DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 are addressed on the merits herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites “at least one groove areas” in line 2 and it appears intended to recite, “ at least one groove area.” Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3, 6, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plopis (US 6,354,057) in view of Robinson (US 6,802,161) and Tracy et al (“Tracy”) (US 1,503,929).
Re claim 1, Plopis discloses a factory-prefabricated (14 being thermoplastic; Col 1 lines 33-36 disclosing that 14 is fabricated, which must be done prior to installation, and any location in which 14 is fabricated can be considered a “factory”) wall skirting (10) for a floor covering (Fig. 5, 11), for manufacturing a moisture-proof wall closure (Fig. 5), wherein the factory-prefabricated wall skirting (14) is produced from a strip cutting (Col 6 lines 13-18) of the floor covering (11) and comprises a bending area (21), about which the strip cutting (Col 6 lines 13-18) is bent (at 26), wherein in the convex bending area (at 26) of the strip cutting (Col 6 lines 13-18), a material forming the strip cutting (Col 6 lines 13-18) is partially removed (at 26),
but fails to disclose replaced by a filling material, and the bending area as convex.
However, Robison discloses the partially removed cutting (21) is replaced by (Fig. 18; Col 4 lines 24-26) a filling material (23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the factory-prefabricated wall skirting of Plopis with the partially removed cutting is replaced by a filling material as disclosed by Robinson in order to provide an adhesive gripping material to maintain the wall skirting on the surfaces, and to maintain the wall skirting in the bent shape.
In addition, Tracy discloses the bending area (14) as convex (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the factory-prefabricated wall skirting of Plopis with the bending area as convex as disclosed by Tracy in order to avoid any joint, corner, or crevice therein, for sanitary purposes, inasmuch as there would be an entire absence of cause for accumulation of foreign substance (Page 1 lines 85-93), or to increase aesthetic appeal.
It should further be noted that the language “produced from a strip cutting of the floor covering” and “the material of the strip cutting is partially removed” is considered product-by-process; therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See M.P.E.P. §2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Re claim 2, Plopis as modified discloses the factory-prefabricated wall skirting according to claim 1, Robinson discloses wherein the filling material (23) consists of a permanently elastic material (Col 5 line 25, rubber being elastic), but fails to disclose plastic.
However, Tracey discloses the filler material (10) as plastic (Page 1 line 70-71).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the factory-prefabricated wall skirting of Plopis to be to have the filler as plastic in order to utilize a cheap, inexpensive, readily available, easily formable and durable material. In addition, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 3, Plopis as modified discloses the factory-prefabricated wall skirting according to claim 10, Robinson discloses wherein the filling material (23) consists of a thermoplastic or elastomer (Col 5 line 25, rubber being an elastomer).
Re claim 6, Plopis as modified discloses the factory-prefabricated wall skirting according to claim 1, wherein the convex bending area (21; as modified) comprises a material thickness (Fig. 5) corresponding to a material thickness (of 14) of the strip cutting (14).
Re claim 9, Plopis as modified discloses the factory-prefabricated wall skirting according to claim 1, Robinsons discloses the filling material (23) extends over a surface (of 11) of the strip cutting (11) and forms an edge support wedge (at 23, as cured).
Re claim 10, Plopis as modified discloses the factory-prefabricated wall skirting according to claim 1, wherein the factory-prefabricated wall skirting (14) and the floor covering (11) are connected to each other with a weld seam (Col 6 lines 47-50).
Claim(s) 4-5, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plopis (US 6,354,057) in view of Robinson (US 6,802,161), Tracy et al (“Tracy”) (US 1,503,929) and Shanok et al (“Shanok”) (US 1,503,929).
Re claim 4, Plopis as modified discloses the factory-prefabricated wall skirting according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the convex bending area comprises at least one lamella extending in the longitudinal direction and formed from the material of the floor covering and at least one groove area recessed on each side of the lamella), and in-that-the filling material is arranged in the groove area.
However, Shanok discloses wherein the convex bending area (bottom of 10) comprises at least one lamella (tabs between 20) extending in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1) and formed from the material (Fig. 1) of the floor covering (10) and at least one groove area (20) recessed (Fig. 2) on each side of the at least one lamella (between 20), and the filling material (Robins: 23, as modified) is arranged in (as modified) the at least one groove area (20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the factory-prefabricated wall skirting of Plopis wherein the convex bending area comprises at least one lamella extending in a longitudinal direction and formed from the material of the floor covering and at least one groove area recessed on each side of the at least one lamella, and in-that-the filling material is arranged in the at least one groove area as disclosed by Shanok in order to provide additional space along the length for additional filling material.
Re claim 5, Plopis as modified discloses the factory-prefabricated wall skirting according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the convex bending area comprises lamellae and groove areas with a specific pattern.
However, Shanok discloses wherein the convex bending area (bottom of 10) comprises lamellae (tabs between 20) and groove areas (20) with a specific pattern (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the factory-prefabricated wall skirting of Plopis wherein the convex bending area comprises lamellae and groove areas with a specific pattern as disclosed by Shanok in order to provide additional space along the length for additional filling material.
Re claim 7, Plopis as modified discloses the factory-prefabricated wall skirting according to claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one lamellae and the at least one groove areas extend parallel in a direction of a longitudinal axis or perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the strip cutting.
However, Shanok discloses wherein the at least one lamellae (tabs between 20) and the at least one groove areas (20) extend parallel in a direction of a longitudinal axis or perpendicular to (Fig. 2) the longitudinal axis (of 10) of the strip cutting (10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the factory-prefabricated wall skirting of Plopis wherein the at least one lamellae and the at least one groove areas extend parallel in a direction of a longitudinal axis or perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the strip cutting disclosed by Shanok in order to provide additional space along the length for additional filling material.
Re claim 8, Plopis as modified discloses the factory-prefabricated wall skirting according to claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one lamellae and the at least one groove areas are arranged a certain angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the strip cutting.
However, Shanok discloses wherein the at least one lamellae (tabs between 20) and the at least one groove area (20) are arranged a certain angle (Fig. 2) with respect to a longitudinal axis (of 10) of the strip cutting (10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the factory-prefabricated wall skirting of Plopis wherein the at least one lamellae and the at least one groove area are arranged a certain angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the strip cutting disclosed by Shanok in order to provide additional space along the length for additional filling material.
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Drawings: Applicant’s argument with respect to the drawings is persuasive and objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the bent section forming a cove portion, providing simplified cleaning and increased stability. This language, namely “a convex bending area” is now properly positively recited in the claims. Applicant argues that Ploplis fails to disclose this feature due to only having two folding regions, which may lead to undesired buckling. However, as noted in the above, Tracy discloses such an area at 14, and provides rationale for doing so as cited above.
In addition, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Ploplis and Robison. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify Ploplis and Robinson as they are analogous to the claimed invention. In other words, because Ploplis and Robinson are analogous to the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill would look to Robinson to modify Ploplis. A reference is analogous to the claimed invention if it (1) is in the same field of endeavor or (2) is reasonably pertinent to the problem being solved by the invention. The presently claimed field of endeavor is wall skirtings. Robinson is directed to a seal for sealing the joint between two contiguous surfaces disposed at an angle to each other. Ploplis is directed to a seamless floor-to-wall baseboard that is constructed from and is intended to accompany the installation of resilient thermoplastic flooring material . Both Robinson and Ploplis constitute wall skirtings as a result. As such, both lie well within the field of endeavor and a person of ordinary skill would look to Robinson to modify Ploplis.
Applicant’s arguments concerning any remaining claims are addressed by the above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635