Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/926,432

A CONTINUOUS LAYOUT RANDOM TILE AND METHOD THEREOF

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 18, 2022
Examiner
HUNTSINGER, PETER K
Art Unit
2682
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Rey Cera Creation Private Limited
OA Round
4 (Final)
28%
Grant Probability
At Risk
5-6
OA Rounds
4y 11m
To Grant
45%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 28% of cases
28%
Career Allow Rate
90 granted / 322 resolved
-34.0% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 11m
Avg Prosecution
59 currently pending
Career history
381
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
9.3%
-30.7% vs TC avg
§103
50.3%
+10.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 322 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Claims 8-11 are currently pending. The previous rejection to claims 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto et al. US Patent 5,751,293 (hereafter “Hasimoto”) and Desai US Publication 2002/0124513 (hereafter “Desai”). Referring to claim 8, Hashimoto discloses obtaining (100) a predetermined size of carpet piece (col. 26, lines 13-19, Also in the case of square or rectangular areas of tiles or carpets each bearing the fractal pattern formed by the fractal pattern generating method according to the present invention, it is also desirable that when such areas are arranged in large numbers, their patterns be continuous with each other between adjacent areas to form a smooth pattern as a whole); obtaining (101) a subset carpet from the predetermined size of carpet piece (col. 22, lines 47-47-48, At first, as shown in FIG. 22A, the coordinates of four apexes of an original square area are set to proper values); creating (103) a design on horizontal and vertical ends of the first and second random faces (Face A and Face B) and obtaining joint-free first and second random faces (Face A and Face B) (col. 14, lines 9-17, if it is in the boundary area RB, it is judged that the stamp area RS spreads across the boundary, and the area flag FB is set); after completion of creating (103) the design on the horizontal and vertical ends, creating (104) a design on a middle part of each random face (Face A and Face B), wherein the design on the middle part is created based on the joint-free first and second random faces obtained by the creating step (103) (col. 14, lines 61-65, This is followed by step S18 wherein the center coordinates (Xc, Yc) are randomly generated in the inner area RI in FIG. 13B and steps S6 through S9 are repeated, by which pixel values read out of all the addresses are written into the data memory 18 in exactly the same way as described above). While Hashimoto discloses creating faces from the subset carpet, Bittner does not disclose expressly that Face A and Face B are configured uni-directionally as per an indicator mark. Desai discloses wherein each of the first and second random faces (Face A and Face B) comprises an indicator mark at a rear side thereof (paragraph 23, Further, it should be understood that the present descriptions are based upon a tile's pile direction, which represent, for example with carpet tiles, the direction that the yarn leans as a result of manufacturing. As with other types of tile materials, the pile direction may be understood to represent an identifiable or pre-marked direction either by marking the underside of the tile with a directional arrow or in another like manner); the first and second random faces (Face A and Face B) are configured uni-directionally as per the indicator mark in each of the first and second random faces (Face A and Face B) to obtain a joint-free homogeneous single piece layout (paragraph 24, By configuring each tile so that it can only interface on either side with a specific tile within the series when the pile is properly oriented, the tiles within each series may be placed on a floor surface in only one correct order); the first and second random pieces (Face A and Face B) are configured to be movable in a horizontal as well a vertical direction, irrespective of an orientation of their faces as per the indicator marks to obtain the joint-free homogenous single piece layout (paragraph 25, In further accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention, each tile within the series has at least one side capable of interfacing with at least one tile within another series in order to have adjoining rows of series of tiles). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design faces of a tile to be positioned uni-directionally as per an indicator mark. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an aesthetically pleasing flooring that does not result in visible seams after installation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Desai with Hashimoto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8. Referring to claim 9, Desai discloses wherein each face (Face A and Face B) is designed to match continuously with a face of another work piece (Face A and Face B) laid unidirectionally as per the indicator mark (paragraph 25, In further accordance with a preferred embodiment of the present invention, each tile within the series has at least one side capable of interfacing with at least one tile within another series in order to have adjoining rows of series of tiles). Referring to claim 10, Hashimoto discloses wherein the creating the design on the horizontal and vertical ends of the first and second random faces comprises: first designing the first and second faces (Face A and Face B) so that the first and second random faces (Face A and Face B) have ends both horizontally and vertically which enable the first and second faces to become joint-free (col. 14, lines 9-17, if it is in the boundary area RB, it is judged that the stamp area RS spreads across the boundary, and the area flag FB is set) (col. 26, lines 55-60, Hence, in order that not only the pixel value but also its rate of change may smoothly vary across the boundary of adjacent areas, it is necessary to calculate pixel values, taking into account information on adjacent patterns in the division procedure in the fractal generation), and wherein the creating the design on the middle part of each random face comprises: after the first designing the first and second faces, second designing a middle part of each of the first and second faces in consideration of a look of the carpet piece (col. 14, lines 61-65, This is followed by step S18 wherein the center coordinates (Xc, Yc) are randomly generated in the inner area RI in FIG. 13B and steps S6 through S9 are repeated, by which pixel values read out of all the addresses are written into the data memory 18 in exactly the same way as described above). Referring to claim 11, Hashimoto discloses wherein: the first designing comprises: designing the first and second faces (Face A and Face B), and third and fourth faces so that the first through fourth faces have ends both horizontally and vertically which enable the first through fourth faces to become joint free (col. 30, lines 59-64, In the fractal patterns generated as described above, not only the pixel value but also its rate of change smoothly continue across the boundaries of tiles; therefore, the fractal patterns are free from undesirable pattern changes at the boundary area due to discontinuity of the rate of change of the pixel value such as shown in FIGS. 29A and 29B), and the second designing comprises: designing a middle part of each of the first through fourth faces in consideration of a look of the carpet piece (col. 14, lines 61-65, This is followed by step S18 wherein the center coordinates (Xc, Yc) are randomly generated in the inner area RI in FIG. 13B and steps S6 through S9 are repeated, by which pixel values read out of all the addresses are written into the data memory 18 in exactly the same way as described 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 PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00. 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, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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. /PETER K HUNTSINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 18, 2022
Application Filed
Nov 18, 2022
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 03, 2025
Response Filed
Jun 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 14, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 23, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12540884
Determining Fracture Roughness from a Core
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12412381
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR CONTROLLING OPERATION OF WIRELINE CABLE SPOOLING EQUIPMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Sep 09, 2025
Patent 12387360
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR ESTIMATING UNCERTAINTY OF IMAGE COORDINATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 12, 2025
Patent 12388943
PRINTING SYSTEM USING FLUORESENT AND NON-FLUORESENT INK, PRINTING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 12, 2025
Patent 12374081
DIGITAL IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNIQUES USING BOUNDING BOX PRECISION MODELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jul 29, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
28%
Grant Probability
45%
With Interview (+16.7%)
4y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 322 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month