DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on April 22, 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
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, a finger (claim 4 line 2) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. [0054] of the specification states “In certain embodiments, not shown in the Figures, the gasket 140 comprises a sheet and a finger or L-shaped projection, wherein the sheet portion is located in the void 116 with a uniform thickness.” 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 line 5 and claim 11 line 5: “a first surface the vertical leg” should be “a first surface of the vertical leg”
Claim 5 line 1 and claim 15 line 1: “wherein the void closer to the bottom end” should be “wherein the void is closer to the bottom end”
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt (GB 2397311) in view of Kuiper (NL 9400938).
Regarding claim 1, Platt teaches a wall molding (fig 7) for a suspended ceiling attached to a wall, the wall molding (fig 7) comprising: a vertical leg (27) having a top end and opposite bottom end, and a wall gasket (43) projecting outward from the second surface; a horizontal leg (28, fig 4) projecting outward from the bottom end of the vertical leg (27) at a substantially ninety-degree angle, the horizontal leg (28) having a top surface and opposite bottom surface, and a terminal end opposite the bottom end; wherein the gasket (43) is adapted to create an air-tight seal between the wall molding and the wall when the wall molding is attached to the wall (air tight seal between 21 and 23 in fig 8).
Platt does not teach a polygonal shape creating an apex on a first surface of the vertical leg and a corresponding void in a second surface opposite the first surface.
Kuiper teaches a polygonal shape creating an apex (8, fig 3) on a first surface of the vertical leg and a corresponding void (11) in a second surface opposite the first surface.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the wall molding of Platt with an apex and void seen in Kuiper to ensure a good seal in the ceiling (Kuiper, Abstract third sentence).
Regarding claim 11, Platt teaches a ceiling system for a cleanroom (fig 1), the ceiling system (fig 1) comprising: a beam (23) attached to a wall molding (22), the wall molding (22) comprising: a vertical leg (27, fig 7) having a top end and opposite bottom end, and a wall gasket (43) projecting outward from the second surface; a horizontal leg (28, fig 4) projecting outward from the bottom end of the vertical leg (27) at a substantially ninety-degree angle, the horizontal leg (28) having a top surface and opposite bottom surface, and a terminal end opposite the bottom end; wherein the gasket (43) is adapted to create an air-tight seal between the wall molding and the wall when the wall molding is attached to the wall (air tight seal between 21 and 23 in fig 8).
Platt does not teach a polygonal shape creating an apex on a first surface the vertical leg and a corresponding void in a second surface opposite the first surface.
Kuiper teaches a polygonal shape creating an apex (8, fig 3) on a first surface of the vertical leg and a corresponding void (11) in a second surface opposite the first surface.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the wall molding of Platt with an apex and void seen in Kuiper to ensure a good seal in the ceiling (Kuiper, Abstract third sentence).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Platt as modified teaches the wall molding described above, further comprising: a beam gasket (33, fig 4) projecting upward from the top surface.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Platt as modified teaches the wall molding described above, wherein the wall gasket (43, fig 7) is a sheet, semi-circular shape, L-shape, finger, or combination thereof (pg 9 line 28, sheet used to create the beam).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Platt as modified teaches the wall molding described above, wherein the wall gasket (43, fig 7) is a combination of a sheet (pg 9 line 28, sheet used to create the beam) and a finger (43 is flexible as seen between figs 7 and 8 and is therefore considered a finger).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Platt as modified teaches the wall molding described above.
Kuiper in the modification teaches wherein the void (11, fig 3) is closer to the bottom end than the top end of the vertical leg.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Platt as modified teaches the wall molding described above; the wall gasket (43, fig 7).
Kuiper in the modification teaches the void (11, fig 3).
Although Platt and Kuiper do not teach the wall gasket is located within the void, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to put the wall gasket within the void to ensure a good seal in the ceiling.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Platt as modified teaches the wall molding described above, wherein the vertical leg (27, fig 7) and horizontal leg (28, fig 4) are formed of sheet metal (pg 9 line 28, sheet used to create the beam).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Platt as modified teaches the wall molding described above, wherein the wall gasket (43, fig 7) is a polymer (pg 13 line 19, 43 made of PVC).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Platt as modified teaches the wall molding described above, wherein the beam gasket (33, fig 4) projects in a direction away from the vertical leg (27, fig 7).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Platt as modified teaches the wall molding described above, wherein the beam gasket (33, fig 4) is a polymer (pg 12 line 10, 33 made of PVC).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY P HARRIS whose telephone number is (571) 270-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00am-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, 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.
/ZACHARY P HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
