DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 1/30/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an applications filed in China on 1/30/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN 202310074652.9 or CN202320142516.4 applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Figures 1-16, the poor line quality in Figures 1-16 renders part or all of the drawing illegible when reproduced. 37 CFR 1.84(l) (m) and (p)(1). 37 CFR 1.84(l) recites, “[a]ll drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.” Applicant is requested to submit replacement sheets of drawings that have black lines on a white background, with the black lines being darker with a higher contrast to eliminate fuzziness.
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.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“the C-shaped steel is securely fixed to the keel, and the keel is securely fixed to the installation surface” (claim 9); and
“the mounting baseplates are securely fixed to the keel, and the keel is securely fixed to the installation surface” (claim 10).
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 Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, the claim has a semi-colon at the end of the claim, instead of a period, and thus appears to contain a typo. This objection can be overcome by deleting the semi-colon and replacing it with a period.
Claims 2-10, “The system” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited “ceramic tile hanging system” and thus lacks antecedent basis. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “The ceramic tile hanging system”.
Claim 4, the claim has a period directly adjacent to a semi-colon in line 5. This objection can be overcome by deleting the period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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, “the top surface of the mounting components” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that a top surface is not previously defined in the claim. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “a top surface of the mounting components” or equivalent.
Claim 1, “the sides of the ceramic tiles” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that sides of the ceramic tiles are not previously defined in the claim. This rejection can be overcome by previously in the claim defining the ceramic tiles as having a plurality of sides, or equivalent.
Claim 1, “the ceramic tile decorative surface” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that a ceramic tile decorative surface is not previously defined in the claim. This rejection can be overcome by previously in the claim defining the ceramic tile as comprising a decorative surface.
Claim 2, “the horizontal plan” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that a horizontal plan is not previously defined in the claim. This rejection can be overcome by previously in the claim defining a horizontal plan.
Claim 4, “the inner side”, “the other end” and “the horizontal plane” are indefinite because the terms lack antecedent basis. Note that the claims do not previously define an inner side, an other end or a horizontal plane. Does applicant intend for the horizontal plane to refer to the horizontal plane in claim 2 or a different/additional horizontal plane? See also claims 5-6.
Claim 7, “downward/upward” is indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. The limitation recites two opposite directions. Does applicant intend for the limitation to require one of the directions or both of the directions? See also claim 8.
Claim 9, “several fitting members” is indefinite because the limitation previously recites a plurality of fitting members. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited plurality of fitting members or different/additional fitting members? The limitation was treated as referring to the previously recited fitting members. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “several of the plurality of fitting members” or equivalent. See also claim 10.
Claim 9, “the keel” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that a keel is not previously recited. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “a keel” or equivalent. See also claim 10.
The remainder of the claims are dependent upon directly or indirectly a rejected base claim.
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. 18/427,465 (‘reference application’).
Re claims 1-10, the claims of the reference application and the claims of the instant application are drawn to substantially the same invention, with minor differences in wording/phraseology. For example, the claims of the reference application recite a connecting flap and a flap mounting portion, whereas the claims of the instant application recite a second connecting portion and a second mounting portion. The terms are drawn to the same structure, with the claims of the instant application being broader than the claims of the reference application, and thus the claims of the reference application encompass the scope of the claims of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bogataj (US 5029425).
Claim 1, Bogataj teaches a ceramic tile hanging system, firmly attached to an installation surface 12, comprising mounting components 11 and ceramic tiles (10; note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the sand and cementitious material that gives a stonelike appearance constitutes a ceramic tile, as exceedingly broadly claimed); characterized in that (note that as recited throughout the claims, “characterized in that” was treated as a transitional phrase equivalent to “wherein”)
the mounting components are securely fixed on the installation surface (Fig. 2); the mounting components include a plurality of fitting members 27 extending upward from the top surface of the mounting components (note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the top surface of the mounting components was treated as the right surface, as viewed in Fig. 2), and the fitting members are integrally formed with the mounting components (it is understood that elements 27 are integrally formed with element 11; Fig. 2);
the ceramic tiles are hung on and attached to the mounting components (Fig. 2), with the sides of the ceramic tiles being abutted against each other (left and right ends of the ceramic tiles abut each other col. 3, lines 12-15; and/or the top and bottom ends of the ceramic tiles abut each other; Figs. 1-2); each of the ceramic tiles has an inclined groove 18, and the inclined groove is hooked onto and attached to the fitting members (Figs.1-2);
the inclined groove includes a first mounting portion (lower portion of 18, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 2) arranged on the side away from the ceramic tile decorative surface (Fig. 2), and a second mounting portion extending from the first mounting portion into the interior of the ceramic tile (upper portion of 18, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 2);
each of the fitting members comprises a first connecting portion extending upward from the mounting components (lower portion of 27, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 2); the first connecting portion is abutted against the first mounting portion (Fig. 2), and a second connecting portion (upper portion of 27, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 2) extending from the first connecting portion into the second mounting portion (Fig. 2).
Claim 2, Bogataj further provides in that the first mounting portion is inclined (Fig. 2 the second mounting portion is in communication with and level with the horizontal plan (Fig. 2); the first connecting portion is fitted into the first mounting portion (Fig. 2), and the second connecting portion is fitted into the second mounting portion (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lehmann et al. (US 20220195736) (‘Lehmann’).
Claim 1, Lehmann provides a ceramic tile hanging system, firmly attached to an installation surface 20, comprising mounting components 100 and ceramic tiles ([0035]; 50); characterized in that (note that as recited throughout the claims, “characterized in that” was treated as a transitional phrase equivalent to “wherein”)
the mounting components are securely fixed on the installation surface (Fig. 1); the mounting components include a plurality of fitting members 150 extending upward from the top surface of the mounting components (the top surface of the mounting surface was treated as the right side, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1), and the fitting members are integrally formed with the mounting components (Fig. 1);
the ceramic tiles are hung on and attached to the mounting components (Fig. 1), with the sides of the ceramic tiles being abutted against each other (it is understood that sides of the ceramic tiles are abutted against each other; Fig. 1); each of the ceramic tiles has an inclined groove (annotated Fig. 9 of Lehmann shown below in Examiner’s Notes), and the inclined groove is hooked onto and attached to the fitting members (Fig. 9);
the inclined groove includes a first mounting portion arranged on the side away from the ceramic tile decorative surface (lower portion of inclined groove; annotated Fig. 9), and a second mounting portion (upper portion of inclined groove; annotated Fig. 9) extending from the first mounting portion into the interior of the ceramic tile (annotated Fig. 9);
each of the fitting members comprises a first connecting portion extending upward from the mounting components (first portion of 150, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 9); the first connecting portion is abutted against the first mounting portion (annotated Fig. 9), and a second connecting portion extending from the first connecting portion into the second mounting portion (annotated Fig. 9).
Claim 2, Lehmann further provides in that the first mounting portion is inclined (the bottom surface of the first mounting portion is inclined; annotated Fig. 9); the second mounting portion is in communication with and level with the horizontal plan (Fig. 9); the first connecting portion is fitted into the first mounting portion (annotated Fig. 9), and the second connecting portion is fitted into the second mounting portion (annotated Fig. 9).
Claim 3, Lehmann further provides in that each of the fitting members further includes a third connecting portion extending from the second connecting portion into the second mounting portion (upper portion of second connecting portion, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 9).
Claim 7, Lehmann further provides in that the first mounting portion is inclined (annotated Fig. 9), the second mounting portion tilts downward/upward from the first mounting portion (upward; annotated Fig. 9); the first connecting portion is fitted into the first mounting portion (annotated Fig. 9); the second connecting portion is connected to and level with the horizontal plane (annotated Fig. 9); the third connecting portion is connected to upper portion or lower portion of the second connecting portion (upper portion; annotated Fig. 9).
Claim 10, Lehmann further provides in that the mounting component is a mounting baseplate (Fig. 2), and several fitting members are arranged on the mounting baseplate (Fig. 1); the mounting baseplates are securely fixed to the installation surface (Fig. 1), or alternatively, the mounting baseplates are securely fixed to the keel, and the keel is securely fixed to the installation surface (not required by the claim due to recitation of “or alternatively”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann et al. (US 20220195736) (‘Lehmann’) in view of Bunting (US 20220034086).
