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 communication is in response to application No. 18/387,584, filed on 11/7/2023. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-5, 7-12, 15 and 17 have been rejected as follows. Claims 6, 13-14 and 16 are objected to.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0010], lines 4-10, paragraph [0011], line 2, paragraph [0018], line 2 and paragraph [0019], line 2, “portionss” should read “portions”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, 12, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al (KR-20230171523-A).
Regarding claim 1, Park et al discloses a floor module (100, Fig. 1-2) for a vehicle (10, Fig. 1), the floor module comprising a plurality of tile portions (300, Fig. 2) configured to cover a vehicle floor (page 2, paragraph 1) of a vehicle and sequentially (continuously) aligned by being coupled in a transverse (crosswise) direction thereof (Fig. 7); a plurality of fixing portions (200, 210; Fig. 3) provided below the tile portions (300, Fig. 3), connected (320, 213, Fig. 3; page 4, paragraph 12) to the tile portions (300, Fig. 3) in an upward and downward direction (320, 213, Fig. 3), and sequentially aligned by being coupled in the transverse direction thereof (Fig. 7-8); and a plurality of mounting portions (220, Fig. 3) provided above the vehicle floor (10, Fig. 6) and configured to support the tile portions (300, Fig. 6) and the fixing portions (210, Fig. 6) from there below by being connected to the fixing portions (Fig. 6) in the upward and downward direction in a state in which the mounting portions (220, Fig. 3) are matched with the tile portions (300, Fig. 3) and the fixing portions (200, 210; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Park et al further discloses wherein the tile portions (300, Fig. 3) and the fixing portions (200, 210; Fig. 3) are spaced from each other at a predetermined interval in the transverse direction and connected in the upward and downward direction (320, 213, Fig. 3) in a state in which the tile portions (300, Fig. 3) and the fixing portions (200, 210; Fig. 3) are sequentially (continuously) aligned.
Regarding claim 8, Park et al further discloses wherein the tile portions (300, Fig. 3), the fixing portions (200, 210; Fig. 3), and the mounting portions (220, Fig. 3) are provided to be separable (Fig. 3-6) from one another.
Regarding claim 12, Park et al further discloses wherein a fastening hole (212, Fig. 3-4 & 6) is formed in a center portion (page 3, paragraph 8) of the fixing portions (210, Fig. 3-4), the fixing portions are fastened, by bolting (11, Fig. 6; page 3, paragraph 7), to the vehicle floor (10, Fig. 6) in the upward and downward direction through the fastening hole (212, Fig. 6) so that the fixing portions (210, 214, Fig. 6) are fixed to the vehicle floor (10, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15, Park et al further discloses wherein the mounting portions (220, Fig. 3-4) are disposed below each corner of the fixing portions (210, Fig. 3-4) and support the tile portions (300, Fig. 3-4) and the fixing portions (210, Fig. 3-4) from there below.
Regarding claim 17, Park et al further discloses wherein a sound-absorbing layer (page 3, paragraphs 4-5) is applied to an inside of the tile portions (300, Fig. 6; sound-absorbing layer is housed inside of area formed by tile portions and vehicle floor 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR-20230171523-A) in view of Takeda et al (US Patent No. 5,245,805).
Regarding claim 2, Park et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. However, Park et al does not expressly disclose wherein indentations, which are indented inwardly, are formed in center portions of respective sides of the tile portions, and the indentations allow the tile portions to be disconnected from each other by external pressure applied in the indentations.
Takeda et al teaches wherein indentations (22, Fig. 1), which are indented inwardly, are formed in center portions of respective sides (column 4, lines 50-51) of the tile portions (2, Fig. 1), which would allow the tile portions to be disconnected from each other by external pressure applied in the indentations in the analogous field of the claimed invention of modular tile flooring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tile portions of Park et al to include the type of indentations as taught by Takeda et al. Doing so would provide access to a partitioned space for running cables and could be used for removing and replacing tile portions by prying up tiles from the indentation site.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR-20230171523-A) in view of DeLong et al (US Patent No. 8,650,824).
Regarding claim 3, Park et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and the fixing portions and the tile portions are connected in the upward and downward direction (320, 213, Fig. 3). However, Park et al does not expressly disclose wherein the fixing portions and the tile portions are disposed to be staggered in the transverse direction.
DeLong et al teaches wherein the fixing portions and the tile portions are disposed to be staggered (210, Fig. 9) in the transverse direction, and the fixing portions and the tile portions are connected in the upward and downward direction (320, 213, Fig. 3, from Park et al) in a state in which the fixing portions and the tile portions are disposed to be staggered (210, Fig. 9) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of modular tile flooring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connected tile and fixing portions of Park et al to include the type of staggered configuration as taught by DeLong et al. Doing so would allow versatility for the floor to be arranged in any configuration and would provide stability and rigidity to the floor structure as well as aesthetic appeal (column 15, lines 53-59). Additionally, it is noted that claim 3 would be allowable if the limitations were defined to more clearly set forth the structure of the fixing portions and the tile portions being staggered relative to each other (i.e. ½ staggered manner of the fixing portions relative to the tile portions in an upward and downward direction) as shown in applicant’s Figures 6 and 7.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR-20230171523-A) in view of Fitze (US Patent No. 7,350,853).
Regarding claim 4, Park et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. However, Park et al does not expressly disclose a seat rail portion provided above the vehicle floor and configured to traverse the vehicle floor and support a vehicle seat from there below, wherein sizes of the tile portions, the fixing portions, and the mounting portions, which are provided at a point that adjoins the seat rail portion, are determined as a size of the seat rail portion.
