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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6 and 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 21, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the specific inclined groove having the flap mounting portion and the second mounting portion that pertain to the connecting flap and second connecting potion of the fitting members in the elected species embodied by figure 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). An embodiment of the ceramic tile that cooperates with the mounting components of figure 12 needs to be provided. Figure 12 is objected to because it appears label 111 and 112 should be reversed. The limitations of claims 3-5 and are not shown as there is no figure showing the corresponding tile as noted above. They do not appear to point to the corresponding element that is represented in all other species. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6, and 8-10 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 recites the limitation "the top surface" in line 4, “the side surfaces” in line 8, “the side” in line 11, “the side of the first mounting portion” in line 13, “the side of the first connecting portion” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1: It is unclear what the recitation “the tiles mutually adhering to the side surfaces” means. Lines 10 and 13 end in “.” And should end in a comma or semicolon.
Regarding claim 2: It is unclear how the second mounting portion extends towards the interior of the tile.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the end of the first mounting portion" in lines 2-3, “the interior” in line 3, “the end of the first connecting portion” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3: it is unclear what it means that the fist mounting portion is level with the horizontal plane and the connection flap is level with the horizontal plane.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the horizontal plane" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 8: It is unclear what “is communicated with a lateral of the first mounting portion” means.
Regarding claim 8: It is unclear what the two second connecting portions are referring to. It is unclear how there are two second connecting portions.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the two second connecting portion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 9 and 10: It is unclear what a “keel” is referring to. The commonly accepted definition of a keel is a longitudinal structure along the centerline at the bottom of a vessel’s hull. It is unclear how it relates to a structure that has tile affixed to it.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the keel" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the keel" in line 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additional claims rejected under 35 USC 112 but not addressed are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim and failing to further remedy the issue(s).
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20150087693).
Referring to claim 1: Lee teaches a ceramic tile hanging system, characterized by comprising mounting components (item 220) and ceramic tiles (230); wherein the mounting components are fixed on an installation surface, including a plurality of fitting members (item 222) extending upward from the top surface of the mounting components; the fitting members are integrated with the mounting components; the ceramic tiles are attached to the mounting components, with the tiles mutually adhering to the side surfaces; each of the tiles is provided an inclined groove (item 231), and the inclined groove is hung on and attached to the fitting members. the inclined groove includes a first mounting portion opened on the side away from the ceramic tile decorative surface, and a flap mounting portion (flared end on the upward side) extending from the side of the first mounting portion, each of the fitting members includes a first connecting portion (upward extending portion of end) extending upward from the mounting components, the first connecting portion abutting against the first mounting portion; a connecting flap (flared end upwardly extending) is attached to the side of the first connecting portion, and the connecting flap is fitted into the flap mounting portion. The prior art of record does not specifically teach a ceramic tile. However, the Examiner gives Official Notice that it is well known in the art to attach a ceramic tile to a wall using a mounting component and a groove.
Referring to claim 2: Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Lee teaches the inclined groove further comprises a second mounting portion (flared end extending downward) extending from the end of the first mounting portion towards the interior of the ceramic tile; each of the fitting members further comprises a second connecting portion (flared end extending downward) extending from the end of the first connecting portion and located within the second mounting portion.
Referring to claim 3: Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Lee teaches the first mounting portion is inclined, the flap mounting portion is in communication with the first mounting portion and is level with the horizontal plane; the first connecting portion is fitted into the first mounting portion, and the connecting flap is fitted into the flap mounting portion and is level with the horizontal plane (figure 6).
Referring to claim 4: Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Lee teaches the first mounting portion is inclined; the flap mounting portion is communicated with a lateral of the first mounting portion and is inclined downward; the first connecting portion is fitted into the first mounting portion, and the connecting flap is fitted into the flap mounting portion and is inclined downward (figure 6).
Referring to claim 5: Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Lee teaches the first mounting portion is inclined, the flap mounting portion is communicated with a lateral the first mounting portion and is inclined upward; a first connecting portion is fitted into the first mounting portion, and the connecting flap is fitted into the flap mounting portion and is inclined upward (figure 6).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Pascucci (US Patent No 3,321,883).
Referring to claim 9: Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Lee does not teach the mounting components are C-shaped steel, with several fitting members uniformly spaced on the multiple C-shaped steel, the C-shaped steel is fixed on the keel, and the keel is fixed on the installation surface. However, Pascucci teaches the mounting components are C-shaped steel (item 2), with several fitting members uniformly spaced on the multiple C-shaped steel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Lee with the C-shaped steel taught by Pascucci in order to provide a small installation element that is easily transported to an installation location. They do not teach the C-shaped steel is fixed on the keel, and the keel is fixed on the installation surface. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to mount to any intermediate surface to allow for location of the strips and installation as a module.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Funaki (US Patent No 4,803,821).
Referring to claim 10: Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Lee does not teach the mounting components are a mounting baseplate, with several fitting members arranged on the mounting baseplate; the mounting baseplate is fixed on the installation surface, or alternatively, the mounting baseplate is fixed on the keel, and the keel is fixed on the installation surface. However, Funaki teaches teach the mounting components are a mounting baseplate, with several fitting members arranged on the mounting baseplate; the mounting baseplate is fixed on the installation surface, or alternatively, the mounting baseplate is fixed on the keel, and the keel is fixed on the installation surface (figures 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Lee with the mounting components taught by Funaki in order to provide a preassembled installation for quicker installation at a final location.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/427,490 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims contain the same limitations with slightly different wording.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635