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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “the locking strip comprises a flexing groove extending from the second panel into the locking strip” and “the second panel surface further comprises a recess extending from a locking strip edge of the locking strip to the flexing groove such that the flexing groove is open outwards in said direction being parallel to the first panel surface”. These two limitations, in combination with applicant’s Figure 3B, indicate that the flexing groove and recess are in communication with each other and form a continuous recess structure. The prior art is applied in light of this interpretation as indicated in the rejection(s) below.
Claim 17 recites “a bottom”. This limitation is interpreted based on the definition presented in applicant’s Figures as the upward portion of the flexing groove since it is oriented with the opening facing down in the Figures.
The claims use the terms “substantially”, “essentially”, and “about” to describe shaped and dimensions of various portions of the panels. These terms will be interpreted as definite and the prior art will be evaluated based on what one of ordinary skill would deem “substantially”, “essentially”, or “about”.
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 1-13, 15-18, 20, 22, and 24 are no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-12, 16-18, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pervan (US20100293879A1) in view of DeRick (US20170350139A1), hereinafter DeRick ‘139.
Claim 1
Pervan (See Figures 1a-1c and annotated Figure D below for the relevant teaches of the structure of Pervan’s panels. Most of the claimed structure is represented in the annotated drawing, but further clarification will be provided through the claim.) teaches a set of panels comprising a first panel, a second panel and a mechanical locking device for locking the first panel to the second panel, the mechanical locking device being configured for an assembly by a displacement of the second panel in relation to the first panel in a vertical direction (Figure 1b teaches vertical displacement (V + arrow) of the second panel in relation to the first panel.) to obtain a locked position of the first panel and the second panel, wherein the first panel comprises a first edge, a first panel surface and a second panel surface, and the second panel comprises a second edge, wherein the mechanical locking device comprises a locking strip extending from the first edge in a direction parallel to the first and second panel surfaces (As shown in Figure D below, the locking strip extends in the horizontal direction from the first edge. The horizontal direction is the direction of extension of the first and second panel surfaces.), the locking strip comprising a locking element configured to cooperate with a locking groove at the second edge of the second panel for locking in a direction parallel to the first panel surface (The way that the locking element and locking groove of the two panels of Pervan are structured, they will lock the panels in the horizontal direction, which is the direction of extension of the first panel surface.), wherein the mechanical locking device comprises a tongue configured to cooperate with a tongue groove for locking in a vertical direction (Figure D shows that the interpreted tongue and tongue groove lock the panels in the downward (vertical) vertical direction. An alternative interpretation of tongue and tongue groove is the structures directly below the marked up ones in Figure D.), wherein, when the first and second panels are assembled, the locking strip is located between the tongue and the locking element along a horizontal direction (Figure 1a of Pervan shows the assembled form of the panels. The locking strip is located between the tongue and locking element along the horizontal direction.), wherein the mechanical locking device is configured such that, during the assembly of the first and second panels, the locking strip flexes to increase a distance between the first edge and the locking element, and snaps back to decrease the distance between the first edge and the locking element and position the locking element in the locked position of the first and second panels (This functionality is shown when viewing Figures 1b-1c of the assembly, then 1a of the assembled panels. The locking strip is deflected downward elastically to move the locking element away from the first edge, and then rebounds to its original position when assembled.), wherein the second panel surface further comprises a recess extending from a locking strip edge of the locking strip to the flexing area (Figure 1a shows a recess that is below the locking strip and extends from the locking strip edge towards the flexing joint/area.), and wherein an angle between the first panel surface and an inner surface of the locking element is obtuse. (As denoted in Figure D below, the locking element has an angled portion. This angled portion in relation to the horizontally extending first panel surface results in an angle that is greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees, which is obtuse.)
Pervan does not disclose wherein the locking strip comprises a flexing groove extending from the second panel surface into the locking strip, the locking strip being configured to flex by varying a shape of the flexing groove during the assembly, thereby increasing a flexibility of the locking strip during the assembly.
However, DeRick ‘139 teaches the locking strip comprises a flexing groove extending from the second panel surface into the locking strip (Figure 4 teaches a recess (26) that extends into the locking strip from the second (bottom) panel surface.), the locking strip being configured to flex by varying a shape of the flexing groove during the assembly (Figures 5-6 show the recess (26) flexes during bending of the locking strip during assembly.), thereby increasing a flexibility of the locking strip during the assembly (¶0065 teaches that this recess forms a living hinge. The living hinge area has a lesser thickness in the locking strip and allows for easier bending by design.) such that the flexing groove is open outwards in said direction being parallel to the first panel surface. (Figures 4-6 show that the flexing groove (recess, 26) is open on the side of the locking element to a further recessed area (where the actuator (36) is located). This recessed area is analogous to the area of Pervan that is beneath the locking element.) wherein the flexing groove extends into the locking strip to a greater extent than does the recess in a direction perpendicular to the second locking strip surface. (DeRick ‘139 Figure 4 shows that the flexing groove (26) has a structure that includes a depth of the groove being greater than the depth of the recess (where the actuator, 36 is located on the locking element) formed in the panel. This is shown by the difference in sidewall length on the two sides of the groove (26). When incorporating this structure into Pervan’s panel, the predictable result is that the structure will retain the same orientation.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known recess and flexing groove technique of DeRick ‘139 to the panel structure of Pervan in order to provide a living hinge at a fixed position and allow for pivoting about a pivot axis. (DeRick ¶0065) Having material removed to form a groove allows for easier bending at a fixed location by nature of the structure of the groove.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known recess and flexing groove technique of DeRick ‘139 to the panel structure of Pervan because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known structure/device, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
The predictable result of the combination is that the flexing groove structure of DeRick ‘139 will be placed as the pivot point in Pervan because that is the location where bending/flexing is intended to take place.
PNG
media_image1.png
565
1057
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure D: Examiner Interpretation of Pervan, Figure 1a
Claim 2
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein the recess is open outwards in said direction being parallel to the first panel surface. (Pervan, Figure 1a shows the recess is open outwards in a direction (horizontal) parallel to the first panel surface (top of the panel).)
Claim 3
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein the inner surface of the locking element comprises a planar portion. (Pervan, Figure 1a shows that the locking element (8) has portions that are planar (not curved).)
Claim 4
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein an outer surface of the locking groove configured to cooperate with the inner surface of the locking element in the locked position is parallel with the inner surface of the locking element. (Pervan, Figure 1a shows parallel surfaces (11, 12) of the locking groove and locking element when in the assembled (relaxed) state.)
Claim 5
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein the flexing groove extends at an angle from the second panel surface. (When using the flexing groove of DeRick ‘139 in combination with the panel structure of Pervan, the structure of the flexing groove is shown in Figures 5-6 of DeRick ‘139. This groove is shown as extending at an angle from the second panel surface (flat bottom of the panel), and that the angle is slightly greater than 90.)
Claim 6
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 5, wherein the angle is within the range of about 30 to about 100 degrees. (When using the flexing groove of DeRick ‘139 in combination with the panel structure of Pervan, the structure of the flexing groove is shown in Figures 5-6 of DeRick ‘139. This groove is shown as extending at an angle from the second panel surface (flat bottom of the panel), and that the angle is slightly greater than 90. This angle is therefore “about” 100 degrees. Examiner notes that applicant has not presented any criticality or motivation for choosing the specific range of angles.)
Claim 7
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein one of the first or second edge comprises the tongue and the other one of the first or second edge comprises the tongue groove. (Pervan, Figure 1a (as annotated in Figure D above) shows a tongue and tongue groove at the edges.)
Claim 8
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein the flexing groove extends from a third edge of the first panel to a fourth edge of the first panel. (Pervan, Figures 3a-3b shows that the recess extends from one side of the panel to another “edge” on the other side of the panel. DeRick ‘139, which is relied upon for the flexing groove, teaches in Figure 3 that the flexing groove starts at an edge of the panel (2) and extends into the thickness. When combining the two references, the flexing groove will extend from an “edge” to another “edge”.)
Claim 9
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein the flexing groove has a fifth edge and a sixth edge, the fifth edge being positioned at a distance from a third edge of the first panel and/or the sixth edge being positioned at a distance from a fourth edge of the first panel. (Pervan, Figures 7a and 7b show embodiments of the panel where the locking element (8), which corresponds to where the flexing groove of DeRick ‘139 is incorporated, is discontinuous along the total width of the panel. This means that there is an area where the flexing groove will end (third edge) that is not the outer edge of the panel (fifth edge).)
Claim 10
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein the locking strip comprises a first locking strip surface extending in a direction substantially corresponding to the direction of the first panel surface of the first panel. (Pervan, Figure 1a shows that top of the locking strip (6) has a surface that extends in the horizontal direction. This is the direction that the first panel surface (top of the panel) extends.)
Claim 11
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein the flexing groove and recess extend from a second locking strip surface of the locking strip. (The second locking strip surface of Pervan is located at the point where the recess starts. In the combined invention of Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139, the flexing groove is located at the pivot point/starting point of the recess. This means that the flexing groove is located at the beginning of the angled section of the bottom of the left panel in Figure 1a of Pervan, which is the location of “a second locking strip surface”.)
Claim 12
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 11, wherein the second locking strip surface extends in a direction substantially corresponding to the direction of the second panel surface of the first panel. (Figure 1a-1c of Pervan shows the second locking strip surface is aligned with the lower surface of the panel, which is the second panel surface.)
Claim 16
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein an opening of the flexing groove has a width. (DeRick ‘139 Figures 4-6)
DeRick ‘139 does not explicitly disclose the width is within the range of about 1 mm to about 10 mm.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to size the flexing groove of DeRick ‘139 with the claimed dimension because applicant has not disclosed that having the claimed dimension provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected DeRick ‘139’s flexing groove, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the size taught by DeRick ‘139 or the claimed size because both shapes would perform the same function of changing in shape during locking of the panels.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to modify DeRick ‘139to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 18 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of DeRick ‘139.
See also MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV. A. – change in size.
Examiner notes that the specific dimensions of 1mm or 2.5mm have listed motivations in ¶0070 of the published application, yet there is no motivation for choosing the claimed range. Additionally, these values are stated as being based on the material of the panel and thus subject to change based on panel material.
Claim 17
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein a bottom of the flexing groove is essentially arch shaped or essentially triangular. (DeRick ‘139 teaches the groove (26) has an arch shape.)
Claim 18
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional shape of the flexing groove has a shape. (DeRick ‘139 Figures 4-6 show the flexing groove (26) has a shape.)
DeRick ‘139 does not explicitly disclose that the flexing groove is essentially rectangular or square.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to shape the flexing groove of DeRick ‘139 as a square or rectangle because applicant has not disclosed that having the claimed shapes provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected DeRick ‘139’s flexing groove, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the shape taught by DeRick ‘139 or the claimed square or rectangular shape because both shapes would perform the same function of changing in shape during locking of the panels.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to modify DeRick ‘139 to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 18 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of DeRick ‘139.
See also MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV. B. – change in shape.
Claim 22
Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 teaches the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein the locking strip extends from a bottom portion of the first edge in the direction parallel to the first and second panel surfaces, and wherein the locking groove is open downwardly. (Pervan, Figure 1a shows that the locking strip extends to the right in the horizontal direction, which is parallel to the top (first) panel surface and the bottom (second) panel surface.) Figure 1a shows the locking groove is open in the downward direction.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 19 are allowed.
Claims 13, 15, 20 and 24 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: Examiner’s best-found prior art during the search period for the application does not teach of obviate the limitations of Claims 14-15 and 19.
Claims 14-15, 19 and 24 require specific dimensions or dimensional ratios for portions of the claimed panel structures. These dimensions are discussed in published ¶0068 (Claim 14), published ¶0069 (Claim 15) and published ¶0091 (Claim 19) with appropriate criticality/motivation attributed to choosing them. Thus, they are not considered design choice considerations at this time.
The prior art teaches panels with locking elements/grooves alongside flexing grooves and recesses (See the table below for various references that teach the claimed structural features of Claim 1), yet the prior art fails to provide the dimensions required to meet the claimed ratio or dimensional range. The figures of the prior art are not drawn to scale and thus measurements based on the figures cannot be used to anticipate Claims 14-15 and 19.
Claims 13 and 20 recite various versions of the recess being parallel to the second panel surface.
The combination using Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 does not teach the recess being parallel and could not be modified to arrive at the limitations of Claims 13 or 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 03/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 using Pervan in view of DeRick ‘139 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant states that one of ordinary skill would not have combined Pervan with DeRick ‘139 because Pervan already has an area that is bent during assembly.
It is respectfully asserted that having a flexing groove in combination with a recess is shown in DeRick’139 Figure 5, such that the combination does not destroy the intended purpose of Pervan and has a predictable result of allowing the locking member to pivot about a fixed axis (DeRick ‘139 ¶0065). Therefore, the combination does not destroy the primary references intended functionality and is properly motivated by a teaching from the prior art. Additional evidence in the prior art that one of ordinary skill would have sought easier bending starting from Pervan’s structure of a recess and locking element, Braun (US20110258959A1) shows a similarly shaped recess in Figure 5 that ends at a recess (slot, 26). Braun teaches that the use of the slot ensures that the elasticity of the locking element is increased at a location where a deflection of the first hook element is necessary for locking the two panels (See ¶0044). This teaching is not representative of a change in rejection, merely further evidence that the combination exists in the prior art with a predictable result and has relevant motivation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form.
US20110258959A1 - the use of the slot ensures that the elasticity of the locking element is increased at a location where a deflection of the first hook element is necessary for locking the two panels (See ¶0044).
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 Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726