DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/10/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The amendment to the specification overcame the Drawing Objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 12 and 13, line 21 and line 32 all recite “the downward-facing locking groove”. Also, line 14 recites “the locking groove”. It is unclear if this is the “at least one downward-facing locking groove” introduced in line 6 or one of the “first downward-facing locking groove” or “second downward-facing locking groove” introduced in line 10.
The claims are inconsistent in claim terminology, muddying the clarity of the claims. For example, lines 6 and 7 of claim 1 introduce “an upward-facing latching hook” but the claim references “the latching hook”. Additionally, the claims introduce each of “at least one downward-facing locking groove”, “at least one first downward-facing groove and one second downward-facing groove” while later referencing “the downward-facing locking groove”. Claim terms should be clearly differentiated from each other and antecedence reflected with claim term consistency. One way of differentiating the downward-facing locking grooves would be to specify “the at least one downward-facing locking groove of the first connecting means” or similar to make the language both consistent and unambiguous.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barlinek, DE 20 2019 101 603.
Regarding claim 1:
Barlinek discloses a wall or floor panel (1, 2), each having two opposite long edges and two opposite short edges (refer to Figs. 3-5),
wherein the panel, at each long edge and at each short edge, has at least one connecting means that allows the panel to be connected to another panel at each other’s long edges or at the long edges and the short edges,
wherein, at one of the long edges, the connecting means includes a tongue (34) and at least one downward-facing locking groove (37) and one upward-facing locking groove (21) as well as an upward-facing latching hook (23);
wherein, at the other long edge, the connecting means has a latching hook (35) and an essentially horizontal locking groove (32), and
wherein, at the short edges, the connecting means includes a tongue (25) and at least one first downward-facing locking groove (space between 25 and 27) and one second downward-facing locking groove (38) as well as a latching step (27),
wherein, to connect the connecting means at one of the long edges with the connecting means at one of the other long edges, the downward-facing locking groove and the latching hook are configured such that, in the connected state of the connecting means, the latching hook engages the locking groove in a contact-locking manner between a distal groove surface and a proximal hook surface and the upward-facing latching hook of the connecting element supports itself via a head surface (top of 23) abutting a groove ceiling of the essentially horizontal groove of the connecting element (refer to Fig. 19);
wherein, to connect the connecting means at one of the long edges with the connecting means at the short edges, a tongue of the connecting element is shaped such that, in the connected state of the connecting means, the tongue engages the downward-facing locking groove in a contact-locking manner between a proximal groove wall and a distal tongue surface, in a contact-locking manner between a proximal hook surface and a proximal tongue surface, and in a contact-locking manner between a basal projection surface of a projection of the connecting element and an apical tongue surface of the tongue of the connecting element; and
PNG
media_image1.png
390
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, to connect the connecting means at one of the long edges with the connecting means at the short edges, the tongue of the connecting element is shaped such that, in the connected state of the connecting means, the apical tongue surface of the tongue is contact-locked to a basal projection surface of a proximal projection of the connecting element, a groove wall surface of the downward-facing locking groove is contact-locked to the proximal hook surface of the latching hook (35) of the connecting element, and a base surface of a tongue base of the connecting element is contact-locked to an apical hook arm surface (29) of the latching hook.
PNG
media_image2.png
429
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-8:
Barlinek clearly discloses the claimed contact-free spaces and groove chamber as claimed. The examiner has labeled the various contact-free spaces and groove chamber in the figures reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
242
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
235
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
238
753
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10 and 11:
Barlinek discloses wherein the connecting means of the long edges is able to be locked with the connecting means of the other long edge by means of pivoting movement and wherein the connecting means of the short edges is able to be locked with the connecting means of the long edges by means of an essentially vertical joining movement (refer to Fig. 14 depicting two long edges being connected and a long edge to short edge being connected).
Response to Arguments/ Interview Summary
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner initiated an interview with Applicant’s representative Donald Walker on 1/21/2026 in an attempt to advance prosecution. Applicant agreed to an examiner’s amendment to the end of claim 1 specifying “the apical hook arm surface including a lowermost surface of the essentially horizontal locking groove”. The examiner maintained that the contact-lock location on the prior art of Barlinek could reasonably be considered “an apical hook arm surface of the latching hook. But the contact-lock is not along the lowermost surface of the essentially horizontal locking groove in Barlinek. The examiner additionally maintains that Barlinek discloses wherein when the connecting means are connected, the tongue engages in the downwardly directed locking groove between a proximal groove wall and a distal tongue surface as set forth above. The 102 rejection above is set forth without inclusion of the agreed upon amended language.
Although an examiner’s amendment was agreed to by the examiner and Applicant, 112(b) issues remain as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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