DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure, including the preliminary amendment filed on 7/24/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending. No claims have been withdrawn, cancelled or added.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 7/24/2024 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
In at least Figure 1, reference character “2” requires a lead line since it does not appear to show or indicate a surface. See 37 CFR 1.84(q), which recites, “[l]ead lines are those lines between the reference characters and the details referred to. Such lines may be straight or curved and should be as short as possible. They must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature indicated. Lead lines must not cross each other. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. Lead lines must be executed in the same way as lines in the drawing.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“aluminium” (publication paragraph [0034]) is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “aluminum”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5, 10, 12 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “”the system” (line 2) is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited “suspension system”. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “the suspension system”.
Claim 1, “one or more protruding wing(s)” is objected to because the parentheses in “wing(s)” are unnecessary. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “one or more protruding wings”. See also claims 3, 5 and 10.
Claim 1, “each carrier profile” (line 5) is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited “plurality of carrier profiles”. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the plurality of carrier profiles”. See similar recitations of “each” in claim 1, line 10, and claims 2 and 14-15, in which the same objection applies but is not repeated for brevity.
Claim 1, “the carrier profiles” (lines 8-9) is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited “plurality of carrier profiles”. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “the plurality of carrier profiles”.
Claim 3, “the wing(s)” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited “one or more protruding [wings]”. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “the one or more protruding wings” or equivalent.
Claim 4, “the wings” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited “one or more protruding [wings]”. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “the one or more protruding wings” or equivalent.
Claim 12, “aluminium” is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “aluminum”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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, “a main runner” (second to last line) and “a carrier profile” (last line) are indefinite because the claims previously recite, “a plurality of main runners” and “a plurality of carrier profiles”, respectively. It is unclear which of the previous plurality of main runners and plurality of carrier profiles the limitations are referring to, respectively. Does applicant intend for “a main runner” to refer to “one of the plurality of main runners” and “a carrier profile” to refer to “one of the plurality of carrier profiles”?
Claim 2, “two parallel wings” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. The claims previously recite protruding wings. It is unclear whether applicant intends for the two parallel wings to refer to and further define the previously recited protruding wings, or to require different/additional wings. As claimed in light of applicant’s specification, the protruding wings and parallel wings appear to be referring to the same wings, which is a double inclusion. Applicant is requested to clarify.
Claim 3, “the attachment clip” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claims previously recite a plurality of attachment clips. Which attachment clip of the plurality of attachment clips is the limitation referring to in the claim? See also claims 5, 12 and 14.
Claim 6, “preferably 0.6 to 2 mm, most preferably 0.8 to 1.2 mm” is indefinite because the phrases "preferably" and “most preferably” each render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). See also claim 12.
Claim 7, “the longitudinal direction of the carrier profile” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that a longitudinal direction is not previously recited in the claims.
Claim 11, the phrase "and/or" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The Office’s preferred verbiage of elements A and B is “at least one of A and B” and not “A and/or B”. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811 at Footnote 1 (PTAB 2014).
Claim 14, “its upper edge” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for “its” to refer to one of the plurality of main runners? The limitation is written in possessive form. The main runners are inanimate objects that are incapable of ownership. Applicant is requested to write out the actual claim element that is represented by “its” and avoid reciting such pronouns.
The remainder of claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected base claim.
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, 7-11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spransy (US 7886496).
Claim 1, Spransy provides a suspension system for an acoustic ceiling island platform, wherein the system comprises
a frame layer comprising a plurality of outer carrier profiles (101; at the perimeter; Fig. 1) arranged to form an outer frame (Fig. 1) and a plurality of carrier profiles (101; internal to perimeter carrier profiles 101; Fig. 1) arranged within the outer frame (Fig. 1), wherein each carrier profile has at least a first recess 226,
a tile layer formed from a plurality of main runners 210 arranged below the plurality of carrier profiles arranged within the outer frame (Figs. 1 and 7; note that the claimed “tile layer” does not positively recite a tile, and thus the claim was treated as a tile not being required, but that Spransy nonetheless teaches tiles 104, 106 that could be included in the tile layer; Fig. 1), and
a plurality of attachment clips (316, or alternatively 516, or alternatively portions of 210 engaging slots 322; Fig. 7) connecting the main runners with the carrier profiles (each of the above attachment clips or alternative attachment clips connects the main runners 210 with the carrier profiles 101, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 7),
wherein each attachment clip is connected to a main runner (each of the above attachment clips or alternative attachment clips is connected to a main runner, as carrier profiles 101 are connected to main runners 210 and each attachment clip nonetheless forms part of the assembled final product; Fig. 7) and comprises one or more protruding wing(s) (left and right wings of 316, or alternatively left and right sides of 516, or alternatively left and right portions of 210 engaging slots 322; Fig. 7) positioned in the first recess of a carrier profile (each of the above attachment clips or alternative attachment clips is positioned in the first recess of a carrier profile; Fig. 7).
