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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Hanuschak (US Pub. 2024/0247485 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hanuschak discloses a surface covering system comprising:
a grille assembly comprising: a plurality of first cross-backer beams, each of the first cross-backer beams extending along a first cross-beam axis (Fig. 36, support members 2b) and comprising:
a first top surface; a first bottom surface; and a first height measured from the first bottom surface to the first top surface (Fig. 36, support members have top and bottom surfaces);
a plurality of second cross-backer beams, each of the second cross-backer beams extending along a second cross-beam axis and comprising: a second top surface; a second bottom surface; and a second height measured from the second bottom surface to the second top surface, the second height greater than the first height (Fig. 36 at least two pluralities of support members 2b are shown);
the first and second cross-backer beams arranged in a spaced apart manner, the first and second cross-backer beams oriented so that the first and second cross-beam axes are substantially parallel with one another (Fig. 36, support members 2b are spaced apart and parallel);
a plurality of slats mounted to the first and second cross-backer beams, each of the slats extending along a slat axis from a first end to a second end and comprising vertically oriented first and second major surfaces, a bottom edge extending between the first and second major surfaces, and a top edge extending between the first and second major surfaces (Fig. 36, panels 30);
and the grille assembly configured to be mounted to a support structure (Pg. 1, [0002]: “One type of ceiling system includes ceiling panels or tiles that are installed in a support grid or grille which may be suspended from or directly installed to a suitable overhead building support structure. Such ceiling systems may be designed to partially or completely conceal the support grid from view but may be difficult to install uniformly" Therefore, an improved mounting hardware to be used to improve use installation”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanuschak (US Pub. 2024/0247485 A1) in view of Jahn (US Pat. 5,241,799).
Regarding claim 1, Hanuschak discloses a surface covering system comprising:
a grille assembly comprising: a plurality of slats arranged substantially parallel to one another, each of the slats extending along a slat axis from a first end to a second end and comprising vertically oriented first and second major surfaces (Fig. 36, panels 30), a bottom edge extending between the first and second major surfaces, and a top edge extending between the first and second major surfaces (Fig. 36, panels 30 are rectangular in cross-section);
a plurality of cross-backer beams, each of the cross-backer beams: extending along a cross-beam axis (Fig. 36, support members 2b); oriented so that the cross-beam axis extends substantially perpendicular to the slat axes of the slats (Fig. 36, panels 30 and support members 2b are perpendicular to one another); and coupled to each of the slats (Fig. 36, mounting flanges 10 indirectly couple the components together);
the cross-backer beams spaced apart from one another along the slat axes of the slats to form a plurality of bays between adjacent ones of the cross-backer beams (See Fig. 36);
the grille assembly configured to be mounted to a support structure (Pg. 1, [0002]: “One type of ceiling system includes ceiling panels or tiles that are installed in a support grid or grille which may be suspended from or directly installed to a suitable overhead building support structure. Such ceiling systems may be designed to partially or completely conceal the support grid from view but may be difficult to install uniformly" Therefore, an improved mounting hardware to be used to improve use installation”).
However, Hanuschak fails to disclose as taught by Jahn, similarly drawn to a ceiling panel structure, a plurality of primary angled backer beams, each of the primary angled backer beams: extending along a primary angled beam axis from a proximal end to a distal end; positioned within one of the bays and oriented so that the primary angled beam axis extends obliquely to the slat axes of the slats; and coupled to the slats (Fig. 1, lay-in panel structure 40 is diagonal with respect to runners 43, 44).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface covering system of Hanuschak to include the primary angled backer beams of Jahn for improved bracing and resistance to lateral forces.
Regarding claim 2, Hanuschak in view of Jahn discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Jahn, wherein, for each of the primary angled backer beams, the distal end of the primary angled backer beam abuts a first one of the cross-backer beams and the proximal end of the primary angled backer beam abuts a second one of the cross-backer beams (Fig. 1, lay-in panel structure 40 abuts against runners 44).
Regarding claim 3, Hanuschak in view of Jahn discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Jahn, wherein the primary angled backer beams are oriented so that the primary angled beam axes are substantially parallel to one another (Fig. 1, subsequent diagonal beams of lay-in panel structure 40 are parallel to one another).
Regarding claim 4, Hanuschak in view of Jahn discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Hanuschak, wherein each of the primary angled backer beams overlies and is fastened to at least two of the slats (It is an obvious modification of Hanuschak to fasten the primary angled backer beams of Jahn to the slats of Hanuschak for improved structural integrity).
