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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/2026 has been entered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-22, 25-36, 39-40, 45 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Segaert et al(2017/0335573).
Per claim 18, Segaert figure 2 shows a mineral-based panel comprising a core(11, 17), wherein the panel comprises a mechanical locking system at respective opposite first and second edges for assembling a first panel in an assembled position with an adjacent similar or essentially identical second panel by a folding displacement of the adjacent panels; wherein immediately juxtaposed upper edge portions of the first edge of the first panel and the second edge of the second panel in the assembled position form a vertical plane; the first edge comprising a locking strip (20) projecting beyond the vertical plane(VP at 13) and a locking element (the part to the right of 20) projecting from the locking strip; the second edge comprising a downwards open locking groove (1) configured to receive the locking element by said displacement for horizontal locking of the panels, wherein a first pair of horizontal locking surfaces comprises a first locking surface provided by the locking element and a second locking surface provided by the locking groove; wherein the mechanical locking system is configured such that each point of all points on the second locking surface is displaced along a respected projected trajectory from a first space position in an unassembled position to a second space position in the assembled position, in response to a folding displacement of the second panel to the assembled position (figure shows the folding displacement on the right side), wherein one of the first or second edge comprising a locking tongue (17), and the other of the first or second edge comprising a tongue groove (18), wherein the mechanical locking system is configured such that the locking tongue by the folding displacement, for vertical locking of the first edge and the second edge in a horizontal plane, wherein during the folding displacement, the upper edge portions are simultaneously in contact in a first contact point and/or wherein during the folding displacement, an upper wall portion of the tongue groove and an upper portion of the locking tongue are in contact in a second contact point, wherein the respective projected trajectory is entirely disposed on one side of a datum plane of the first locking surface during the folding displacement, wherein a plane of an upper side of the first locking surface defines the datum plane, wherein the respective projected trajectory cannot cross the datum plane while there is contact at the first contact point and/or the second contact point.
Per claim 19, Segaert et al further shows the respective projected trajectory of at least one of all points forms an arc of a circle(W) having a contact point between two adjacent edges as pivot point.
Per claim 20, Segaert et al further shows the datum plane is stationary during the folding displacement.
Per claim 21, Segaert et al further shows each point displaces along the respective projected trajectory without influence of the locking element.
Per claim 22, Segaert et al further shows each point displaces along the respective projected trajectory without influence of the first locking surface.
Per claim 25, Segaert further shows during the folding displacement, the upper edge portions are simultaneously in contact in the first contact point.
Per claim 26, Segaert further shows during the folding displacement, the upper wall portion of the tongue groove and the upper portion of the locking tongue are in contact in the second contact point.
Per claim 27, Segaert further shows during the folding displacement, the upper edge portions are simultaneously in contact in the first contact point and wherein during the folding displacement, an upper wall portion of the tongue groove and an upper portion of the locking tongue are in contact in the second contact point.
Per claim 28, Segaert further shows a locking angle is formed between the first locking surface and a rear surface of the panel, wherein the locking angle is configured such that the respective projected trajectory is disposed on one side of the datum plane of the first locking surface during the folding displacement.
Per claim 29, Segaert et al further shows the locking angle being in the range of 40 to 60 degrees(see figure 2).
Per claim 30, Segaert et al further shows the locking angle is adapted to allow assembling by the folding displacement without flexing or compression of the locking strip and/or the locking element.
Per claim 31, Segaert et al further shows assembling of the first and second panel comprises displacement in an assembling direction from a first position wherein the adjacent edges are in contact in the first contact point, to a second assembled position for horizontal locking of the adjacent edges by the first locking surface and the second locking surface.
Per claim 32, Segaert et al further shows a dimension between the first contact point and a point on the first locking surface is constant during assembling of the first and second panels.
Per claim 33, Segaert et al further shows a shortest first distance between a pivot point of the panel being displaced and the first locking surface equals or is greater than a greatest second distance between the pivot point and the second locking surface.
Per claim 34, Segaert et al further shows the second distance corresponds to a radius of curvature of respective projected trajectory of at least one of all points from the first position to the second assembled position.
Per claim 35, Segaert et al further shows a lower arrangement comprising one or more layers, and an upper arrangement comprising one or more layers (figure 2 shows a panel with multiple layers).
