DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the amendment filed on 4/29/2026. Currently, claims 1-18 are pending. No claims have been withdrawn. No claims have been cancelled. New claims 16-18 have been added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 3/19/2026 is being considered.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed on 4/29/2026 are acceptable for examination.
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 1-18 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 plurality of carrier profiles” (line 5) is indefinite because the claim previously recites a plurality of carrier profiles (line 3). It is unclear whether applicant intends for the carrier profiles in line 5 to be the same or different than the carrier profiles recited in line 3. For examination purposes, the carrier profiles in lines 3 and 5 were treated as the same.
Claim 1, “each of the plurality of carrier profiles” (lines 5-6) is indefinite because the claim previously recites two sets carrier profiles. It is unclear which set the limitation is referring to in the claim. The claims go on to refer to “the plurality of carrier profiles” throughout the claim and each recitation is indefinite for the same reason. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language.
Claim 1, “the connector clip” (last line) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim does not previously recite a connector clip. See also claims 3 and 14.
Claim 5, “wherein each of the plurality of attachment clips comprises a flat body, and the one or two protruding wings is/are protruding perpendicularly to the flat body” is indefinite because “the one or two protruding wings” lacks antecedent basis. The claims previously recite, “one or more protruding wings” (claim 1). Further, “is/are” is unclear because the term creates unnecessary ambiguity with respect to the one or more protruding wings. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “wherein each of the plurality of attachment clips comprises a flat body, and each of the one or more protrudes
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) 1-3, 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 suspension system comprises
a frame layer comprising a plurality of carrier profiles (101, 201; Fig. 2), the plurality of carrier profiles comprising plurality of outer carrier profiles (elements 101, 201 form a grid defining an outer perimeter; col. 4, lines 53-67; see generic ceiling grid shown in Fig. 1) arranged to form an outer frame (outer perimeter elements 101, 201 of the grid) and a plurality of carrier profiles (elements 101, 201 internal to perimeter carrier profiles 101, 201) arranged within the outer frame (the internal carrier profiles are located within the outer perimeter of 101, 201 when used to form a ceiling col. 4, lines 53-67), wherein each of the plurality of carrier profiles has at least a first recess (226; see Fig. 7; alternatively recesses in which elements 316 protrude within 101; Fig. 7),
a tile layer formed from a plurality of main runners 210 arranged below the plurality of carrier profiles arranged within the outer frame (Fig. 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 (portions of 210 engaging slots 322; see annotated Fig. 7 of Spransy shown below in Examiner’s Notes; or alternatively a plurality of attachment clips 316 left side and 316 right side, as shown in Fig. 7), wherein each of the plurality of attachment clips is connected to one of the plurality of main runners (the attachment clips are integrally attached to 210; annotated Fig. 7; alternatively 316 left side and 316 right side are connected to main runner 210) and one of the plurality of carrier profiles (the attachment clips are attached to 101 in slots 322; annotated Fig. 7; alternatively, 316 left and 316 right are connected to carrier profile 101), wherein the one of the plurality of main runners extends transverse to the one of the plurality of carrier profiles (“direction of main runner extending transverse to carrier profile”; annotated Fig. 7),
wherein each of the plurality of attachment clips comprises one or more protruding wings (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the attachment clips shown in annotated Fig. 7 constitute protruding wings, as exceedingly broadly claimed; alternatively, 316 left and 316 right each comprises a protruding wing) positioned in the first recess of the carrier profile that the connector clip is connected to (recess 322; annotated Fig. 7; alternatively 316 left and 316 right are each positioned in recesses defined in 101).
Claim 2, Spransy further provides wherein the one or more protruding wings comprises two protruding wings parallel to one another (annotated Fig. 7).
Claim 3, Spransy further provides wherein a width of each of the one or more protruding wings of each of the plurality of attachment clips substantially corresponds to a width of the first recess of the carrier profile that the connector clip is connected to (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of substantially corresponds to, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 7).
Claim 5, Spransy further provides wherein each of the plurality of attachment clips comprises a flat body (annotated Fig. 7), and the one or two protruding wings is/are protruding perpendicularly to the flat body (note that the attachment clips shown in annotated Fig. 7 comprise a flat body at the base and a protruding portion that protrudes upwardly therefrom, as exceedingly broadly claimed).
Claim 7, Spransy further provides wherein the first recess extends along a longitudinal direction of each of the plurality of carrier profiles (Figs. 4-5 and 7 and annotated Fig. 7).
Claim 8, Spransy further provides wherein the first recess is configured for holding a nut or a head of a bolt (under the broadest reasonable interpretation in either the first interpretation or alternate interpretation as above in claim 1, the first recess is suitable to hold closure strip 316, and closure strip 316 constitutes a nut, as threaded bolt passes therethrough, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 7).
Claim 9, Spransy further provides wherein each of the plurality of attachment clips comprises a clip opening configured for receiving a shank of a bolt (under the alternative interpretation of the attachment clips as above in claim 1, the attachment clips 316 left and right define a clip opening configured for receiving a shank of a bolt 522; Fig. 7).
Claim 10, Spransy further provides wherein the one or more protruding wings and the clip opening are positioned along a straight line (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in the alternative interpretation of the attachment clips as above, there are virtually infinite straight lines that are positioned along the one or more protruding wings and the clip opening, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 7).
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, 320 or 226 opposite and parallel to the first recess (Figs. 2 and 7).
Claim 13, Spransy further provides wherein each of the plurality of main runners 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 plurality of main runners (Figs. 2 and 7; annotated Fig. 7 of Spransy shown below in Examiner’s Notes; col. 4, lines 53-67).
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) 4, 6 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spransy (US 7886496).
Claim 4, Spransy teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as above. Spransy does not teach, in the first interpretation or alternative interpretation the one or more protruding wings being chamfered. However, it is known in the art to chamfer surfaces of connecting elements to obtain a better fit against a surface of an element on which the connecting elements are installed. Chamfered edges allow for easier mating with a groove or slot, and reduce scratching and snagging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the one or more protruding wings to be chamfered, with the reasonable expectation of success of making it easier to insert the protruding wing into the first recess, and reduce snagging during installation, since chamfered edges are a known shape, and 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.).
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. 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, 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.
Claims 16-17, Spransy teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as above. Spransy does not teach [claim 16], wherein the flat body has a thickness of 0.6 to 2 mm, or [claim 17] wherein the flat body has a thickness of 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 0.6 to 2 mm, or 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 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spransy (US 7886496) in view of Underkofler (US 9938718).
Claims 12 and 18, Spransy teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Spransy does not specify the material of the attachment clips being plastic or metal, [claim 18] comprising steel or aluminum. However, Underkofler teaches a suspension system comprising an attachment clip 13 being made of metal comprising 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 clips to be made of metal, the metal being 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 1 as above. Spransy does not teach wherein an upper edge of each of the plurality of main runners comprises a bulb, each of the plurality of attachment clips being configured to receive the bulb of the main runner to which the connector clip is connected to. However, Price teaches a suspension system, wherein an upper edge of each of a plurality of main runners comprises a bulb 33, each of a plurality of attachment clips 4 being configured to receive the bulb of the main runner to which the connector clip is connected to (Fig. 4). 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 an upper edge of each of the plurality of main runners comprises a bulb, each of the plurality of attachment clips being configured to receive the bulb of the main runner to which the connector clip is connected to, 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.).
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
726
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of Spransy (US 7886496)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spransy (US 7886496).
Re claim 1, applicant’s arguments are drawn to the amended portions of the claim. As such, the rejection in this Office action has been modified to address the claims as amended. Applicant’s arguments are respectfully drawn to the claims as amended.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-11, 13 and 15 stand or fall with claim 1 as above.
Rejection of claim(s) 4, 6 and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spransy (US 7886496).
Claims 4, 6 and 16-17 stand or fall with claim 1 as above.
Rejection of claim(s) 12 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spransy (US 7886496) in view of Underkofler (US 9938718).
Claims 12 and 18 stand or fall with claim 1 as above.
Rejection of claim(s) 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spransy (US 7886496) in view of Price et al. (US 4614072) (‘Price’).
Claim 14 stands or falls with claim 1 as above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights