DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/532,138. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 01/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are pending.
Claim 14 is cancelled.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are examined.
Drawings
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the drawing objections are persuasive. The drawing objections of the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the claim objections of the previous Office Action. Therefore, the claim objections of the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous Office Action, except where noted below. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous Office Action, except where noted below, are withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 11 has been amended to define “at least two step clip fastening devices oriented to extend orthogonally to the first plane,” which is considered to define new matter since the base and overall extent of the step clip fastening devices, as originally disclosed and depicted, are to extend horizontally in order to extend deck tiles attached thereto horizontally and thus parallel to the horizontal plane of the frame which the step clip fastening devices are to attach to. Claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for depending upon claim 11. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, such an orientation of the step clip fastening devices can be considered an orientation of certain features of such a device, such as the clips or connector elements for attaching such devices to the frame.
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 3 and 17-20 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 3 defines “wherein multiple deck tile assemblies, each including the hook connectors,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether such multiple deck tile assemblies are to comprise of each and every feature of the claimed invention as defined in claim 1 or whether such a deck tile assembly of claim 1 is to comprise of a further plurality of deck tile assemblies that only require hooking connectors as defined in claim 1. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, such limitations are considered to define a plurality of deck tile assemblies, each comprising the structure as defined in claim 1.
Claim 17 defines “placing a first deck tile assembly on a ground surface and placing a second deck tile assembly adjacent to the first deck tile assembly, according to claim 1,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite. Claim 1 is directed to a single deck tile assembly and not two assemblies placed adjacent to one another and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to place first and second tile assemblies adjacent one another as done in claim 1 when such features are not provided in claim 1. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, such limitations should be amended to and are considered to define --placing a first deck tile assembly according to claim 1 on a ground surface and placing a second deck tile assembly according to claim 1 adjacent to the first deck tile assembly--. Moreover, claims 18-20 are rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 17.
Furthermore, claim 17 defines both protrusions and grooves for each tile assembly and also the limitations “a plurality of locking mechanisms,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since the present specification teaches the locking mechanisms are formed by the protrusions and grooves but such claim limitations appear to attempt to define that such elements are different, separate structures, thus confusing one of ordinary skill in the art as to whether protrusions and grooves and also locking mechanisms are required or whether the locking mechanisms comprise of the previously defined protrusions and grooves. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, the locking mechanisms are considered to comprise of the grooves and protrusions as previously defined. Moreover, claims 18-20 are rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 17.
Finally, claim 17 defines “a hooking connector,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since the claim has been amended to define that such deck tile assemblies are to comprise of the structure as defined in claim 1, yet claim 1 already defines such hooking connectors and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether such a hooking connector is different and in addition to the hooking connectors of claim 1 or whether such elements are one and the same. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, such a hook connector of claim 17 are considered to refer back to the hooking connectors as defined in claim 1. Moreover, claims 18-20 are rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 17.
Claim 19 defines “attaching cone shaped holes on” the first and second assemblies, where claim 1 already defines such cone shaped holes provided within each deck tile assembly and claim 17, which claim 19 depends from, already defines such first and second deck tile assemblies are to comprise of the tile assembly as defined in claim 1, which thus renders claim 19 indefinite since one of ordinary skill in the art would not know whether a separate set of cone shaped holes separate from the ones of claim 1 are now required. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, claim 19 is considered to refer back to the cone shaped holes as defined in claim 1, where such holes are formed on the first and second tile assemblies. Moreover, claim 20 is rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 19.
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, 5-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0096250) in view of Bernat et al. (FR 2989713) and Chuang (U.S. Publication 2012/0117910).
