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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/30/2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 102 over Surace (US 2007/0107350) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Lahita (US 2024/0141644).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lahita (US 2024/0141644).
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, Lahita teaches a ceiling tile for mitigating or eliminating radio frequency transmissions and its manufacture (¶ 2), as well as a system comprising an assembly of these tiles (¶ 17). The ceiling tile comprises a conductive panel (corresponding to the claimed support backing) (¶ 30), and an acoustic ceiling tile (corresponding to the claimed interior portion) mounted onto the bottom face of the panel (¶ 40). As illustrated in Fig. 1, the acoustic ceiling tile is positioned so as to expose the edges of the panel. The edge of the conductive panel is configured to come in contact with conductive grid bars (corresponding to the claimed grid member) by way of a conductive connecting mechanism (corresponding to the claimed electrically conductive layer) which is between the grid bars and the ceiling panel (¶ 30).
PNG
media_image1.png
569
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lahita does not expressly disclose the grid bars are grounded. However, the grid member is not affirmatively recited to be part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, as can be seen from Fig. 1, a first vertical axis can be drawn which extends through the acoustic tile 4 and not the conductive connecting mechanism 7, and a second vertical axis can be drawn to extend through the conductive connecting mechanism 7 but not the acoustic tile 4.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Lahita teaches the conductive connecting mechanism is a conductive fabric, foil, or contact strip such as fingerstock (¶ 10). One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret this to refer to a material having a thickness ranging from the tens to thousands of micron scale. This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. This thickness is less than the thickness of the panel or the tile, and is further illustrated by Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 7, Lahita teaches the conductive connecting mechanism is a conductive fabric, foil, or contact strip, but does not teach it comprises copper. However, it would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to use copper as a conductor because copper is one of the most electrically conductive metals.
Regarding claims 18-19, Lahita teaches the outer edge of the panels is positioned vertically above the electrically conductive material and the grid members, and the downward force of gravity establishes electrical contact absent objective evidence to the contrary (see Fig. 1). See MPEP 2112. The panel and tile are mounted together (¶ 40), and the conductive connecting mechanism (as tape) applied to the panel results in a unitary structure. While Lahita discloses clips may be use to hold the panels in place (¶ 12), Lahita does not indicate these are required.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lahita (US 2024/0141644) in view of Surace et al. (US 2007/0107350), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Lahita teaches the conductive connecting mechanism is a conductive fabric, foil, or contact strip such as fingerstock (¶ 10). One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret this to refer to a material having a thickness ranging from the tens to thousands of micron scale. This overlaps the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. This thickness is less than the thickness of the panel or the tile, and is further illustrated by Fig. 1.
Claims 3-5, 7-8, 11-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lahita (US 2024/0141644) in view of Surace et al. (US 2007/0107350), as applied to claims 1 or 9, as appropriate.
Regarding claims 3-5, 7, 11-13 and 15, the limitations of claims 1 and 9 have been addressed above. Lahita teaches the conductive connecting mechanism is a conductive fabric, foil, or contact strip. Lahita also teaches the layer of conductive material is exposed only along an outer edge of a bottom face of the tile (¶ 13); thus, the acoustic tile is positioned at an inner region of the panel and is surrounded by the conductive material. The acoustic tile thus occupies the inner region of the panel, and is horizontally recessed from the outer edge of the panel (see Fig. 1). Lahita does not teach it comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive backed copper tape. Surace teaches using a pressure-sensitive adhesive backed copper tape (¶ 28) on the edges of the panels (¶ 29). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a pressure-sensitive adhesive backed copper tape as taught by Surace for the ceiling tiles of Lahita because there is an expectation of success in using a material recognized by the prior art as an effective conductor for applying to the edges of a ceiling tile.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the limitations of claims 1 and 9 have been addressed above. Lahita does not expressly teach the material for the ceiling panels other than stating they are conductive (¶ 34). Surace teaches using steel, copper, or aluminum for the electrically conductive material of a ceiling panel (¶ 27). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a material such as aluminum which is known to be effective for a shielding material panel.
Regarding claim 14, Lahita teaches the conductive connecting mechanism is a conductive fabric, foil, or contact strip such as fingerstock (¶ 10). One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret this to refer to a material having a thickness ranging from the tens to thousands of micron scale. This thickness is less than the thickness of the panel or the tile, and is further illustrated by Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 17, Lahita does not specify a shielding effectiveness. Surace teaches shielding effectivenesses of at least 50 dB over frequencies ranging from 19 MHz to 10 GHz (see ¶¶ 51-58). Accordingly, since the prior art recognizes this range as necessitating shielding, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect radio frequency shielding to be effectiveness within this range, and it would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to attenuate the panels of Lahita to be effective at RF shielding within those ranges the prior art recognizes as needing shielding.
Regarding claim 20, Lahita teaches a ceiling tile for mitigating or eliminating radio frequency transmissions and its manufacture (¶ 2), as well as a system comprising an assembly of these tiles (¶ 17). The ceiling tile comprises a conductive panel (corresponding to the claimed support backing) (¶ 30), and an acoustic ceiling tile (corresponding to the claimed interior portion) mounted onto the bottom face of the panel (¶ 40). As illustrated in Fig. 1, the acoustic ceiling tile is positioned so as to expose the edges of the panel. The edge of the conductive panel is in contact with conductive grid bars (corresponding to the claimed grid member) by way of a conductive connecting mechanism (corresponding to the claimed electrically conductive layer) which is between the grid bars and the ceiling panel (¶ 30).
Lahita does not expressly disclose the grid bars are grounded. Surace teaches building material that shields against undesired radio frequency signals (¶ 2). The building material includes panels which are electrically conductive (¶ 27) and connect to metal studs that are grounded and act as structural support (¶ 8). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to ground the grid member of Lahita because Surace teaches grounding the electrical connection helps to mitigate impinging radio waves (¶¶ 8-9), and it is readily apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art that safety is improved by grounding electrical circuits.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu (CN 112854504) discloses a building panel having a similar structure to that claimed, except that Liu does not teach or suggest the claimed electrically-conductive layer configured for contacting a grounded grid member.
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 XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights