DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-33 are pending.
Claims 25-27 and 31-32 are withdrawn.
Claims 21-24, 28-30 and 33 are addressed on the merits herein.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/16/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 28-30 and 33 is/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.
Re claim 21, claim 21 recites, “the outer edge” in line 4, “the length” in line 5, “the interior edge” in line 8 and “the interior edge” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language refers to, “an outer edge,” “a length,” “an interior edge” and “an interior edge” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 28, claim 28 recites, “the configuration” in the 4th to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language refers to, “a configuration” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 28 recites, “the decorative surfaces of the first and second wall panels to be in close or direct proximity to one other” in the last two lines. The phrase, “close or direct proximity” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close or direct proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is “close” to one of ordinary skill may not be to another and thus, the scope of the claim is unclear. Moreover, “direct proximity” appears illogical. “Direct” would appear to indicate nothing in between, yet “proximity” would appears to indicate a feature is near to another. It is not readily apparent how the decorative surfaces could be directly near to each other. For the purposes of this examation, this language will be interpreted as the decorative surfaces being proximate to each other.
Re claim 29, claim 29 recites, “the outer edge” in line 6 and “the length” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language refers to, “an outer edge” and “a length” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 30, claim 30 recites, “the outer edge” in line 6 and “the length” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language refers to, “an outer edge” and “a length” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 33, claim 33 recites, “the outer edge” in line 5, “the length” in line 6, “the interior edge” in line 9, “the interior edge” in line 10 and “the further wall panels” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language refers to, “an outer edge,” “a length,” “an interior edge,” “an interior edge” and “the further wall panel” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 22-24, 33 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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) 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Anderson (US 2,831,222).
Re claim 21, Anderson discloses a panel connector clip (PCC) (Fig. 1) comprising: a front extension portion (21), a back extension portion (20) and a tongue portion (15-18), said front extension portion (21) connected to (Fig. 1, Fig. 3) and colinear to (Fig. 1, Fig. 3; notably, Fig. 1 does not include humps 25-27, and Fig. 3 shows that 20 and 21 are colinear absent those humps) said back extension portion (20), said tongue portion (15-18) projecting downward (Fig. 1) at a right angle (at 15) from the front extension portion (21), the outer edge (18) of the tongue portion (15-18) extending parallel to (Fig. 1, Fig. 3) and along the length of (18 extends from right to left, along the length of 21) said front extension portion (21), said PCC (Fig. 1) adapted to run along a vertical axis (of 31, as this is a statement of intended use) of a wall (31) and mechanically (38) fastenable (via 38) directly to (Fig. 4a) the wall (31), the interior edge (inner edge of 21 at the bottom surface thereof) of the front extension portion (21) and the interior edge (top surface of 16) of the tongue portion (15-18) having a profile (Fig. 1, Fig. 6) that mates and connects to (Fig. 6) a first or second vertical edge or a first or second horizontal edge (of 32) of a first wall panel (32) having a profile (of 45 directly above 47) with a first portion (the wall directly above 47) capable of being disposed between (Fig. 4-5) the front extension portion (21) and the tongue portion (15-18) of the PCC (Fig. 1); the back extension portion (20) having a profile (Fig. 1, bottom surface of 20) that mates and connects to (Fig. 5-6) a second wall panel (another 32) having a second vertical edge or a second horizontal edge profile (top edge of 32, per Fig. 4) configured to rest on (Fig. 4) the back extension portion (20) of the PCC (Fig. 1), wherein the first wall panel (32) and the second wall panel (another 32) are connectable to each other by push click (Fig. 4-5), and wherein the tongue portion (15-18) of the PCC (Fig. 1) keeps the first wall panel (32) locked to (as a result of the clip being disposed directly between the tongue/groove profile of adjacent 32s) the wall (31).
Re claim 22, Anderson discloses the PCC of claim 21 comprised of wood, plastic, PVC, extruded aluminum, or stamped (Col 2 lines 66-71) metal (Col 2 lines 25-27).
Re claim 23, Anderson discloses the PCC of claim 21 which is 3D printed (as this language is product by process).
It should further be noted that the language “3D printed” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 24, Anderson discloses the PCC of claim 21 fabricated with openings (23, 24) for mechanical fasteners (38).
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) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig et al (“Koenig”) (US 5,444,953) in view of Donaldson et al (“Donaldson”) (US 4,947,608).
Re claim 28 in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 above, Koenig discloses an inside corner molding (10), said inside corner molding (10) having two adjoining sides (11, 21) forming a right angle (Fig. 2), each of the adjoining sides (11, 12) adapted to run vertically along the length of (Fig. 4-5), and mechanically fastenable to (Fig. 5) one or two adjoining corner walls (49, 49’), wherein the first adjoining side (11) of the inside corner molding (10) is adapted to connect to a first wall panel (49) comprising an inner core (49) with a decorative surface (48) attached to one side (Fig. 5), said one side (Fig. 5, at 48) furthest away from (Fig. 5) the first adjoining side (11) of the inside corner molding (10);
and the second adjoining side (21) of the inside corner molding (10) is adapted to connect to a second wall panel (49’), said second wall panel (49’) comprising an inner core (49’) with a decorative surface (48’) attached to one side (of 48’) and having a first vertical edge profile (edge of 48’) to fit flush within (Fig. 5) the second adjoining side (21) of the inside corner molding (10);
wherein a tongue portion (30, 36) of the inside corner molding (10) extends from (Fig. 5) the first adjoining side (11) of the inside corner molding (10), and wherein the configuration (Fig. 1) of the first (11) and second adjoining sides (21) and the tongue portion (30, 36) of the inside corner molding (10) allows the decorative surfaces (48, 48’) of the first and second wall panels (49, 49’) to be in close or direct proximity to (48 and 48’ are proximate each other, as interpreted under 35 USC 112 above; language such as “directly adjacent” would overcome this interpretation, as 30 is disposed therebetween) one another (Fig. 1) without any visible grout, caulking or sealant (Fig. 1; as 36 is utilized to simulate grout, and as Col 5 lines 11-17 stats that caulk is optional, thus disclosing no grout, caulking or sealant),
but fails to disclose said first wall panel having a first vertical edge with a groove profiled within the inner core, the tongue portion parallel to the first adjoining side of the inside corner molding and insertable into the groove profiled into the inner core of the first vertical edge of the first wall panel, the first vertical edge below the tongue portion of the first adjoining side.
However, Donaldson discloses said first wall panel (30) having a first vertical edge (bottom of 32; see also the edge of Koenig) with a groove (56) profiled within the inner core (32), the tongue portion (42) parallel to (Fig .4) the first adjoining side (46) of the inside corner molding (40) and insertable into (Fig. 4) the groove (56) profiled into the inner core (30) of the first vertical edge (bottom of 32) of the first wall panel (30), the first vertical edge (bottom of 32; as utilized with Koenig above) below (Fig. 4, when utilized with Koenig, the tongue portion 42 would be below the first adjoining side) the tongue portion (42) of the first adjoining side (46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inside corner molding of Koenig with said first wall panel having a first vertical edge with a groove profiled within the inner core, the tongue portion parallel to the first adjoining side of the inside corner molding and insertable into the groove profiled into the inner core of the first vertical edge of the first wall panel, the first vertical edge below the tongue portion of the first adjoining side as disclosed by Donaldson in order to aid in aligning the panel and corner molding, and to preclude movement of the panels and resist displacement thereof (Col 2 lines 1-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 29-30 and 33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues that portions 16-17, 18 and 21 are not collinear to Anderson’s back extension portion 20. It is agreed that this is the case inasmuch as at least 16-18 are not colinear with 20. However, in view of the alternative interpretation of the cited elements of Anderson in the above, 20 and 21 are colinear to each other, one being the back extension portion and the other being the front extension portion. In the interest of clarity and explanation, it is noted that Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 are drawn to separate embodiments. Fig. 1 is disclosed as the clip in its most basic form, absent humps 25-27. The only difference between Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 is inclusion of humps 25-27. It thus follows, that the embodiment of Fig. 1 is akin to the view shown in Fig. 3, absent humps 25-27. Therefore, 20 and 21 are completely collinear to and connected each other.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered.
Regarding claim 28, Applicant argues that the present invention does not require any visible sealant, caulking or grout, and that in contrast, Koenig discloses 34 to simulate a grout line. First, as noted above, Koenig discloses that caulking is entirely optional. Thus, Koenig discloses that there is no visible caulking. Second, Koenig discloses that surface 34, which is part of molding 10, is used to simulate a grout line. It is not itself grout at all. It is not a sealant material. It is simply part of molding 10. Therefore, 34 does not constitute a sealant material, caulking or grout itself. As a result, Koenig discloses that the decorative surfaces 48 and 48’ are proximate to each other without any visible grout, caulking or sealant. As noted in the above rejection, language directed to the decorative surfaces being directly adjacent each other may overcome the above interpretation, as 30 is disposed between the panels.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Koenig teaches away from applicant’s invention, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Koenig discloses the features about which Applicant argues, as addressed above.
Applicant’s argument concerning Donaldson, inasmuch as it applies to claim 28, have been considered. Applicant’s arguments pertain to the notion that Donaldson does not disclose the lack of visible grout, sealant or caulking. Donaldson is not relied upon disclosing these features, rendering the arguments moot.
In addition, Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Koenig with Donaldson’s groove profiled into the inner core for receipt of the tongue portion. Applicant argues that claim 28 requires that the tongue portion extends from the first adjoining side and is parallel thereto. Applicant argues that rib element 35 of Koenig is not parallel to 11, but inclined thereto. Applicant argues that such a modification would destroy the simulated grout line. First, a person of ordinary skill would add the tongue and groove portion of Donaldson into Koenig for the reasons stated above. Second, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As noted above, the combined teachings of Koenig and Donaldson would have suggested use of a tongue portion extending parallel to the adjoining side and extending into the groove of the inner core.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 29-30 and 33 are rendered moot in view of the indication of allowable subject matter above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights