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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 and all claims depending therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at line 9 recites “mounted between pairs of profiled lightweight beams”, it is unclear if the pairs of profiled lightweight beams are the same as or in addition to the “profiled lightweight beams previously recited in line 3, causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention. Additionally any further recitation of “the profiled lightweight beams” is confusing as it is unclear to which previously recited profiled lightweight beams the recitation is referring to.
The claim recites “on a lower flange” at line 10, it is unclear if this is the same as or in addition to the “flange ends” previously recite din line 4 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
The claim further recites “adjacent pairs of parallel secondary beams” in line 16, it is unclear if this is the same as or in addition to the “secondary beams” previously recited line 15 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “two flanges separated by a web”, it is unclear if the “two flanges” are the same as or in addition to the “flanged ends” recited in line 4 of claim 1 and/or the “lower flange” recited in line 10 of claim 1 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “having flange ends at distal ends thereof, the profiled lightweight beams being elongated in a first direction, in lines 5-6, which appears to redundant with similar features recited in lines 2-3 of claim 1, accordingly it is unclear if the recitations of claim 13 are the same as or in addition to the same features of claim 1 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “with flange ends” in line 7, it is unclear if these are the same as or in addition to the “flange ends” in line 5 and/or the flange ends in line 4 of claim 1 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites in line 9 “pairs of profiled lightweight beams”, it is unclear if these are the same as or in addition the “profiled lightweight beams” previously recited in claim 13 and/or the same previously recited in claim 1 (see above) causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “provided with a pair of crown beams” in line 10. It is unclear if these are the same as or in addition to the crown beams previously recited in claim 1 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “a lower flange” in lines 10-11, it is unclear if this is the same as or in addition the previously recited lower flanges in claim 13 and/or claim 1 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “pairs of parallel secondary beams” and “vertical spacers” in line 12, it is unclear if these are the same as or in addition the secondary beams and/or the pairs of parallel secondary beams and vertical spacers previously recited in claim 1 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
The claim recites “the secondary beams extend in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction thereby forming the supported ceiling supported by a rectangular grid structure” in line lines 14-17, which is redundant with similar recitation in lines 17-20 of claim 1 causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention since it is unclear if this is the same or in addition the first recitation.
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) 1,2,4,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKay (1789827) in view of Sumpter (4083153) and Klemm (2666233) and further in view of Mote (3080022).
Claim 1. McKay discloses a collaborating joist and suspended ceiling system, said system comprises:
profiled lightweight beams (11) elongated in a first direction (as noted in the annotated figure), each of the profiled lightweight beams having flange ends at distal ends thereof (as seen at 14/15 of figure 1);
a first edge beam (12 top and/or bottom as noted in the annotated figure), having recesses corresponding to the footprint and depth of the flange ends of the profiled lightweight beams (as seen in figure 1), said first edge beam being in contact with the flange ends such that mechanical contact between the profiled lightweight beams and the first edge beam is obtained (as seen in figure 1);
bent panels (20, where the side edges of the panels have a bent channel for attaching to the beam as seen in figure 1, therefore they are considered bent panel) mounted between pairs of profiled lightweight beams and resting on a lower flange of the respective profiled lightweight beam (where the bent edge rests on a lower flange as seen in at least figure 1), wherein each of the respective bent panels is provided with a pair of crown beams (31) arranged on an upper side of the bent panel for linear distribution of a pressure exerted from below on the bent panel; and
secondary beams (16), and wherein the secondary beams are arranged on the profiled lightweight beams, wherein the secondary beams extend in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction (as seen in figure 1), thereby forming the suspended ceiling supported by a rectangular grid structure.
McKay does not expressly disclose the crown beams extending along the first direction, instead McKay discloses flat ceiling panels with the crown beams extending along the second direction.
Sumpter discloses a ceiling having beams in a first direction and bent panels, forming a curved ceiling structure, mounted between pairs of beams and resting on a lower flange.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the bent panels of McKay to have be curved bent panels mounted between the pairs of beams and further to modify the crown beams to be extending along the first direction to provide additional support to the bent panel, where the curved shaped would require the crown beam to be along the first direction to maintain contact with the panel to provide bracing support.
McKay does not expressly disclose the secondary beams (16) having vertical spacers, wherein the vertical spacers are arranged between adjacent pairs of parallel secondary beams,. Klemm discloses secondary beams (10) having vertical spacers (16) arranged between adjacent pairs of parallel secondary beams (where 16 is between adjacent pairs of 10 as seen in figures 18-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the secondary beams of McKay to have vertical spacers arranged between adjacent pairs of parallel secondary beams to achieve the predictable result of easily assembled and consistently spaced beams that accommodate a ceiling and floor assembly.