Regarding claim 1, Lam et al. disclose a deck tile assembly comprising:
a frame (#12a) having at least four sides (see figure 1) defining a first plane (the x-y plane as depicted in figure 1);
a plurality of bars (the bars #44 that extend horizontally in figure 1) for providing a support structure to the frame (see figure 1);
at least two parallel sleepers permanently attached between two opposite sides of the frame and mounted on the plurality of bars (see figure 1, where the bars #44 that extend vertically in the figure are considered the sleepers that extend parallel and from the top and bottom sides of the frame);
at least two step clip fastening devices (#50a), wherein each of the step clip fastening devices is mounted on one of the at least two parallel sleepers (see figure 10, where the clip #50a is to be mounted to a hook #46 of a respective sleeper);
hooking connectors (#46) positioned underneath the at least two step clip fastening devices (see figures 1 and 10), wherein the hooking connectors are configured to enable the at least two step clip fastening devices to remain secured on the at least two parallel sleepers (see figures 1 and 10 and paragraph 76); and
at least two supporting members (#42) for attaching the frame with a ground surface (see paragraph 63).
However, Lam et al. do not disclose a cone-shaped through hole to attach the frame with the ground surface using a stake through the hole. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bernat et al., that such deck tile assemblies can be constructed by a rectangular frame #1, where the frame comprises of cone-shaped through holes #28 (see figure 6c) that are configured to receive screws to secure the frame #1 and deck tiles #3 that are to be attached to the frame to a support surface. See line 15 of page 5 of the English translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the frame of Lam et al. to comprise of a conical through hole and a stake to secure the frame to a support surface, as taught in Bernat et al., in order to prevent movement between the frame and support surface and provide a secure deck tile floor assembly.
Furthermore, Lam et al. disclose the use of rods #60 with an enlarged ridge #61 that are to snap fit to hooks #46 in order to attach the clip fastening devices to the sleepers, where the hooks extend horizontally and thus parallel to the first plane of the frame and not orthogonal thereto as presently defined in claim 1. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Chuang, that such tile assemblies can comprise of a frame #1 comprising a plurality of rectangular receiving areas which comprise of connection holes #171 around a perimeter of such a receiving area, where a cover panel #2 can be attached within such an area using hooks #211 that allow the panel to be vertically inserted and snap fit into the receiving area where needed. See figure 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the rod and hook connection elements of Lam et al. for a hook and hole connection assembly as taught in Chuang since such connection methods are simple substitutions of quick vertical connection methods and would have yield the same predictable result of vertically snap fitting the elements of the tile assembly of Lam et al. to one another where needed. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Therefore, the hooking connectors of Lam et al. in view of Chuang would extend vertically from the bottom of the step clip fastening devices, and thus orthogonal to the horizontal plane of the frame, and hook onto the openings of the frame, thus meeting such limitations as defined.
Regarding claim 2, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. and Chuang render obvious the stake is positioned at an angle through the cone-shaped hole (see figure 6C of Bernat et al., where the stake/screw would extend through the hole so that it extends at a 90 degree angle relative to frame, where such features would be provided within Lam et al. as explained above).
Regarding claim 3, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. and Chuang render obvious multiple deck tiles assemblies each including the hooking connectors (figure 3 of Lam et al. depicts multiple tile frames #12a/b can be used and attached to one another, where each tile can comprise of such hooking connectors to attach the clip fastening devices to the parallel sleepers as taught in Lam et al. in view of Chuang as explained above).
Regarding claim 5, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. and Chuang render obvious each of the step clip fastening devices comprises a plurality of step clips attached on a base strip of the step clip fastening device (figure 7 of Lam et al. depicts each device #50 comprises a plurality of clips #58 attached on a base #52).
Regarding claim 6, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. and Chuang render obvious each of the at least two supporting members have the cone-shaped through hole at each end of the supporting member for attaching the frame with the ground surface with at least one fastener (the support members #42 of Lam et al. are to contact the ground and thus it would have been obvious to include such cone-shaped through holes of Bernat et al. within such supporting members of Lam et al. in order to secure such supporting members to the ground to prevent movement therebetween and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).).
Regarding claim 7, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. and Chuang render obvious one or more deck boards (Lam et al.; #62) positioned over one or more deck tile assemblies (see figure 10 of Lam et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. and Chuang render obvious a plurality of deck boards are mounted on the at least two step clip fastening devices (see figure 10 of Lam et al.).
Claim(s) 11-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al.
Regarding claim 11, Lam et al. disclose a deck tile system comprising: a deck tile assembly, wherein the assembly comprises:
a frame (#12a) having at least four sides (see figure 1) defining a first plane (the x-y plane of figure 1);
a plurality of bars (the bars #44 that extend horizontally in figure 1) for providing a support structure to the frame (see figure 1);
at least two parallel sleepers permanently attached between two opposite sides of the frame and mounted on the plurality of bars (see figure 1, where the bars #44 that extend vertically in the figure are considered the sleepers that extend parallel and from the top and bottom sides of the frame);
at least two step clip fastening devices (#50a) oriented to extend orthogonally to the first plane (as depicted in figure 7, the fastening devices #50a comprise of clips #58 and rods #60 so as to extend the fastening devices vertically and thus orthogonal to the horizontal first plane of the frame), wherein each of the step clip fastening devices is mounted on one of the at least two parallel sleepers (see figure 10, where the clip #50a is to be mounted to a hook #46 of a respective sleeper);
at least two supporting members (#42) for attaching the frame with the ground surface (see paragraph 63);
a plurality of deck boards (#62) attached to the deck tile assembly (see figure 10), wherein each of the plurality of deck boards are mounted between two step clips (#58a/b) of each of the at least two step clip fastening devices (see figure 10);
at least one hooking connector (#46) positioned on each tile assembly (see figure 1), and positioned beneath the plurality of deck boards (see figure 10).
However, Lam et al. do not disclose at last two stakes are positioned at an angle to attach the frame to the ground surface. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bernat et al., that such deck tile assemblies can be constructed by a rectangular frame #1, where the frame comprises of cone-shaped through holes #28 (see figure 6c) that are configured to receive screws to secure the frame #1 and deck tiles #3 that are to be attached to the frame to a support surface. See line 15 of page 5 of the English translation. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the frame of Lam et al. to comprise of through holes and stakes extending through the holes to secure the frame to a support surface, as taught in Bernat et al., in order to prevent movement between the frame and support surface and provide a secure deck tile floor assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. render obvious the at least two stakes are each positioned through a cone-shaped through hole (see figure 6C of Bernat et al., which depicts the holes #28 comprise of a cone-shape and where such features would be provided within Lam et al. as explained above).
Regarding claim 13, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. render obvious the at least one hooking connector extends underneath each tile within the deck tile assembly (see figure 10 of Lam et al., where the hooking connectors #46 extend underneath the tiles held by the step clip fasteners #50).
Regarding claim 15, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. render obvious each of the at least two supporting members have a hole at each end of the supporting member for attaching the frame with the ground surface with at least one fastener (the support members #42 of Lam et al. are to contact the ground and thus it would have been obvious to include such cone-shaped through holes of Bernat et al. within such supporting members in order to secure such supporting members to the ground to prevent movement therebetween and also since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).).
Regarding claim 16, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. render obvious a plurality of locking mechanisms (Lam et al.; #48 and #49) at each side of the frame (see figure 1 of Lam et al.) for attaching one or more deck tile assemblies (see figure 3 of Lam et al.).
Claim(s) 4, 8, 9, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al., Chuang, and Barlow (U.S. Publication 2011/0120037).
Regarding claim 4, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. and Chuang render the claimed invention obvious except for a trimming apparatus is positioned at an exterior region of the deck tile assembly. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Barlow, that such deck tile assemblies can comprise of skirting elements #104 and #106 which can be provided on an exterior periphery of the deck tile assemblies and attached thereto using the tongue and groove elements provided on the periphery of such deck tile assemblies. See figure 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the assembly of Lam et al. to comprise of a trimming apparatus, such as a skirting as taught in Barlow, in order to provide an aesthetic border to the assembly that provides cleaner lines and a cleaner periphery.
Regarding claim 8, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. and Chuang render the claimed invention obvious except for a skirting removably attached on an outer surface of each side of the frame. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Barlow, that such deck tile assemblies can comprise of skirting elements #104 and #106 which can be provided on an exterior periphery of the deck tile assemblies and attached thereto using the tongue and groove elements provided on the periphery of such deck tile assemblies. See figure 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the assembly of Lam et al. to comprise of a removably attachable skirting, such as a skirting as taught in Barlow, in order to provide an aesthetic border to the assembly that provides cleaner lines and a cleaner periphery.
Regarding claim 9, Lam et al. in view of Bernat, Chuang, and Barlow render obvious the skirting comprises a plurality of locking mechanisms for attaching the skirting with one side of the frame (Barlow teaches such skirting #104 and #106 use the tongue and groove connections of the deck tile assemblies to removably attach thereto, where Lam et al. similarly teaches tongue #48 and groove #49 locking mechanisms to attach the deck tile assemblies to one another and thus the skirting would similarly use such locking mechanisms to maintain such connections when added thereto).
Regarding claim 17, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. and Chuang render obvious a method of assembling at least two deck tile assemblies, the method comprising the steps of:
placing a first deck tile assembly according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above) on a ground surface (Lam et al. discloses the assembly is configured for use as outdoor flooring over a cement or dirt surface (see abstract) and thus the first deck tile assembly can be considered the left tile #12B of figure 3 placed on a dirt surface) and placing a second deck tile assembly according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1) adjacent to the first deck tile assembly (see figure 3 of Lam et al., where the second, right assembly #12a is placed adjacent to the first, left assembly #12b);
aligning a plurality of grooves (Lam et al.; #49) of the first deck tile assembly with a plurality of protrusions (Lam et al; #48) of the second deck tile assembly (see figure 3 of Lam et al.);
aligning a plurality of protrusions (Lam et al.; #48) of the first deck tile assembly with a plurality of grooves (Lam et al; #49) of the second deck tile assembly (see figure 3 of Lam et al.);
fastening the first deck tile assembly and the second deck tile assembly using a plurality of locking mechanisms (the protrusions and grooves of Lam et al. above are considered the locking mechanisms for fastening the first and second deck tile assemblies to one another after the alignment step), wherein the first deck tile assembly and the second deck tile assembly each containing a hooking connector (the hooking connectors as explained above in the rejection of claim 1).
However, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al. and Chuang do not disclose the step of attaching a plurality of a skirting enclosing a periphery of the two assembled deck tile assemblies. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Barlow, that such deck tile assemblies can comprise of skirting elements #104 and #106 which can be provided on an exterior periphery of the deck tile assemblies and attached thereto using the tongue and groove elements provided on the periphery of such deck tile assemblies. See figure 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the assembly of Lam et al. to comprise of a removably attachable skirting around a periphery of the deck tile assemblies, such as a skirting as taught in Barlow, in order to provide an aesthetic border to the assembly that provides cleaner lines and a cleaner periphery.
Regarding claim 18, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al., Chuang, and Barlow render obvious attaching the first deck tile assembly to a ground surface by using one or more fasteners; and attaching the second deck tile assembly to the ground surface by using the one or more fasteners (Bernat et al. teach providing cone-shaped holes #28 provided within the deck tile assemblies in order to attach such assemblies to a lower support surface, where such features would be provided within Lam et al. as explained above in the rejection of claim 1 and thus allow for attaching the first and second deck tile assemblies to the dirt surface as needed).
Regarding claim 19, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al., Chuang, and Barlow render obvious attaching cone shaped holes on the first deck tile assembly and the second deck tile assembly (the cone shaped holes of Bernat et al. are modified into the assemblies of Lam et al. as explained above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al., Chuang, and Barlow render obvious positioning stakes at angled positions through the first deck tile assembly and the second deck tile assembly (Barlow teaches the obviousness of attaching stakes #40 through cone-shaped, countersunk apertures #16 in order to anchor such tile assemblies to a support surface, where it would have been obvious to apply such features within Lam et al. in order to prevent movement of tile assembly during use based on the material of the support surface which is to support the tile assembly.).
Regarding claim 21, Lam et al. in view of Bernat et al., Chuang, and Barlow render obvious each skirting is removably attached to the periphery of the two assembled deck tile assemblies (Barlow teaches such skirting elements #104 and #106 are interlocked to the deck tile assemblies #100 in the same manner as the deck tile assemblies are attached (see paragraph 54) and thus would be similarly removable from one another, where such features would be provided within Lam et al. as explained above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 and 15-21 have been considered but are moot because Applicant’s amendments to the claims required the use of a different rejection and secondary reference to meet the newly added claim limitations.
Conclusion
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 THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 D 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635