Fitze teaches a seat rail portion (2, Fig. 3-4) provided above the vehicle floor (8, Fig. 3-4) and configured to traverse the vehicle floor (Fig. 1) and support a vehicle seat (column 1, lines 50-52) from there below in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle modular tile flooring. Regarding the limitations wherein sizes of the tile portions, the fixing portions, and the mounting portions, which are provided at a point that adjoins the seat rail portion, being determined as a size of the seat rail portion; this would be a natural consequence of accommodating for the seat rail. Providing space between tiles to accommodate a seat rail would result in the sizes of the tile portions, fixing portions, and mounting portions being altered to the space that the size of the rail occupies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tile portions of Park et al to include the type of seat rail as taught by Fitze. Doing so would allow a vehicle seat to be mounted on the modular floor.
Regarding claim 5, Park et al in view of Fitze discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 4 above, and Fitze further discloses wherein a rail cover (12, Fig. 3-4) is provided above the seat rail portion (2, Fig. 3-4), and first and second opposite end portions (10, Fig. 3-4) of the rail cover are bent downward (12a, 12b; Fig. 3) and adjoin the tile portions (4, Fig. 3-4).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (KR-20230171523-A) in view of Moller, Jr (US Patent No. 7,634,876).
Regarding claim 9, Park et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. However, Park et al does not expressly disclose wherein a flange portion extends from a lateral surface of the fixing portions, and the plurality of fixing portions are coupled by fitting and sequentially aligned in the transverse direction by the flange portion.
Moller, Jr teaches a floor module with tile portions (210, Fig. 3) and fixing portions (220, 230, Fig. 3) wherein a flange portion (222, Fig. 3) extends from a lateral surface of the fixing portions (220, 230, Fig. 3), and the plurality of fixing portions (220, 230, Fig. 3) are coupled (column 6, lines 1-4) by fitting and sequentially aligned in the transverse direction (Fig. 1-2) by the flange portions (222, Fig. 3) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of modular tile flooring. Similar flange portions are shown at 322 and 522 (Fig. 4 & 6) serving the same function as connecting members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fixing portions of Park et al to include the type of flange portion as taught by Moller, Jr. Doing so would allow fixing portions to attach to each other and attach to other fixing portions in a modular floor.
Regarding claim 10, Park et al in view of Moller, Jr discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 9 above, and Moller, Jr further discloses wherein the flange portion (222, Fig. 3) is provided symmetrically based on a center portion of each of sides of the fixing portions (220, 230, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, Park et al in view of Moller, Jr discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 9 above, and Moller, Jr further discloses wherein the fixing portions (220, 230, Fig. 3) include a locking groove (column 5-6, lines 67-4, protuberances, indentations, adjacent connecting member 222/322/522, Fig. 1-4 & 6) into which an adjacent flange portion (222/322/522, Fig. 1-4 & 6) is engaged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 12-14 and 16 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 primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 6 is the inclusion of the limitations of the fitting protrusions “wherein the tile portions and the fixing portions each include a plurality of fitting protrusions at one side thereof, and the fitting protrusions of the fixing portions are fixed in the transverse direction by the fitting protrusions of the tile portions in a state that the fixing portions are connected to the tile portions in the upward and downward direction thereof”. Applicant’s fitting protrusions improve rigidity of the floor module, especially in the event of an external collision of the vehicle. The closest prior art of Trageser et al (US 2007/0277453) discloses a first flooring member (4), a second flooring member (6) and a plurality of interlocking members (i.e. 40, 58). However, Trageser et al does not disclose the combination of a vehicle floor module having the tile portion, fixing portion, mounting portion arrangement to cover a vehicle floor with the details of the fitting protrusions as claimed for improving stability and rigidity of the vehicle floor. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 13 is the inclusion of the mounting portion limitations “wherein protruding portions extend upwards from the mounting portions, and the mounting portions are fastened to the fixing portions by the protruding portions and connected to the fixing portions in the upward and downward direction in a state that the mounting portions are connected to the fixing portion”. The mounting portions structure of Park et al (KR-20230171523-A) is disclosed as a plate without protruding portions extending upward. Applicant’s mounting portions structure of protruding portions functions to ensure the rigidity of the tile portion. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Nagare et al (US Patent No. 4,736,555) in Fig. 8 and Owen (US 2007/0204539) at (41, Fig. 2A; [0044]) disclose mounting portions for modular floors that have protruding portions that extend upwards; however, these teachings are not combinable without destroying the base reference floor module of Park et al. Claim 14 contains allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency from claim 13.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 16 is the inclusion of the limitations “wherein edge portions of the plurality of tile portions are bent downward so that gaps defined by the plurality of tile portions are minimized”. Applicant’s tile portions are bent downward to adjoin tile portions thereby minimizing external gaps defined by the plurality of tile portions and to maximize sound-blocking performance. Park et al accomplishes this with a center sealing member (410, Fig. 6) and does not have tile portions with edges that are bent downward. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cooper et al (US Patent No. 6,202,374) at (141, Fig. 5A) and Mead (US 2008/0141601) disclose that it is old and well known to provide indentations (80) in a floor panel. Oh et al (US 2024/0217590), Fischer et al (US Patent No. 9,868,405), Campbell et al (US 2011/0006562), and Cardone et al (US Patent No. 9,637,026) disclose modular tile structures for vehicle floors. Quaglia (US Patent No. 6,189,289) at (27, Fig. 3), Nagare et al (US Patent No. 4,736,555) in Fig. 8 and Owen (US 2007/0204539) at (41, Fig. 2A; [0044]) disclose mounting portions for modular floors that have protruding portions that extend upwards.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 pm.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612