McKay, Sumpter and Klemm do not disclose wherein the secondary beams are arranged on the crown beams. However Mote discloses that it is known to attach the crest of a curved bent panel to a beam of the support structure (as seen at 30 of figure 3, 34 of figure 5, 37 of figure 6). Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the system as noted above to have the secondary beams arranged on the crown beams thereby providing support and stability to the panels and ceiling structure, securely attaching the bent panels to the system to avoid undesired separation which cause damage and/or harm.
Claim 2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the profiled lightweight beam has an I-profile, the I-profile comprising two flanges separated by a web (as noted at 11 of McKay).
Claim 4. The system according to claim 1,wherein the system also comprises a second edge beam (where there is a second edge beam of the same construction on the opposite side not shown), the second edge beam having recesses corresponding to the footprint and depth of the flange ends of the profiled lightweight beams, wherein the second edge beam is arranged in mechanical contact with the flange ends of the profiled lightweight beams at distal ends thereof being opposite to the distal ends being attached to the first edge beam.
Claim 6. The system according to claim 1, wherein a floor (17-McKay) is installed on top of the secondary beams.
Claim 7. The system according to claim 1, where Klemm discloses the vertical distances are attached to the adjacent pairs of parallel secondary beams (col. 8,lines 55-56), but does not expressly disclose that the attaching is screwed.
It is well known to attach adjacent structural elements by a screwed attachment. For example Sumpter discloses a screwed attachment (as noted throughout the figures); Mote discloses a screwed attachment (throughout the figures); McKay discloses attaching elements by a screwed attachment (see figures and disclosure).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the vertical distances to be attached to the adjacent pairs of parallel secondary beams by a screwed attachment to achieve the predictable result of an easily manufacture and assembled system where screwed is convention form of attachment of structural members well known in the art and would have been easily employed by an ordinary craftsman to assemble the claimed system.
Claim 9. The system according to claim 1 as above, does not expressly disclose wherein a vibration damping element is arranged on each of the crown beams, the vibration damping elements being arranged between the secondary beams and the crown beams such that transfer of vibrations is reduced between the bent panels and the secondary beams.
Mote discloses the use of a vibration damping element (40) between the crest of the bent panel and a secondary beam (12/15).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the system of claim 1 as taught by McKay, Sumpter, Mote and Klemm above to further comprise a vibration damping element arranged on each of the crown beams, the vibration damping elements being arranged between the secondary beams and the crown beams such that transfer of vibrations is reduced between the bent panels and the secondary beams, to achieve the predictable result of reducing noise from level of the structure to another, or reduce noise associated with movement and shaking of the system components during force loading creating a more pleasing environment to a user.
Claim 10. The system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises two adjacent bent panels (as seen in figure 1 of McKay) arranged juxtaposed between a pair of profiled lightweight beams and a cover panel (30) arranged on and overlapping with the two adjacent bent panels.
Claim 11. McKay, Sumpter, Klemm and Mote disclose the system according to claim 1, as above but do not expressly disclose wherein the system comprises an acoustic insulating panel or an acoustic insulating sheet arranged in between the bent panels and upper flanges of the profiled lightweight beams, wherein the acoustic insulating panel or sheet extends in width between the adjacent pair of profiled lightweight beams such that acoustic sound transfer from one side of the acoustic insulating panel or sheet to the other side thereof is reduced.
However Mote discloses that it is know to have an acoustic insulating panel (31) or an acoustic insulating sheet arranged in between the bent panels (29) and upper flanges of the profiled lightweight beams (as seen in the figures), wherein the acoustic insulating panel or sheet extends in width between the adjacent pair of profiled lightweight beams such that acoustic sound transfer from one side of the acoustic insulating panel or sheet to the other side thereof is reduced (as seen in the figures and noted in the disclosure at least at col. 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the system of McKay, Sumpter, Klemm and Mote as noted in claim 1 above to have an acoustic insulating panel or an acoustic insulating sheet arranged in between the bent panels and upper flanges of the profiled lightweight beams, wherein the acoustic insulating panel or sheet extends in width between the adjacent pair of profiled lightweight beams such that acoustic sound transfer from one side of the acoustic insulating panel or sheet to the other side thereof is reduced to achieve the predictable result of acoustic attenuation between levels and within a space as desired for a user/occupant.
Claim 12. McKay, Sumpter, Klemm and Mote disclose the system according to claim 1, as above but do not expressly disclose wherein the system comprises a vibration damping sheet, the vibration damping sheet being arranged on a convex surface of the bent panels such that vibrations of the bent panels are dampened.
However Mote discloses that it is known to have a system comprising a vibration damping sheet (1), the vibration damping sheet being arranged on a convex surface of the bent panels (as noted in the figures) such that vibrations of the bent panels are dampened.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the system of McKay, Sumpter, Klemm and Mote as noted in claim 1 above to have a vibration damping sheet, the vibration damping sheet being arranged on a convex surface of the bent panels such that vibrations of the bent panels are dampened to achieve the predictable result of acoustic attenuation between levels and within a space as desired for a user/occupant.
Claims 13,14,15. McKay, Sumpter, Klemm and Mote disclose the system according to claims 1,9 and 10 as above, and the method for assembling the collaborating joist and suspended ceiling system according to claims 1,9,10 wherein the method comprises:
arranging the profiled lightweight beams on a supporting structure (as noted at least figure 1 where the beams have been “arranged” on a supporting structure), each of the profiled lightweight beams having flange ends (as noted in claim 1 above) at distal ends thereof, the profiled lightweight beams being elongated in a first direction (as noted in claim 1 above);
arranging the first edge beam in mechanical contact with flange ends of the profiled lightweight beams (where they are in mechanical contact and thus have been “arranged” as such as seen in figure 1 of McKay); wherein the method further comprises arranging the second edge beam in mechanical contact with the flange ends of the profiled lightweight beams at distal ends thereof being opposite to the distal ends attached to the first edge beam (where they are in mechanical contact and thus have been “arranged” as such as seen in figure 1 of McKay);
inserting between pairs of profiled lightweight beams the bent panels (as seen in figure 1 of McKay the bent panels are inserted by “inserting” between pairs of profiled lightweight beams) provided with a pair of crown beams such that the bent panels rest on a lower flange of the respective profiled lightweight beams (as seen in figure 1 of McKay); wherein the inserting comprises inserting the bent panels at the flange end of the pair of profiled lightweight beams and sliding the bent panels along the lower flanges of the respective profiled lightweight beams.(where they are inserted);
arranging pairs of parallel secondary beams (as seen in figure 1 of McKay, where they secondary beams have been arranged by “arranging”) having vertical spacers arranged in between the adjacent secondary beams (as modified by Klemm in claim 1 above), on the crown beams (as modified in claim 1 above) and on the profiled lightweight beams (as noted in claim 1 above), wherein the secondary beams extend in a second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction thereby forming the supported ceiling supported by a rectangular grid structure (as noted in claim 1 above).
It is noted that the method includes the steps of “arranging”,“inserting” and “sliding’ the various components in the configuration as noted in claim 1 above. The method steps of “arranging”,“inserting” and “sliding” are the obvious method step of assembling the components and structure as noted in the claims above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and use the step of “arranging” the components into the claimed assembled configuration to achieve the predictable result of collaborating joist and suspended ceiling system.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKay (1789827) in view of Sumpter (4083153) and Klemm (2666233) and further in view of Mote (3080022) and further in view of Perez Romero (20230167638).
Claim 3. McKay, Sumpter, Klemm and Mote disclose the system according to claim 1, as above, except for wherein the first edge beam is made of glulam.
It is known to use glulam beams for construction assemblies. For example Perez Romero discloses it is known to use glulam beams (paragraph 0020). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the material of the first edge beam to be made of glulam, 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. In the instant case it would have been obvious for at least the reason of increased strength without increased weight.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKay (1789827) in view of Sumpter (4083153) and Klemm (2666233) and further in view of Mote (3080022) and further in view of Pinchot (6499262).
Claim 5. McKay, Sumpter, Klemm and Mote disclose the system according to claim 1, as above, except for wherein the bent panels are Plywood sheets. It is known to use plywood as a replacement for gypsum in ceiling panels. For example, Pinchot discloses that is known to have ceiling panels made of plywood (col. 3, lines 60-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the material of the bent panels to be plywood, 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. In the instant case it would have been obvious for at least the reason sound attenuation and fire resistance as taught by Pinchot.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKay (1789827) in view of Sumpter (4083153) and Klemm (2666233) and further in view of Mote (3080022) and further in view of Fire Tect Flame Retardants (see attached).
Claim 8. McKay, Sumpter, Klemm and Mote disclose the system according to claim 1, as above, except for wherein one or more of the following comprises fire protective paint: the profiled lightweight beams; and the bent panels. It is known in the art to have fire protective paint on building structural components such as beams and bent panels. For example, Fire Tect Flame Retardants disclose a fire protective paint to be applied to building materials such as wood to provide fire protection to the building components. Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the lightweight beams and/or the bent panels to have a fire protective paint to achieve the predictable result of fire protection between levels of a building and to meet specific fire code safety standards.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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 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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635