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 .
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s patent application number 18/286,919 filed on 5/13/2024.
Currently, claims 1-11 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/13/2023 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required. The WO 2022/223910 abstract is unacceptable.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 5 of the specification; a heading “Detailed description” should be read -- Detailed Description of the Figures --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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 1, line 7; a citation “a first convex bearing surface” is confusing and indefinite because it’s unclear whether there is “a second convex bearing surface”? Clarification is required. Claims 2-11 depending upon the rejected claim 1 are also rejected. Suggestion: it should be read “a first bearing surface; said first bearing surface is convex”.
Re claim 1, line 13; a citation “a first concave bearing surface” is confusing and indefinite because it’s unclear whether there is “a second concave bearing surface”? Clarification is required. (See suggestion above).
Re claim 1, line 14; a citation “a second bearing surface” is confusing and indefinite because it’s unclear whether the same as “a second bearing surface” cited in line 8? Clarification is required
Re claim 1, lines 17, 19; a citation “the width…the distance” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Correction is required.
Re claim 1, line 18; a citation “the first bearing surface” does not have a proper antecedent basis, unless the Applicant meant “the first convex bearing surface” as cited in line 7? Clarification is required.
Re claim 1, line 19; a citation “the ratio” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Correction is required.
Re claim 1, line 22; a citation “the length” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Correction is required.
Re claim 1, line 29; a citation “the depth” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Correction is required.
Re claim 3, lines 5, 7; a citation “the thickness” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Correction is required. Claim 8, lines 2, 6; having the same issues as mentioned is also rejected.
Re claim 9, line 6; a conditional phrase “when” renders the claim indefinite and confusing because "when" is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C). Correction is required.
Re claim 10, lines 4, 6; a phrase “which” renders the claim indefinite and confusing because it’s unclear whether “which” referring to which structure? Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 202005008917 (cited by the Applicant).
Re claim 1: Dammers discloses a floorboard comprising a first main surface (1) intended to form an apparent surface and a second main surface (2) opposite to the first main surface
Re claim 2: wherein said floorboard (1) is inherently made of massive wood.
Re claim 3: comprising a wear layer (wherein 1 points to, Fig. 1) extending from the first main surface (wherein 1 points to) in a direction orthogonal to a plane of the floor board (1) and representing a fraction of a thickness of the floorboard (1) of at least 25%, the thickness of the floorboard (1) being considered between the first main surface and the second main surface (wherein 2 points to, Fig. 1), the tongue (3) and the groove (15) being positioned relative to the thickness of the floorboard (1) in a lower layer of the floorboard (1) disposed below the wear layer.
Re claim 4: comprising a chamfer (near 5) disposed on the other side of the rounded portion with respect to the second bearing surface (wherein 4 points to) of the tongue (6).
Re claim 5: wherein the chamfer (near 5) has an angle of inclination with respect to an insertion axis comprised between 10 degrees and 45 degrees (i.e. as shown in Fig. 1).
Re claim 6: wherein the second bearing surface (near 4) of the tongue (3) is configured to be substantially planar.
Re claim 9: wherein the tongue (3) has a bearing point (wherein 16 points to) disposed in the direction of the distal end of the tongue (3) with respect to the first bearing surface of the tongue, and the inner wall of the groove has an abutment surface (14) disposed in the extension of the first bearing surface of the groove, the bearing point being configured to come into abutment on the abutment surface of a neighboring floorboard when the tongue (3) is introduced into the groove (13).
Re claim 10: wherein the first bearing surface of the tongue (3) is arranged to slide on the first bearing surface of the groove (13) of a neighboring floorboard between: an initial sliding position in which the bearing point belongs to a plane of the opening; and-a final sliding position in which the bearing point is in contact with the abutment surface (Figs. 1-4).
Re claim 11: wherein the second bearing surface of the tongue (3) is arranged to bear against the second bearing surface of the groove (13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
100
143
media_image1.png
Greyscale