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 action is necessitated by the Examiner’s omission of claim 21 in the previous action of 8/18/25
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) 1-5 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. US 6,357,194 to Jones Jr.
Regarding claims 1, Jones discloses a plank with a body (fig. 10: see both 24a and 22; rigid boards, abstract), a plurality of protrusions (fig. 2: where 28 points) extending outward from an end of the body in the longitudinal direction, the protrusions have a cross section with changing size (see taper, see top view fig. 4) from narrow to wide (see 28a, fig. 10), and wherein the cross section includes an upper end that is sized differently than a lower end (see vertical taper, fig. 5).Regarding the limitation of receiving a second plank in a downward direction and the protrusions configured to support the second plank, this is disclosed as seen in fig. 10, plank 24a has protrusions 28awith wider tops and plank 22 has protrusions 30 with wider bottoms which allow for vertical connection preventing plank 22 from passing through plank 24a.
Regarding claim 2, the cross sections of the protrusions are trapezoidal.
Regarding claims 3, 11, the protrusions increase in size as they extend away from the body.
Regarding claim 4, the ends of the cross section increase in length as the protrusion extends away from the body in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 5, the protrusions are integral with the body.
Regarding claim 7, gaps are between the protrusions which are sized for other protrusions.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 1 and fig. 10 discloses this as well and plank 22 has a wider upward portion on the protrusions and a second plank (24a) with wider bottom on the protrusions (28a) so that when locked, downward movement is prevented by the second plank as they become locked they inherently support each other. Down and up are also considered relative.
Regarding claim 9, the planks are parallel (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, the planks are joined to create a continuous surface (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, the protrusions are trapezoidal in shape.
Regarding claim 13, the protrusions have a wider end for abutting a narrower end of another protrusion (fig. 10).
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) 6 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 6,357,194 to Jones Jr.
Regarding claim 6, Jones discloses the claimed invention except for protrusions at two ends. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add extra protrusions at other sides, since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Doing so would allow multiple panels to be attached in order to increase the lengths.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is an obvious means of assembling the planks rejected n claims 1 and 8.
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 3,002,315 to Kuhn in view of U.S. Patent No. US 6,357,194 to Jones Jr.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected for reasons of rejections of claims 1 and 8. Additionally, Kuhn discloses the use of columns (14) with the use of dovetail members (15, 34) but not planks as specified in claim 14 of the instant application. Jones discloses such planks (abstract, boards being functionally equivalent). Jones also discloses groups of various orientations of boards/planks. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuhn by using boards of Jones, since Jones discloses rigid boards (abstract), boards being functionally equivalent to planks as described in the rejection of claim 1.And lower ends of the protrusion are on a lower end (bottom of 28a) and narrower ends of each protrusion is proximate to the upper end (top of 28a) and another group of planks with oppositely configured protrusions to interlock and support each other (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 15, Jones discloses the ability to connect planks to form a flat surface (fig. 10). The planks would inherently be between columns.
Regarding claim 16, the planks may inherently support boards to form a continuous planar surface (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 17, nails (54, 62) are disclosed as usable by Jones. Additionally, the Applicant should note that boards are not positively claimed. Kuhn in view of Jones may inherently support and be attached to boards.
Regarding claim 18, Jones discloses mirroring of planks (fig. 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the Jones has pins and not protrusions. However, the structure of Jones meets the claimed limitations, structurally. The Applicant also argues the recent claim amendments of protrusion fitment. These limitations are addressed in the new rejection above. Regarding the rejections of claims 6, 8, and 14, these are also addressed above in the new rejection necessitated by the Applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. 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 on (571)272-6754. 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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633