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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the shading of the figures does not reproduce well and is hard to differentiate between the different elements as well as the hand labeling being unclear. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the axially displaceable frame elements must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 4, 7, 9, and 12-15 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.
Regarding claim 4: it is unclear how the one or more support frame elements are axially displaceable. Additionally, in what axis are they displaceable?
Regarding claim 7: The term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if any of the limitations following are required by the claim. Those limitations are going to be treated as not required and will be examined accordingly.
Regarding claim 9: It is unclear what “volume density” refers to. Additionally, are there any units of measure?
Regarding claim 12: It is unclear how a ceiling profile element can produce a wall.
Regarding claim 13: The term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if any of the limitations following are required by the claim. Those limitations are going to be treated as not required and will be examined accordingly.
Regarding claim 15: It is unclear how a line feedthrough is “produced” directly beneath a room ceiling. It is assumed the line feedthrough is “installed” beneath the room ceiling and will be examined accordingly.
Additional claims rejected under 35 USC 112 but not addressed are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and failing to further remedy the issue(s).
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)(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) 1-3, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Forg (EP 3736928) .
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Referring to claim 1: Forg teaches a feedthrough box (item 3) to be fastened to the room ceiling, with two opposite open end faces (figure 1) and side walls (items 16 and 17) extending between them, which are open towards the room ceiling and to be closed off by the room ceiling, such that the side walls in a state of the feedthrough box mounted on the room ceiling form together with the room ceiling an axial passage channel, which is closed in a circumferential direction for routing lines through the same (paragraph 0002); and one or more support frame elements (item 32), wherein each of the one or more support frame element is integrally formed or fixed on the side walls of the feedthrough box on an outside thereof, and extends radially outwards in such a way that it forms a substantially planar bearing surface for supporting a wall panel, for example a gypsum board, when a vertical wall, in particular a drywall, is produced or closed off around the feedthrough box (figure 2).
Referring to claim 2: Forg teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Forg teaches the feedthrough box is formed as a single piece (figure 6).
Referring to claim 3: Forg teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Forg teaches the one or more support frame element is integrally formed, with the feedthrough box, or is permanently and immovably fixed thereto in another way (figure 6).
Referring to claim 5: Forg teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Forg teaches the feedthrough box has a U-shaped radial cross-section (figure 6).
Referring to claim 6: Forg teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Forg teaches each of the one or more support frame elements completely surrounds the side walls of the feedthrough box in a radial cross-section (figure 6).
Referring to claim 7: Forg teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Forg teaches at least one elastically deformable sealing closure element (items 22 and 24) which is designed and dimensioned for repeated insertion into the axial passage channel at at least one of the two opposite end faces of the feedthrough box, optionally after the routing lines have been laid, and for tightly closing off the axial passage channel, optionally with the routing lines laid therein.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forg in view of Zimmerman (DE 29617849).
Referring to claim 8: Forg teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Forg does not teach the feedthrough box and/or each of the one or more support frame elements is produced from a porous base material, except for any linings. However, Zimmerman teaches making a feedthrough box out of intumescent foam panels (paragraph 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Forg with the foam material taught by Zimmerman in order to provide a lightweight alternative that is fire resistant.
Claim(s) 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forg.
Referring to claim 11: Forg teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Forg does not specifically teach the device meets predetermined fire-protection requirements. However, Forg teaches at least one of the components comprises or consists of fire-protection additives, intumescent materials, and/or refractory materials; and/or on at least one of the one or more support frame elements, and is designed to seal the axial passage channel and/or a wall opening in an event of a fire, in order to prevent fire propagation (paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that Forg would meet the predetermined requirements based on having intumescent materials.
Referring to claim 13: Forg teaches all the limitations of the device of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Forg teaches fastening the feedthrough box to the room ceiling, such that the side walls of the feedthrough box form an axial passage channel together with the room ceiling, which is closed in a peripheral direction, for passage of routing lines through a vertical wall to be constructed beneath the room ceiling; producing a vertical wall, in particular a drywall, around the feedthrough box by placing and aligning at least one wall panel, in particular a gypsum board, with its wall panel surface directly on the bearing surface of the respective one or more support frame elements, and optionally also on the at least one wall-producing ceiling profile element fastened thereto (figures 1-6 and paragraph 0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that Forg teaches fastening the box to a ceiling and fastening a vertical wall to the box in order to accomplish the intended installation and use of the device of Forg.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 14, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach axially displaceable frame elements, porosity of the base material being created by hollow spheres, and a spacing between the vertical wall edge and a surface of the feedthrough box.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights