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Claims 13-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/17/25.
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 1-9 and 22-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,944,124 to Armstrong in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2013/0097950 to Hunsaker et al.
Regarding claim 1, Armstrong discloses a first panel (fig. 2: right side where 14 points) capable of attaching to a slab, a side of the first panel is nonlinear (see where 24 points), and a second panel (left side, fig. 2) also capable of attaching to a slab and having nonlinear side (right side approximate to where 16 points), the panels are keyed for engagement with each other (as seen in fig.3 where wavy edges of both panels 10a and 10 abut). Regarding the limitation of flat first and second surfaces being coplanar, this is not disclosed by Armstrong. Hunsaker discloses masonry panels which have flat surfaces (fig. 1: 5) and non linear sides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong by using such a design as an obvious design choice where the masonry look is to be brick instead of stone.
Regarding claim 2, the nonlinear panel sides may slidably engage in a flush non slip manner (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, the nonlinear sides are reciprocal wave patterns (fig. see wave pattern approximate to where 24 points).
Regarding claims 4, 7, 36, 37 and 40-42Armstrong discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions of the waves, thicknesses or densities. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as a mere design choice for panels that may need to be larger or smaller, they would require larger or smaller various dimensions and sizes.
Regarding claim 5, Armstrong discloses two panels, not a third with two nonlinear sides. Hunsaker discloses a plurality of panels (fig. 4: 17, 18, 20) having nonlinear sides and joined together. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong by adding extra panels in order to make a larger panel to support a larger load. Also, it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 6, a porcelain material may be attached to the panel.
Regarding claim 8, the mass of the panels may be less than a mass of a slab, and the rigidity of the panels may be higher than that of a slab.
Regarding claim 9, the use of aluminum is not disclosed. However, the use of metal is disclosed (column 1, lines 19-25). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong by using aluminum as aluminum is a metal and resists corrosion from weathering.
Regarding claim 35, rigid foam is disclosed (column 1, lines 19-25).
Regarding claim 38, claim 38 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 1. Additionally, Hunsaker discloses bricks (16) which are brittle and an underlayment (14, 13) which is less brittle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong to use such material as this is a realistic form of masonry and would have been an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 39, an engineering stone material is used (engineered to simulate stone).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,944,124 to Armstrong in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2013/0097950 to Hunsaker et al. further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,876,810 to Bodine et al.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Armstrong does not disclose the use of a peel ply tape layer. Bodine discloses the use of a two sided peel ply tape layer (claim 6) for use on panels for adherence to surface elements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Armstrong by adding such a tape in order to better secure additional structure to the panels.
Regarding claim 12, the adhesive may bond to a ceramic material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/26 have been fully considered but they are moot under new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendment of 7/9/26 and result in the new action above.
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 extension fee 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 Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST.
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 on (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.
/BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights