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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kotler, US 4,930,286.
Regarding claim 1:
Kotler discloses a floor tile (11) for use in a flooring system, comprising:
a floor tile body;
a female connecting member (20) associated with a lateral edge of the floor tile body, the female connecting member being configured to mate with an adjacent floor tile and having a continuously curved profile (refer to Figs. 1 and 3); and
a male connecting member (32) associated with an opposite lateral edge of the floor tile body, the male connecting member having a continuously curved profile corresponding to the female connecting member of an adjacent tile to thereby allow secure lateral mating of the floor tile with the adjacent floor tile (refer to Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19:
Kotler discloses wherein a draft angle of the female connecting member and male connecting member are substantially parallel (refer to Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 4:
Kotler discloses wherein the female connecting member and the male connecting member are configured to at least partially flex when mated to form a connection with a female connecting member or a male connecting member of an adjacent tile (11th paragraph, the interlock provides a spring-biased interconnect).
Regarding claim 5:
Kotler discloses wherein the female connecting member is formed integrally with the floor tile body.
Regarding claim 6:
Kotler discloses wherein the male connecting member is substantially encompassed on all sides by a female connecting member of an adjacent tile when the male connecting member is mated with the adjacent tile (refer to Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7:
Kotler discloses wherein the male connecting member extends in a downward direction from the floor tile body.
Regarding claim 8:
Kotler discloses wherein the male connecting member includes a channel formed therein having clearance between a tab (31) and the continuously curved profile (32).
Regarding claim 9:
Kotler discloses a floor tile system for use in a flooring installation, comprising:
at least two floor tiles, each comprising a tile body;
a female connecting member associated with a lateral edge of the tile body, the female connecting member comprising a curved profile;
a male connecting member associated with an opposite lateral edge of the tile body; and
wherein the male connecting member is configured to mate with the female connecting member (refer to the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 12 and 13:
Kotler discloses wherein the male connecting member comprises a protrusion (32) comprising a curved profile, and the male connecting member further comprises a clip (31) that is at least as wide as the curved profile (refer to Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 14:
Kotler discloses wherein a sidewall of the clip and a sidewall of the protrusion are configured to contact a sidewall of the female connecting member (refer to Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 15 and 20:
Kotler discloses wherein a distance between a top portion of the sidewalls is substantially the same as a distance between a bottom portion of the sidewalls.
Regarding claim 16:
Kotler discloses a method of floor tile engagement, comprising:
providing at least two floor tiles, each of the at least two floor tiles comprising a tile body, the tile body comprising:
a female connecting member associated with a lateral edge of the tile body, the female connecting member comprising a curved profile; and
a male connecting member associated with an opposite lateral edge of the tile body; and
engaging the female connecting member of a first of the at least two floor tiles with a male connecting member of a second of the at least two floor tiles (refer to Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 17:
Kotler implies a third floor tile (a plurality of similar tiles create a floor surface) and engaging the female connecting member of the third floor tile with the male connecting member of the first tile, and engaging the male connecting member of the third floor tile with the female connecting member of the second tile (two adjacent sides of each tile have the female connecting member and the other two adjacent sides have the male connecting member).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Becker, US D233,832.
Regarding claim 1:
Decker discloses a floor tile for use in a flooring system, comprising:
a floor tile body;
a female connecting member associated with a lateral edge of the floor tile body, the female connecting member being configured to mate with an adjacent floor tile and having a continuously curved profile; and
a male connecting member associated with an opposite lateral edge of the floor tile body, the male connecting member having a continuously curved profile corresponding to the female connecting member of an adjacent tile to thereby allow secure lateral mating of the floor tile with the adjacent floor tile.
PNG
media_image1.png
377
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
Decker discloses wherein the female connecting member includes an m-shaped profile.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 9-10, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, US D233,832 in view of Kotler, US 4,930,286.
Regarding claims 9 and 16:
Becker discloses a floor tile but does not expressly disclose a floor tile system and the method of floor tile engagement.
Kotler discloses a plurality of tile and a method of floor tile engagement with floor tiles similar to those taught by Becker.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to use a plurality of floor panels and the method of engagement as suggested by Kotler with the tiles of Becker in order to create a floor surface.
Regarding claims 10 and 18:
Decker discloses wherein the female connecting member includes an m-shaped profile.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Kotler does not disclose a male connecting member having a continuously curved profile that corresponds to a continuously curved female profile, the examiner has labeled each below. Each is continuously curved in a “half-moon” shape that allows them to nest with each other as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
253
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding applicant’s argument that Kotler does not disclose substantially parallel draft angles of the male and female connecting members, Figs. 4 and 5 show how the two parts are essentially parallel along their edges when connected to allow a vertical attachment. The claim does not specify a particular draft angle.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Kotler does not disclose wherein the male connecting member includes a channel formed therein, having clearance between a tab and the continuously curved profile, the examiner has labeled these below.
PNG
media_image3.png
261
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding applicant’s argument that the various geometric relationships are not merely matters of degree, but structural relationship that define Applicant’s improved connection system and distinguish it, this does not show a criticality that yields extraordinary or unexpected results that would be anticipatable to a person having ordinary skill in the art. What makes the various geometrical relationships not expressly disclosed by Kotler critical and unobvious?
Regarding applicant’s argument that Beckler is a design patent only to ornamental appearance, Beckler is relied upon for its teaching of the article in appearance, as set forth above. The article is clearly and unambiguously a flooring unit as stated in the title, the unit having male and female connecting members as shown, wherein the female unit is continuously curved with an M-shaped profile.
PNG
media_image4.png
188
303
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Becker is not relied upon to disclose structural and relational limitations. Rather, it is relied upon to disclose the claimed invention is claims 1 and 2. Design patents are interpreted in light of what a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as being disclosed by the structure shown within the design patent.
Regarding applicant’s argument that it would not be obvious to combine Becker’s tiles with Kotler’s engagement method, the title of Becker specifies a “tennis court flooring unit”. A tennis court flooring would require a plurality of units attached together to form the flooring. This is recognizable to a person having ordinary skill in the art. A person intent on connecting the panels would reasonably turn to Kotler for guidance. The references do not teach away from each other, as they are both flooring panels with similar attachment means. Applicant is mischaracterizing what is being relied upon in modifying Becker with Kotler. Kotler is simply relied upon to show that it is obvious to adjoin the panels of Becker as suggested by Kotler, since Becker discloses the panels but does not show them adjoined.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633 /BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633