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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 9/16/25. Accordingly the application has been amended.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1,10,14,19 recite the phrase "optionally" or “optional” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention causing confusion regarding the scope of the claimed invention.
Accordingly, the claims will be examined as best understood.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-11,17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Krebel (4223505).
Claim 1. Krebel discloses a system for installing tile, the system comprising:
a first support rail (any one of, such as the top, rail 40 as seen in the figures and noted in the annotated figure below) disposed at a first corner of a wall (where the wall necessarily has a beginning and an end and a top and bottom and therefore has an upper corner at each end and the top and a lower corner at each end and the bottom) configured to support a first end of a tile;
a second support rail (any one of, such as the bottom, rail 40 as seen in the figures and noted in the annotated figure below) disposed at a second corner of the wall (where the wall necessarily has a beginning and an end and a top and bottom and therefore has an upper corner at each end and the top and a lower corner at each end and the bottom) and configured to support a second, opposite end of the tile;
optionally a third support rail (any one of, such as the middle, rail 40 as seen in the figures and noted in the annotated figure below) disposed between the first corner and the second corner of the wall (the middle between the upper and lower) configured to support a midportion of the tile;
a corner mounting anchor (4 at 50) configured to mate with the first or second support rail and to temporarily (where the panel is s capable of being removable in the embodiment where construction adhesive is not used, see paragraph 5, lines 54-55 where adhesive is optional) separate the tile from a second tile or from an adjacent surface by a predetermined distance;
a corner anchor lock (one of 18) configured to mate with the corner mounting anchor and compress an edge of the tile towards the first, second support rail (as noted in the figures and disclosure);
at least one edge mounting (one of 4 at 48) anchor configured to mate with the first, second or optional third support rail and to temporarily (where the panel is capable of being removable in the embodiment where construction adhesive is not used, see paragraph 5, lines 54-55 where adhesive is optional) separate the tile from an adjacent tile or surface adjacent to the wall by a second predetermined distance; and
an edge anchor lock (18 or alternatively the other 4 at 48) configured to compress the first or second end of the tile towards the first, second, or optional third support rail.
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the first support rail comprises a corner channel (8) configured to receive the corner mounting anchor.
Claim 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the first support rail comprises a surface channel (8 or the surface between 10) configured to receive the edge mounting anchor.
Claim 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the first support rail comprises an outer surface comprising a plurality of grooves (formed by 10) configured to receive an adhesive.
Claim 5. The system of claim 1, wherein the first support rail comprises an end surface including a plurality of grooves (10) configured to receive an adhesive.
Claim 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the second support rail comprises a corner channel (8) configured to receive the corner mounting anchor.
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the second support rail comprises a surface channel (8 or the surface between 10) configured to receive the edge mounting anchor.
Claim 8. The system of claim 1, wherein the second support rail comprises an outer surface comprising a plurality of grooves (10) configured to receive an adhesive.
Claim 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the second support rail comprises an end surface including a plurality of grooves (10) configured to receive an adhesive.
Claim 10. The system of claim 1, wherein the optional third support rail comprises a surface channel (8 or the surface between 10) configured to receive the edge mounting anchor.
Claim 11. The system of claim 1, wherein:
the first support rail comprises a corner channel configured to receive the corner mounting anchor (as seen in the figures);
the second support rail comprises a corner channel configured to receive the corner mounting anchor (as seen in the figures); and
the corner mounting anchor comprises: a head portion (34) configured to mate with the corner channel of the first or second support rail;
a stem portion (16) disposed opposite the head portion and configured to releasably mate with the corner anchor lock; and
a spacer portion (30) disposed between the head portion and the stem portion and having a predetermined thickness.
Claim 17. The system of claim 1 further comprising at least one support rail mount (14, or alternatively as noted in the annotated figure below) configured to secure the first support rail to a surface.
Claim 18. The system of claim 17 further comprising an anchor (40) configured to secure the first support rail to the at least one support rail mount.
Claim 19. The system of claim 17, wherein the support rail mount comprises: a base portion (14) comprising a mounting hole (at 40) configured to receive a wall anchor; and at least one leg portion (12) extending away from the base portion and optionally including an anchor pilot hole configured to receive a support rail anchor.