Regarding claim 5, Hanuschak in view of Jahn discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Hanuschak, the grille assembly further comprising: a plurality of secondary angled backer beams; and each of the secondary angled backer beams: extending along a secondary angled beam axis from a proximal end to a distal end; positioned within one of the bays in which one of the primary angled backer beams is also located; oriented so that the secondary angled beam axis extends obliquely to the slat axes of the slats and obliquely to the primary angled beam axis of the primary angled backer beam in the same bay; and fastened to the slats (Fig. 36, lay-in panel structure 40 comprises a second beam oriented obliquely with respect to a first beam).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanuschak (US Pub. 2024/0247485 A1) in view of Jahn (US Pat. 5,241,799), and further in view of Carey (US Pat. 4,545,165).
Regarding claim 7, Hanuschak in view of Jahn discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Carey, similarly drawn to a ceiling grid system, a grid assembly configured to be mounted to the support structure; and the grille assembly configured to be mounted to the grid assembly; wherein the grille assembly is mounted to the beams of the grid assembly by coupling the cross-backer beams to beams of the grid assembly (Fig. 1, grid assembly comprising latitudinal louvers 6A and longitudinal louvers 6B rests on top of rails 1A, 1B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface covering system of Hanuschak in view of Jahn to include the grid of Carey for aesthetic purposes.
Claim(s) 15-16, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanuschak (US Pub. 2024/0247485 A1) in view of Verlinde (US Pub. 2024/0151030 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Hanuschak discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Verlinde, similarly drawn to a ceiling panel support system, wherein each of the second cross-backer beams comprises a plurality of second notches formed in the second bottom surface (Pg. 2, [0024]: “Although the top surface of the securing member may be smooth, the top surface of the securing member may be stepped and may include at least one of notches, grooves and teeth. Where parallel arms are provided, separated by the space for the leg, both arms may be provided with the same form of step, such as notch, groove and teeth. The resulting ridges ensure that the securing member remains in place and is more difficult to remove. The mounting bracket and bracket clip engage the ridges so that the bracket clip cannot be squeezed together which could enable it to detach from a supporting carrier”), each of the second notches having a second depth measured from the second bottom surface to second floor surfaces of the second notches (Each notch has a depth);
and the slats mounted to the second cross-backer beams so that top portions of the slats nest in the second notches so that the top edges of slats contact the second floor surfaces (Fig. 1, baffles 10 are received by notches in carriers 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface covering system of Hanuschak to include the notches of Verlinde to allow for a more secure engagement means between the two components.
Regarding claim 16, Hanuschak in view of Verlinde discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each of the slats has a third height measured from the bottom edge to the top edge; and wherein a ratio of the second depth to the third height is equal to or greater than 0.35:1. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to indicate the prescribed ratio of notch size to slat height to allow for adequate engagement between the slats and the cross-backer beams, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 24, Hanuschak in view of Verlinde discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Hanuschak, wherein the top surfaces of the second cross-backer beams and the top surfaces of the first cross-backer beams are substantially coplanar (Fig. 36, all components are roughly in-line with each other).
Regarding claim 25, Hanuschak in view of Verlinde discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Verlinde, wherein each of the second cross-backer beams comprises a plurality of second notches formed in the second bottom surface, each of the second notches having a second depth measured from the second bottom surface to second floor surfaces of the second notches (Pg. 2, [0024]: “Although the top surface of the securing member may be smooth, the top surface of the securing member may be stepped and may include at least one of notches, grooves and teeth. Where parallel arms are provided, separated by the space for the leg, both arms may be provided with the same form of step, such as notch, groove and teeth. The resulting ridges ensure that the securing member remains in place and is more difficult to remove. The mounting bracket and bracket clip engage the ridges so that the bracket clip cannot be squeezed together which could enable it to detach from a supporting carrier”);
and the slats mounted to the second cross-backer beams so that top portions of the slats nest in the second notches so that the top edges of slats contact the second floor surfaces (Fig. 1, baffles 10 are received by notches in carriers 12).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanuschak (US Pub. 2024/0247485 A1) in view of Verlinde (US Pub. 2024/0151030 A1), and further in view of Carey (US Pat. 4,545,165).
Regarding claim 23, Hanuschak in view of Verlinde discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Carey, similarly drawn to a ceiling grid system, a grid assembly comprising beams, the grid assembly configured to be mounted to the support structure; andthe grille assembly configured to be mounted to the grid assembly by coupling the first cross-backer beams to the beams of the grid assembly (Fig. 1, grid assembly comprising latitudinal louvers 6A and longitudinal louvers 6B rests on top of rails 1A, 1B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surface covering system of Hanuschak in view of Verlinde to include the grid of Carey for aesthetic purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6, 8, 10-13, 21-22 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights