length of channel and rail(22 and 30) of the defined air outlet box. THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH expressly states wherein the length thereof are known to be adjusted, i.e., a result effective variable, which achieves the recognized result of obtaining a desired amount of air to be supplied/volumetric flow(par. 31). One having ordinary skill within the art, prior to the date the invention was effectively filed, would have a reasonable expectation of success obtaining the desired length as claimed to be “less than 50% of the ceiling panel), as this would only result in the change in the longest length of the defined air outlet box of THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 – II(A). As such, for this reason, the claimed invention set forth by claim 17 would have been obvious over the teachings of THERMOSOFT KLIMTECHNIK GMBH.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Len Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-1184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am - 4pm.
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.
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.
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights