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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 4-10, 13, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stevens, WO 2014/033628.
Regarding claim 1:
Stevens discloses a floor panel for forming a floor covering, wherein the floor panel comprises: a substrate comprising thermoplastic material, the floor panel, on at least one pair of opposite edges, comprises coupling parts (refer to Fig. 2), which coupling parts allow that two such floor panels can be coupled to each other by a downward movement of one floor panel in respect to the other floor panel (Fig. 5);
the coupling parts allowing a locking in a first direction perpendicular to the plane of the floor panel, and in a second direction perpendicular to the edges and in the plane of the floor panel, the coupling parts substantially being formed of the material of said substrate and are made in one piece therewith, the coupling parts consist of a downward-directed upper hook-shaped part (11), which is situated on a first edge of said pair of opposite edges, and an upward-directed lower hook-shaped part (14), which is situated on a second edge, opposite edge of said pair of opposite edges, which hook-shaped parts can be engaged behind each other by said downward movement;
wherein the upper hook-shaped part consists of a lip which is provided with a downward-directed locking element (17), whereas the lower hook-shaped part consists of a lip which is provided with an upward-directed locking element (19);
wherein the locking elements are provided with locking surfaces which at least partially allow a locking in said second direction, which locking surfaces comprise a first and second locking surface (17 and 19), which first locking surface belongs to a proximal side of the downward-directed locking element and which second locking surface belongs to a proximal side of the upward-directed locking element, and that said locking surfaces extend continuously over a major part of the length of the respective edges (refer to Fig. 1);
wherein said coupling parts are configured such that, in a coupled condition of two such floor panels, at least in said second direction perpendicular to the edges and in the plane of the floor panel, a tensioning force is present at the location of a vertical closing surface formed between the two floor panels (para. 0037);
wherein the lip of the lower hook-shaped part comprises a first support surface (C1) for supporting the downward-directed locking element in said first direction; and
wherein a first interspace (15) is present between said vertical closing surface and the aforementioned first support surface;
wherein the lip of the lower hook-shaped part comprises a floating support surface, for setting a boundary for a possibility of pressing down the downward-directed locking element. Referring to Fig. 3, a rotating insertion of the tongue into the groove may possibly press down against the floating support surface as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
388
988
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 4-5 and 16:
Stevens discloses a floor panel for forming a floor covering, wherein the floor panel comprises: a substrate comprising thermoplastic material, the floor panel, on at least one pair of opposite edges, comprises coupling parts, which coupling parts allow that two such floor panels can be coupled to each other by a downward movement of one floor panel in respect to the other floor panel;
the coupling parts allowing a locking in a first direction perpendicular to the plane of the floor panel, and in a second direction perpendicular to the edges and in the plane of the floor panel, the coupling parts substantially being formed of the material of said substrate and are made in one piece therewith, the coupling parts consist of a downward-directed upper hook-shaped part, which is situated a first edge of said pair of opposite edges, and an upward-directed lower hook-shaped part, which is situated on a second edge, opposite edge of said pair of opposite edges, which hook-shaped parts can be engaged behind each other by said downward movement;
wherein the upper hook-shaped part consists of a lip which is provided with a downward-directed locking element, whereas the lower hook-shaped part consists of a lip which is provided with an upward-directed locking element; wherein the locking elements are provided with locking surfaces which at least partially allow the locking in said second direction, which locking surfaces comprise a first and second locking surface, which first locking surface belongs to a proximal side of the downward-directed locking element and which second locking surface belongs to a proximal side of the upward-directed locking element, and that said locking surfaces extend continuously over a major part of the length of the respective edges;
wherein said coupling parts are configured such that, in the coupled condition of two such floor panels, at least in said second direction perpendicular to the edges and in the plane of the floor panel, a tensioning force is present at the location of a vertical closing surface (C1) formed between the two floor panels;
wherein the lip of the lower hook-shaped part comprises a first support surface (C1) for supporting the downward-directed locking element; and
wherein a first interspace is present between said vertical closing surface and the aforementioned first support surface;
wherein the lip of the lower hook-shaped part comprises a floating support surface (C2, 24) for setting a boundary for a possibility of pressing down the downward-directed locking element;
wherein the first support surface (C1) is situated lower than the floating support surface (C2);
wherein the first support surface is situated closer to the upward-directed locking element than the floating support surface.
Regarding claim 2:
Stevens discloses wherein a second interspace is present between the floating support surface and the downward-directed locking element, wherein said second interspace is part of the first interspace.
Regarding claims 6 and 20:
Stevens discloses wherein the coupling parts are configured such that their contours overlap.
Regarding claim 7:
Stevens discloses wherein the thermoplastic material is PVC (para. 0045).
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 18:
Stevens discloses wherein floor panel is oblong (refer to Figs. 1 and 5) and wherein said pair of opposite edges is situated at the short sides of the floor panel; and wherein the pair of opposite edges on the long sides of the floor panel also comprise coupling parts, which coupling parts allow a locking in the first direction perpendicular to the plane of the floor panel, and in the second direction perpendicular to said edges and in the plane of the floor panel;
wherein the coupling parts on the opposite pair of edges on the long sides of the floor panel are configured such that two such floor panels can be coupled at the edges by a turning movement of one floor panel in respect to the other floor panel, in such a manner that a plurality of such floor panels can be coupled by a “fold-down” technique.
Regarding claim 10:
Stevens discloses wherein the lip of the upper hook-shaped part has a minimum thickness of less than half the thickness of the panel (refer to Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13:
Stevens discloses wherein the coupling parts are configured such that, in the coupled condition of two such floor panels, the downward-directed locking element is clamped between the vertical closing surface and a proximal side of the upward-directed locking element (refer to Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3, 11-12, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens, WO 2014/033628 in view of Cappelle, US 2012/0266555.
Regarding claims 3 and 17:
Stevens does not expressly disclose the thickness of the panel or the size of the interspaces.
Cappelle discloses a floor panel having a thickness of between 4 and 7mm and two interspaces that are much smaller than that such that the maximum dimension of a second interspace in a first direction is a maximum of 2mm.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to use similar dimensions to those of Cappelle for the panel and interspaces of Stevens.
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from making the maximum dimension of the second interspace of Stevens under 2mm as suggested by Cappelle. There is no evidence that the claimed dimensions not specifically taught by Stevens provide a criticality that would be unachievable and unexpected with a reasonable amount of experimentation.
Regarding claims 11 and 15:
Stevens does not expressly disclose wherein the lip of the upper hook-
shaped part generally comes thicker in a direction away from the downward-
directed locking element, reaching a thickness of at least half the thickness of the panel; nor wherein the lip of the lower hook-shaped part becomes thicker in a direction away from the upward-directed locking element.
Cappelle discloses a floor panel attachment wherein a lip of an upper
hook-shaped part has a minimum thickness of less than half the thickness of the
panel; and wherein the lip of the upper hook-shaped part generally becomes
thicker in a direction away from the downward-directed locking element, reaching
a thickness of at least half the thickness of the panel; and wherein the lip of the lip of the lower hook-shaped part becomes thicker in a direction away from the upward-directed locking element.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to substitute the tapered design of Cappelle for the straight design of Stevens in order to provide for bending that would facilitate coupling of the panels (para. 0010 of Cappelle).
Regarding claim 12:
Stevens does not disclose the dimensional thickness of the panel or the substrate.
Cappelle discloses a panel between 4 and 7mm (para. 0035).
In the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)
A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from making the substrate of Stevens under 5 mm as suggested by Cappelle. There is no evidence that the claimed dimensions not specifically taught by Stevens provide a criticality that would be unachievable and unexpected with a reasonable amount of experimentation.
Regarding claim 19:
Stevens does not expressly disclose wherein the thermoplastic material is PVC comprising a filler.
Cappelle discloses wherein a thermoplastic substrate material is PVC with filler (para. 0033).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to substitute the material of Cappelle of that of Stevens to provide a supple material with sufficient elasticity.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens, WO 2014/033628.
Regarding claim 14:
Stevens does not expressly disclose the relative thickness of the lip of the lower hook-shaped part.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a minimum thickness which is larger than ¼ of the overall thickness of the floor panel, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from the change in size, as thickening predictably improves strength.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Stevens does not explicitly identify points of contact C1 and C2 as support surfaces, this does not preclude the contact surfaces from also serving as support surfaces carrying vertical load. The surfaces provide support surfaces carrying vertical load for the panels when the panels are adjoined. The surfaces sit upon each other along an oblique surface (T1 and T2) that provides both a vertical and a horizontal component of support. The contact/support surfaces prevent detachment in a vertical direction. Further, a “vertical load” is not claimed.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the geometry surrounding contact point C2 is part of a continuous locking contour and is not described as a surface that limits downward movement of the locking element, the claims do not specify that the surface limits downward movement. Regardless, downward movement of the right panel relative to the left panel is affected by C2.
PNG
media_image2.png
283
623
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding applicant’s argument that Stevens does not disclose wherein a floating support surface sets a boundary for a possibility of pressing down the downward-directed locking element, the floating support surface labeled above sets “a boundary for a possibility of pressing down the downward-directed locking element”. The boundary could be engaged by pressing down during engagement of the joint.
It is noted that applicant’s invention is devoid of a supporting shelf (C3 in Stevens) along the distal side of the downward-directed element. Instead, the distal side of the downward-directed locking element is essentially free of a vertical support shelf from the top of the panel joint seam down to the floating support surface. This structure significantly differentiates the instant invention from the prior art of Stevens.
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