Claim 2, Spransy further provides wherein each attachment clip comprises two parallel wings engaged with the first recess (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, portions of 210 engaging slots 322 are each positioned horizontally and thus are parallel to one another, and are each engaged with the first recess at portion 322; Fig. 7).
Claim 3, Spransy further provides wherein a width of the wing(s) of the attachment clip substantially corresponds to a width of the first recess of the carrier profile (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “corresponds to” to mean “have a close similarity to”, attachment clips 516, or alternatively the portions of 210 installed in slots 322 reasonably correspond to or have a close similarity to a width of the first recess of the carrier profile; Fig. 7).
Claim 4, Spransy further provides wherein the wings are chamfered (the wings on 516 are chamfered; Fig. 7).
Claim 5, Spransy further provides wherein the attachment clip comprises a flat body (flat horizontal portion of 316; Fig. 7), and the one or two protruding wing(s) is/are protruding perpendicularly to the flat body (the protruding wings are each protruding upwardly and perpendicularly with respect to the horizontal portion; Fig. 7).
Claim 7, Spransy further provides wherein the first recess extends along the longitudinal direction of the carrier profile (Fig. 7).
Claim 8, Spransy further provides wherein the first recess is configured for holding a nut or a head of a bolt (nut 516).
Claim 9, Spransy further provides wherein each attachment clip comprises a clip opening configured for receiving a shank of a bolt (each of the above attachment clips or alternative attachment clips has an opening suitable to receive a shank of a bolt, as shown in Fig. 7).
Claim 10, Spransy further provides wherein the protruding wing(s) and the clip opening are positioned along a straight line (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the above attachment clips or alternative attachment clips have protruding wings and an opening that are positioned along a straight line, generally in the vertical direction as shown in Fig. 7, as exceedingly broadly claimed).
Claim 11, Spransy further provides wherein at least some of the plurality of carrier profiles arranged within the outer frame have a second recess 220 opposite and/or parallel to the first recess (opposite to the first recess; Fig. 7).
Claim 13, Spransy further provides wherein each main runner at a lower edge comprises flanges configured for carrying ceiling tiles (flanges on 210 for carrying ceiling tiles 104, 106).
Claim 15, Spransy provides an acoustic ceiling island platform comprising the suspension system according to claim1 (see rejection of claim 1 as above) and ceiling tiles (104, 106) carried by the main runners (note that the main runners was treated as referring to the plurality of main runners; Fig. 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spransy (US 7886496).
Claim 6, Spransy teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as above. Spransy does not teach wherein the flat body has a thickness of 0.4 to 3 mm, preferably 0.6 to 2 mm, most preferably 0.8 to 1.2 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the flat body to have a thickness of 0.4 to 3 mm, preferably 0.6 to 2 mm, most preferably 0.8 to 1.2 mm, with the reasonable expectation of success of forming the flat body of a known material having a thickness that permits the flat body to have a strength sufficient to permit the flat body to hold the wings that push against the inside walls of 210 (col. 6, lines 58-60), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spransy (US 7886496) in view of Underkofler (US 9938718).
Claim 12, Spransy teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Spransy does not specify the material of the attachment clip being plastic or metal, preferably steel or aluminium. However, Underkofler teaches a suspension system comprising an attachment clip 13 being made of metal, preferably steel (col. 2, lines 65-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the attachment clip to be made of metal, preferably steel, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known, readily available material to form the attachment clip, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spransy (US 7886496) in view of Price et al. (US 4614072) (‘Price’)
Claim 14, Spransy teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as above. Spransy does not teach wherein each main runner comprises a bulb at its upper edge, the attachment clip being configured to receive said bulb. However, Price teaches a suspension system, wherein each main runner comprises a bulb 33 at its upper edge (Fig. 6E), and an attachment clip 4 being configured to receive said bulb (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the suspension system such that each main runner comprises a bulb at its upper edge, the attachment clip being configured to receive said bulb, with the reasonable expectation of success of utilizing a known shape of an attachment portion of the main runners to attach to an attachment clip to attach to the main runners to the carrier members, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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.
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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635