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 .
Status of Claims
The present application is said to be a CON of Application No. 18/545,836. Claims 1-19 are pending and subject to examination in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 appears to contain a typographical error and should be amended as follows: --wherein the gasket is adhesively attached to the peripheral edge of the ceiling panel with an acrylic adhesive--.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 16 (last limitation), the term “the entire ceiling panel” is recited. This term lacks proper antecedent basis. In this regard, the Examiner suggests reciting “an entirety of the ceiling panel”.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the phrase “at least 40 percent” is recited. In this regard, the term “at least” implies the recited percentage or more. Because no upper limit is recited, this phrase renders the claims ambiguous.
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 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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Clunn (U.S. Patent No. 4,967,530).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 16, Clunn describes a gasketed ceiling system comprising:
a plurality of grid support members (12, 14, 50; Figs. 1-3 and 5) arranged to collectively define a plurality of grid openings (Fig. 1);
a plurality of ceiling panels (22) positioned in the grid openings (Figs. 1-3 and 5), each ceiling panel comprising:
a plurality of peripheral edges (28) collectively defining a perimeter;
a resilient gasket (46) comprising one or more pieces extending perimetrically around the entire ceiling panel to form a continuous air-leakage resistant barrier at an interface between the plurality of grid support members and the ceiling panel (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, wherein the gasket isolates an air plenum formed above the ceiling panel from an occupiable space formed below the ceiling panel to form an air leakage resistant seal at the interface between the ceiling panel and the support grid (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, wherein the gasket is formed of polyethylene foam (col. 6, ll. 50-57) having a density between and including four pounds/cubic foot to six pounds/cubic foot (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the gasket is adhesively attached to the peripheral edge ceiling panel with an acrylic adhesive (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the gasket is fixedly attached to the peripheral edge of the ceiling panel by a non-adhesive edge coating material applied first to the peripheral edge beneath the gasket (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the peripheral edge of the ceiling panel has a tegular profile (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the gasket is linearly elongated and extends for an entire length of the peripheral edge of the ceiling panel (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, wherein the ceiling panel compresses the polyethylene foam gasket by at least 40 percent of the uncompressed thickness (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the gasket has an uncompressed thickness no greater than 1/8 inch (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the gasket has an uncompressed thickness of about 1/16 inch (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, wherein the gasket has a compressed thickness of no more than about 1/32 inch (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the gasket is attached to a downward facing load bearing surface on the peripheral edge of the ceiling panel (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the gasket is compressed between the load bearing surface of the ceiling panel and an upward facing second support surface of the grid support member (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the gasket has a rectilinear cross-sectional shape (Figs. 1-3, 5 and 6).
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wood (U.S. Patent No. 3,511,010).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 16, Wood describes a gasketed ceiling system comprising:
a plurality of grid support members (11) arranged to collectively define a plurality of grid openings (Figs. 1-4);
a plurality of ceiling panels (13) positioned in the grid openings (Figs. 1-4), each ceiling panel comprising:
a plurality of peripheral edges (13b) collectively defining a perimeter;
a resilient gasket (15, 17) comprising one or more pieces extending perimetrically around the entire ceiling panel to form a continuous air-leakage resistant barrier at an interface between the plurality of grid support members and the ceiling panel (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, wherein the gasket isolates an air plenum formed above the ceiling panel from an occupiable space formed below the ceiling panel to form an air leakage resistant seal at the interface between the ceiling panel and the support grid (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, wherein the gasket is formed of polyethylene foam (col. 3, ll. 28-40) having a density between and including four pounds/cubic foot to six pounds/cubic foot (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the gasket is adhesively attached to the peripheral edge ceiling panel with an acrylic adhesive (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the gasket is fixedly attached to the peripheral edge of the ceiling panel by a non-adhesive edge coating material applied first to the peripheral edge beneath the gasket (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the peripheral edge of the ceiling panel has a tegular profile (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the gasket is linearly elongated and extends for an entire length of the peripheral edge of the ceiling panel (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, wherein the ceiling panel compresses the polyethylene foam gasket by at least 40 percent of the uncompressed thickness (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the gasket has an uncompressed thickness no greater than 1/8 inch (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the gasket has an uncompressed thickness of about 1/16 inch (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, wherein the gasket has a compressed thickness of no more than about 1/32 inch (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the gasket is attached to a downward facing load bearing surface on the peripheral edge of the ceiling panel (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the gasket is compressed between the load bearing surface of the ceiling panel and an upward facing second support surface of the grid support member (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the gasket has a rectilinear cross-sectional shape (Figs. 1-4).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Please be advised that a web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,866,937.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the structural elements recited in the rejected claims are present in the noted claims of the '937 patent or they are obvious variants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Refer to the attached Form PTO-892.
Authorization for Email Communication – In the event Applicant wishes to communicate with the Examiner via electronic mail, written authorization should be provided in Applicant’s next response. See MPEP § 502.03. The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by Applicant:
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, we hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with any authorized representative concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. We understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY MINTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7327. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 0730 - 1630 EDT.
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 on 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.
/RODNEY MINTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
