DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/100,630. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 07/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are pending.
Claim 3 and 4 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Cipriani (WO 2019/111150) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cipriani in view of Quesada et al. (WO 2022167703)
Regarding claim 1, Cipriani discloses an improved wedge system of the type used with tiles and a bedding material for creating a tiled surface having an array of the tiles arranged in substantially coplanar side-by-side evenly spaced relation (see figure 1), the wedge system being of the type including:
wedge receivers (#12), each having a substantially planar base element (#16) and a resilient hook element (the element formed by elements #22, #24, and #28) extending from the base element in substantially perpendicular relation (see figure 2), the hook element having an aperture (the aperture between legs #22 and #24) defined therein, each hook element, in use, being disposed in the manner of a tile spacer between a pair of adjacent tiles in an array of the tiles laid in the bedding material (see figure 1), thereby to provide for said substantially even side-by-side spacing of the tiles (see figure 1) and the base element, in use, being disposed beneath the pair of adjacent tiles (see figure 1); and
wedges (#14), each having a clamping surface (#47) and a ribbed gripping surface (#56) oriented in an angular relation to one another (see figures 7 and 8), each wedge, in use, extending through the aperture of a respective receiver (see figure 1) such that:
the pair of adjacent tiles are captured between the base element and the wedge (see figure 1), with the clamping surface of the wedge disposed in coplanar relation to the pair of adjacent tiles (see figure 1);
the gripping surface grips the respective wedge receiver, to resist withdrawal of the wedge from the aperture and maintain the clamped engagement until the bedding material has cured (see figure 1),
wherein the improvement comprises:
the wedge having chamfers (as depicted in figures 5 and 6, the corners where the upper surface #50 meets the side surfaces of the body #46 comprises of rounded chamfers on each side thereof) flanking the gripping surface (see figure 6);
the gripping surface of the wedge having a width less than the width of the wedge (see figure 5, where the gripping surface #56 of the wedge comprises a width less than a width extending between side surfaces of the body #46 of the wedge that form the total width of the wedge);
the hook element having a relative thick bridge (the bridge formed by elements #36, #40, and #38 as depicted in figures 2 and 3) that rigidly connects the legs (see figures 2 and 3) and a resilient, relative thin wall (wall #40 is relatively thin with respect to the bridge and is resilient at #44) that defines one edge (the edge formed by the bottom edge of element #40) of the aperture (see figure 3) and is disposed opposite to and presents towards the planar base element in perpendicular relation (see figure 3), the edge defined by the wall having a central portion (the central-most portion of the edge of figure 2) that is oriented parallel to the base element (see figure 3) and a pair of flanking portions (the portions of the edge of the wall on either side of the central portion, where only portions have been defined and the edge and wall #40 can be separated to include different portions as broadly defined), each extending from the central portion outward and toward the base element (see figure 2), the thickness of the wall being sized to fit between the ribs (see figure 12); and
the wedge, when sectioned perpendicular to the clamping surface and perpendicular to the length of the wedge, having a profile which terminates in a portion that has the shape of the edge defined by the wall (when the wedge of figure 6 is cut in the same cross-section as done in the figure but at some point along the length of the gripping surface #56, such a top surface of the wedge would comprise of a horizontal, flat profile which terminates the top surface of the wedge and which is the same profile as the bottom, horizontal edge of the wall).
Cipriani is considered to comprise of chamfers that flank the gripping surface since the prior art reference of Quesada et al. teaches that such longitudinal recesses #25 on the sides of the gripping surface #22 which comprises of teeth of a wedge #2 can either be flat or curved chamfers and thus the round chamfers of Cipriani are considered to meet such limitations as broadly defined. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the rounded corners of Cipriani as being chamfers as broadly defined and such limitations instead require flat chamfer surfaces, Quesada et al. teach that both round and flat chamfers can be provided at the ends #25 of a gripping surface of a wedge and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided flat chamfers for the corners of the gripping surface of Cipriani, as taught in Quesada et al., in order to provide the wedge with specific aesthetics as needed by the end user, where either of such shapes does not affect the final function or structure of the wedge and such shapes can be used in place of one another, and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed gripping surface flanks was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipriani in view of Quesada et al.
Regarding claim 2, Cipriani discloses, or in the alternative in view of Quesada et al. render obvious, the claimed invention except for the ribs appear arcuate when sighted above the gripping surface in a direction perpendicular to the clamping surface. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Quesada et al., that such wedges #2 of a wedge and wedge receiver system can comprise of arcuate ribs #26 that comprise of a curvature at the top in order to provide a progressive resistance to the advance of the wedge through the wedge receiver, and thus improving sensitivity during application of a thrust force and reduce the risk of premature breakage of the wedge receiver element. See the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2 of the English translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the shape of the ribs of Cipriani to comprise of an arcuate shape, as taught in Quesada et al., in order to reduce the possibility of premature breaking of the wedge receiver during extended use. The wedge of Cipriani in view of Quesada et al. can still be considered to comprise of a profile which terminates in a portion that has a shape of the edge defined by the wall since both Cipriani and Quesada et al. teach of a portion of the wedge which comprises of a flat surface area that can be cut in cross-section and thus match the same flat surface of the edge.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cipriani in view of Raimondi (WO 2011121476), or in the alternative in view of Raimondi and Quesada et al.
Regarding claim 5, Cipriani discloses, or in the alternative in view of Quesada et al. render obvious, the claimed invention except for the use of slider plates being planar and having a slot. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Raimondi, that planar slider plates #4 with slots #18 can be provided in a wedge system between a wedge #3 and wedge receiver #2 in order to provide different spacing dimensions to ensure the tiles are installed level with one another depending on the base which the tiles are installed on. See figures 1 and 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the system of Cipriani to comprise of slider plates that are planar and comprise of a slot, as taught in Raimondi, in order to provide different spacing dimensions for the system to ensure the tiles are installed level with one another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, and 5 have been considered but are moot because Applicant’s amendments to the claims required the use of a different primary reference not previously used to teach such newly added claim limitations.
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 THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635