Per claim 36, Segaert et al further shows one or more of the core, the lower arrangement, and the upper arrangement comprises a mineral-based layer, wherein the mineral-based layer comprises inorganic matrix material.
Per claims 39-40, Segaert et al further shows the locking system is formed at least partially in the mineral-based layer(s), wherein the mechanical locking strip is formed at least partially in the mineral-based layer(s).
Per claim 45, Segaert et al further shows a mineral-based panel comprising a core(11, 17),, wherein the panel comprises a mechanical locking system at respective opposite first and second edges, for assembling a first panel in an assembled position with an adjacent similar or essentially identical second panel by a folding displacement (the folding shown in figure 2 by curving arc W) of the adjacent panels; wherein immediately juxtaposed upper edge portions of the first edge of the first panel and the second edge of the second panel in the assembled position form a vertical plane; the first edge comprising a locking strip(20) projecting beyond the vertical plane and a locking element(the protrusion to the right of 21) projecting from the locking strip; the second edge comprising a downwards open locking groove(the groove that the protrusion goes into) configured to receive the locking element by the displacement for horizontal locking of the panels, wherein a first pair of horizontal locking surfaces (the mating surfaces of the protrusion and the groove) comprises a first locking surface provided by the locking element and a second locking surface provided by the locking groove; wherein the mechanical locking system is configured such that a point on the second locking surface is displaced along a projected trajectory(imaginary line) from a first space position to a second space position in response to a folding displacement of the second panel to the assembled position; wherein one of the first or second edge comprises a locking tongue and the other of the first or second edge comprises a tongue groove, wherein the mechanical locking system is configured such that the locking tongue(17) is received in the tongue groove(18) by the folding displacement, for vertical locking of the first edge and the second edge in a horizontal plane; wherein during the folding displacement, the upper edge portions are simultaneously in contact at a first contact point and/or wherein during the folding displacement(figure 2 shows the contact during folding), an upper wall portion of the tongue groove and an upper portion of the locking tongue are in contact at a second contact point; wherein the projected trajectory is disposed on one side of a datum plane of the first locking surface during the folding displacement, wherein a plane of an upper side of the first locking surface defines the datum plane, wherein the projected trajectory does not cross the datum plane while there is contact at the first contact point and/or the second contact point, wherein the mechanical locking system is configured such that during assembling, a play is configured such that the projected trajectory is disposed on one side of the datum plane of the first locking surface during the folding displacement.
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) 23-24 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segaert et al in view of Vandevoorde et al (2014/0242342).
Segaert e al shows all the claimed limitations except for the mechanical locking system is configured such that there is provided a non-zero play between the first locking surface and the second locking surfaces in the assembled position wherein the play is configured such that the projected trajectory is disposed on one side of the datum plane of the first locking surface during the folding displacement.
Vandevoorde et al figure 14, discloses the mechanical locking system is configured such that there is provided a non-zero play between the first locking surface and the second locking surface in the assembled position wherein the play is configured such that the projected trajectory is disposed on one side of the datum plane of the first locking surface during the folding displacement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Segaert et al’s panel to show the mechanical locking system is configured such that there is provided a non-zero play between the first locking surface and the second locking surface in the assembled position wherein the play is configured such that the projected trajectory is disposed on one side of the datum plane of the first locking surface during the folding displacement as taught by Vandevoorde et al figure 14 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for easy of assembly of the tongue and groove horizontal locking of the panels.
Per claim 24, Segaert et al as modified shows all the claimed limitations except for the play between the first locking surface and the second locking surface being less than 0.1mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Segaert et al’s modified panel to show the play between the first locking surface and the second locking surface being less than 0.1mm with a reasonable expectation of success since a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention would have found it obvious to make the play to the needed dimension to ensure the panels are securely joined together.
Claim(s) 37-38, 41-44 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segaert et al.
Segaert e al shows all the claimed limitations except for the mineral- based layer comprises 35-55 wt% magnesium oxide, the mineral- based layer comprises 35-55 wt% magnesium oxide and 15-35 wt% of a material selected from magnesium chloride, magnesium sulphate, or a combination thereof, the inorganic matrix material comprises magnesium oxide, cement, or gypsum, the core comprises magnesium oxide, the core comprises 35-55 wt% magnesium oxide, the mineral- based panel comprises a mineral-based layer comprising at least 20 wt% of a mineral material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Segaert et al’s panel to show the mineral- based layer comprises 35-55 wt% magnesium oxide, the mineral- based layer comprises 35-55 wt% magnesium oxide and 15-35 wt% of a material selected from magnesium chloride, magnesium sulphate, or a combination thereof, the inorganic matrix material comprises magnesium oxide, cement, or gypsum, the core comprises magnesium oxide, the core comprises 35-55 wt% magnesium oxide, the mineral- based panel comprises a mineral-based layer comprising at least 20 wt% of a mineral material a reasonable expectation of success 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; and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05; one having ordinary skill in the art thus would have found it obvious to modify Segaert’s panels to show the claimed percent range and material in order to arrive at the desired engineering design for the needed properties for panels.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the added limitations and “ each point of all points…displaced along …trajectory…in an unassembled position….in the assembled position…” examiner respectfully states the reference shows the claimed limitations. The projected trajectory follows the path of travel of the mating locking surfaces. The points thus will follow the path of travel as claimed.
With respect to the “trajectory is entirely disposed…on side of the datum plane…cannot cross the datum plane….”, examiner respectfully points out the datum plane is shown below (as previously demonstrated). The datum projects farthest to the right per the contacting surfaces of the downwardly open locking groove and the protrusion of the locking strip. The trajectory does not cross the datum at the area above the panel bottom surface. It thus meets the claimed limitations. If applicant means to claim the contacting surfaces to follow a specific path with specific angles, applicant is encouraged to clearly set forth the limitations.
With respect to clearly communicate the findings, conclusions and….reasons…., the reference as applied and set forth above, clearly shows the claimed limitations.
The previous response appears relevant is hereby repeated below.
PNG
media_image1.png
397
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 18-20 and the depiction by applicant of figure 2 on page 5, examiner respectfully points out the followings. Segaert figure 2, as set forth above, shows a panel with a core (11) with a mechanical locking system at respective first second edges (demonstrated by the locking features 2 and 3, 1 and 21). The panels are locked by folding displacement as shown by the curved arc W in figure 2. Figure 2 also shows a locking strip (20) with a locking element (at the end to the right of 20). Per the contact at 19, and shown in figure 2, the folding displacement shows the claimed contact. To easily assemble two panels in figure 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would find that second panel needs to be pressed against the edges of the first panel. The pressing process allows for easy rotation downward and inward of the second panel tongue into the groove of the first panel demonstrated by the rotation W. Figure 2 shows the upper edge portions are in contact at the first contact point and the second contact point during folding, and further demonstrated by applicant at 19 on page 5. Per the limitation to “…projected trajectory…datum plane…not cross the datum plane…” examiner respectfully points out the reference shows structures and assembly of panels similar to applicant elected figure 4B, the reference thus shows the claimed limitations. Reference figure 2 shows the claimed datum plane, and the datum plane being stationary (the assembly not showing the plane being moved). Reference figure 2 shows the panels are connected to each other with the flat surface from the locking groove and the flat surface from the locking element sliding one over the either during the assembly process. The locking surfaces at the contact area, are thus parallel, and not crossing.
With respect to claims 21-22, the reference shows the point on the second groove is not influenced by the locking element. The point is located on the groove, not the locking element. As such the movement of the point is influenced by the locking groove, as the surfaces of the locking groove slide on the surfaces of the locking element. The reference thus shows the claimed limitations.
Claims 28-29, are also reasonably rejected as set forth above with respect to the angles disclosed. The drawing to scale remarks are addressed as set forth above.
Claim 30 is also reasonably rejected as the disclosure shows the assembly without any flexing/compression. The panels are assembled by folding with the sliding surfaces mating with each other. Segaert figure 2 further shows the assembly is without flexing or compression.
With respect to claim 32, a dimension of a straight line between two fixed points is constant. As such, locating the same two fixed points, to two other locations on another area of another surface, does not result in a different dimension.
It is further pointed out that applicant is claiming a “ mineral based panel….”, and not a method claim to individual steps.
With respect to claim 23, Segaert as modified shows the claimed limitations and the motivation to combine are set forth above.
Segaert also shows newly added claim 45 as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI D Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-6864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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 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.
/PHI D A/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633