Claim 4, Lehmann further teaches in that one end of the inner side of the first mounting portion is linear (annotated Fig. 9), and the other end is slanted (annotated Fig. 9); the second mounting portion is in communication with and level with the horizontal plane (annotated Fig. 9); the first connecting portion is perpendicular to and abuts against the linear inner side of the first mounting portion (the connecting portion is a three-dimensional object that extends at least in a thickness direction away from the linear portion of the first mounting portion, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 9); the second connecting portion is perpendicular to the first connecting portion (annotated Fig. 9). Lehmann does not teach the third connecting portion is slanted upward from the second connecting portion, or alternatively, the third connecting portion is slanted downward from the second connecting portion. However, Bunting teaches a system, comprising a first connecting portion (see annotated Fig. 1 of Bunting shown below in Examiner’s Notes), a second connecting portion (annotated Fig. 1), and a third connecting portion being slanted downward from the second connecting portion (as indicated by dotted outline of third portion; annotated Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try modifying the shape of the mounting component such that the third connecting portion is slanted downward from the second connecting portion, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape of a mounting component to secure the tile to the installation surface (Bunting [0024]), and since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim 5, Lehmann further teaches in that one end of the inner side of the first mounting portion is linear (annotated Fig. 9), and the other end is slanted (annotated Fig. 9); the second mounting portion is in communication with and level with the horizontal plane (annotated Fig. 9); the first connecting portion is perpendicular to and abuts against the linear inner side of the first mounting portion (the connecting portion is a three-dimensional object that extends at least in a thickness direction away from the linear portion of the first mounting portion, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 9); the third connecting portion is slanted upward from the first connecting portion (annotated Fig. 9). Lehman does not teach the second connecting portion being slanted downward from the first connecting portion. However, Bunting teaches a system (see annotated Fig. 1 of Bunting shown below in Examiner’s Notes) comprising a first connecting portion (annotated Fig. 1). Bunting further teaches a connecting portion that is slanted downward from the first connecting portion (labeled “third connecting portion” in annotated Fig. 1) and another connecting portion that is slanted upward from the first connecting portion (labeled “second connecting portion” in annotated Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try changing the shape of the mounting components such that the second connecting portion is slanted downward from the first connecting portion, and the third connecting portion is slanted upward from the first connecting portion, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape of a mounting component to secure the tile to the installation surface (Bunting [0024]), and since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim 6, Lehmann further teaches in that one end of the inner side of the first mounting portion is linear (annotated Fig. 9), and the other end is slanted (annotated Fig. 9); the second mounting portion is in communication with and level with the horizontal plane (annotated Fig. 9); the first connecting portion is perpendicular to and abuts against the linear inner side of the first mounting portion (the connecting portion is a three-dimensional object that extends at least in a thickness direction away from the linear portion of the first mounting portion, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 9). Lehmann does not teach the second connecting portion is slanted downward from the first connecting portion; the third connecting portion is slanted downward from the first connecting portion. However, Bunting teaches a system (see annotated Fig. 1 of Bunting shown below in Examiner’s Notes) comprising a first connecting portion (annotated Fig. 1). Bunting further teaches another connecting portion that is slanted downward from the first connecting portion (labeled as “third connecting portion” in annotated Fig. 1), the “third connecting portion” comprises a first downwardly extending portion and a second downwardly slanted portion that nonetheless extends in a slanted downward direction from the first connecting portion (note that applicant’s claim 3 from which claim 6 depends requires the third connecting portion to extend from the second connecting portion, and Bunting’s third portion, likewise shows the second downwardly slanted portion extending from the first downwardly extending portion). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try modifying the shape of the mounting components such that the second connecting portion is slanted downward from the first connecting portion, and the third connecting portion is slanted downward from the first connecting portion, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape of a mounting component to secure the tile to the installation surface (Bunting [0024]), and since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim 8, Lehmann further teaches in that the first mounting portion is inclined (annotated Fig. 9), the second mounting portion is slanted downward/upward from the first mounting portion (upward; annotated Fig. 9); the first connecting portion is fitted into the first mounting portion (annotated Fig. 9); the third connecting portion is connected to upper portion or lower portion the second connecting portion (upper portion; annotated Fig. 9). Lehmann does not teach the second connecting portion is slanted downward from the first connecting portion. However, Bunting teaches a system (see annotated Fig. 1 of Bunting shown below in Examiner’s Notes) comprising a first connecting portion (annotated Fig. 1). Bunting further teaches another connecting portion being slanted downward from the first connecting portion (labeled as “third connecting portion” in annotated Fig. 1 of Bunting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try modifying the shape of the mounting components such that the second connecting portion is slanted downward from the first connecting portion, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape of a mounting component to secure the tile to the installation surface (Bunting [0024]), and since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann et al. (US 20220195736) (‘Lehmann’) in view of Luk (US 20170002571).
Claim 9, Lehmann further teaches 9 in that the mounting component is C-shaped steel (Fig. 2), and several fitting members are evenly spaced on the C-shaped steel (Fig. 1). Lehmann does not teach the C-shaped steel being securely fixed to the keel, and the keel is securely fixed to the installation surface. However, Luk teaches a system comprising a mounting component being securely fixed to a keel 1, and the keel being securely fixed to an installation surface ([0039]; Figs. 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try securely fixing the C-shaped steel to the keel, and the keel being securely fixed to the installation surface, with the reasonable expectation of success of attaching the mounting component to the installation surface using a known attachment means that provides suitable strength and support and provides a flat surface for mounting the tiles (Lehmann [0019]).
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
746
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9 of Lehmann et al. (US 20220195736) (‘Lehmann’)
PNG
media_image2.png
699
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Bunting (US 20220034086)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635