Claim 20. The system of claim 17, wherein the first support rail comprises at least one elongated opening (the channel formed by 12 as seen in the cross section of figure 2) configured to enable the first support rail to be secured to the support rail mount in an adjustable manner in a first dimension substantially perpendicular to the surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
670
1105
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krebel (4223505) in view of Russo (20190093372).
Claims 12-16. Krebel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein:
the first support rail comprises a surface channel configured to receive the edge mounting anchor (as seen in the figures);
the second support rail comprises a surface channel configured to receive the edge mounting anchor (as seen in the figures); and
having a head portion (34) configured to mate with the channel of the first or second support rail, and a stem portion disposed opposite the head portion and a spacer (30) portion disposed between the head portion and the stem portion and having a predetermined thickness.
Krebel does not disclose, wherein the corner anchor lock comprises a corner washer and a lock as in claim 12; or wherein the spacer portion extends away from the head portion and is configured to be removed from the head portion (as in claim 13); or wherein the edge mounting anchor comprises:
a stem portion disposed opposite the head portion and configured to releasably mate with the edge anchor lock (as in claim 14); or wherein the edge anchor loc comprises: a body portion including a face configured to contact a tile, and at least one grip portion disposed opposite the face; and
a lock portion extending away from the face and configured to releasably mate with the corner mounting anchor or the edge mounting anchor (as in claim 15); or
wherein the edge anchor lock comprises: a body portion including a face configured to contact a tile; and a lock portion extending away from the face and configured to releasably mate with the edge mounting anchor (as in claim 16).
Krebel does disclose that the panel can be attached to the rails with an adhesive (col. 5, lines 54-60).
Russo discloses a corner or edge mounting anchor including a corner or edge anchor lock configured to compress the tile toward the mounted surface. Russo further discloses the corner lock comprises a corner washer (any of the embodiments of 13,40) and a lock (any of the embodiments of 14,15,48 or the threaded portion of any of 13,40);
an edge mourning anchor comprising a head portion (16), a stem portion (20) as seen in figure 2) opposite the head portion and configured to releasably mate with the edge anchor lock (any of 13) and a spacer portion (18) disposed between the head portion and the stem portion and having a predetermined thickness; and
wherein the edge anchor loc comprises: a body portion including a face configured to contact a tile (as seen in figure 5, where all embodiments of 13 have a face configured to contact a tile), and at least one grip portion (such as 30) disposed opposite the face; and
a lock portion (32) extending away from the face and configured to releasably mate with the corner mounting anchor or the edge mounting anchor (as noted throughout Russo).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to pursue known design options and substitute the corner and edge mounting anchors and locks with the anchors and locks as taught by Russo (and noted above) to achieve the predictable result of a tile system that is installed in a level and flush manner with consistent and even spacing between tiles and supported dead load and where the tiles are secured to the rails and the corner mourning anchor and edge mounting anchor temporarily separate the tile from an adjacent tile or surface adjacent to the wall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive..
Applicant argues that Krebel appears to fail to teach clips that can be removed from the panels after installation. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., clips that can be removed from the panels after installation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Krebel is capable of temporarily separating a tile from a second tile or from an adjacent surface as noted in the rejection above.
Applicant’s argument that the office fails to articulate how the anchors of Krebel can be modified by the teachings of Russo is not persuasive. The Office action clearly substitutes one for the other and does not suggest modifying the anchors of Krebel, but rather modify the system of Krebel to substitute the anchors for the anchors of Russo.
Russo does not teach away as suggested by applicant. A prior art reference does not teach away from claimed subject matter merely by disclosing a different solution to a similar problem unless the prior art also criticizes, discredits or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. Since Russo does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage the solution claimed, the reference does not teach away.
Applicants arguments that substitution of the anchor system of Russo for the clips of Krebel cannot be accomplished is not persuasive. The office does not suggest modify the system of Russo to substitute the anchors for the anchors of Krebel.
As noted in the rejection above, when the tiles of Krebel are attached to the rails with an adhesive, the anchors can be temporarily placed and removed without compromising the permanent installation of Krebel. Thus applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635