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 .
The set of drawings that is labeled “drawings” does not have any reference numbers. You should address this.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton (U.S. Patent No. 5,412,917).
Regarding claim 1, Shelton discloses a floor for sports, comprising panels (19), wherein the plurality of panels (19) are arranged side by side, and the adjacent panels (19) are spliced with each other; keels (12, 18), wherein the keels (12, 18) comprise main keels (12) and secondary keels (18); and the plurality of main keels (12) are arranged side by side at intervals, the plurality of secondary keels (18) are arranged side by side at intervals at the tops of the main keels (12), the secondary keels (18) are arranged in a direction to the main keels (12), and the plurality of panels (19) are arranged at the tops of the secondary keels (18); shock-absorbing pads (16), wherein the shock-absorbing pads (16) are arranged at the bottoms of the main keels (12). Shelton does not disclose the floor as being a wood-plastic composite or that the secondary keels are arranged perpendicular to the main keels. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have flooring system made of any material known and widely used including a composite material such as a wood-plastic composite to save on long term cost and maintenance, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from using an alternatively well-known material. Also, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have oriented the secondary keels in direction or orientation that was suitable to achieve the desired results as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 2, Shelton discloses wherein one side of the panel (19) is provided with an inserting plate (tongue), the other side is provided with a slot (groove), and the inserting plate (tongue) of one panel (19) is inserted into the slot (groove) of the adjacent panel (19).
Regarding claim 3, Shelton discloses a concave part (approximate tongue) is arranged at the bottom of the side of the panel (19) provided with the inserting plate (tongue), an extension part (approximate groove) is arranged at the bottom of the side of the panel (1) provided with the slot (groove), and the concave part of one panel (19) is matched with the extension part of the adjacent panel (19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a wood plastic composite floor for sports comprising a plurality of panels, main keels and secondary keels arranged at the top s of the main keels, shock absorbing pads arranged at the bottoms of the main keels, wherein panel has inserting plate and a slot on the other side, an extension part arranged at the bottom of the side of the panel provided with the slot, wherein the top of the extension part is provided with a first fixed slot along the length direction of the panel, a blind rivet arranged in the firs fixed slot and the other end of the blind rivet connected with the second ark keel as recited in claim 4 in combination with claims 1-3 in its entirety; or a foaming base layer arranged in the panel, a cladding layer arranged outside the foaming base layer, a first reinforced material layer arranged in the inner walls of the top and a bottom of the panel as recited in claim 5 in combination with claim 1 in its entirety; or wherein the main keel and the second keel are hollow, a truss is arranged in the cavities of the main keel, a secondary keel and second reinformed material layer is arranged in the inner walls of the tops and bottoms of the main keel as recited in claim 6 in combination with claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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 Glessner can be reached at 5712726754. 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.
/JAMES J BUCKLE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights