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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2023 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the numbering elements are jumbled up hence does not correspond to the specification. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biec US20150308130.
Claim 1. Biec discloses micropoint structures for tile edge spacing system for use with tiles (14) set with mortar (12) as floors or walls on prepared surfaces, the micropoint structures for tile edge spacing system comprising: (i) a spacing tab (denoted S below) adapted to set a spacing between tiles, having two opposing faces oriented along the gap between tiles; and (ii) at least two micropoint structures (denoted MS1 and MS2 below), each adapted to protrude from a face of said spacing tab, each having a small contact area at an extreme point, and having a decreasing profile away from said small contact area (See Fig.11G-H); where at least one said micropoint structure protrudes from a first face of said spacing tab (illustrated below), and an additional said micropoint structure protrudes from a second face of said spacing tab at a location corresponding to and opposite each said micropoint structure protruding from the first face of said spacing tab (shown below); and where the distance between said small contact areas of each corresponding and opposing pair of said micropoint structures defines a spacing distance between tiles (P.0008).
Claim 2. Biec discloses said spacing tab further comprises a component of a lippage-control unit (28).
PNG
media_image1.png
403
319
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 9. Biec discloses micropoint structures for tile edge spacing system for use with tiles (14) set with mortar (12) as floors or walls on prepared surfaces, the micropoint structures for tile edge spacing system comprising: (i) a lippage-control unit (28) adapted to hold the top edges of adjacent tiles level with each other and to set the spacing between tiles during installation and setting of the mortar, having a spacing tab (denoted S above) having two opposing faces oriented along the gap between tiles; and (ii) at least two micropoint structures (denoted MS1 and MS2 above), each adapted to protrude from a face of said spacing tab, each having a small contact area at an extreme point, and having a decreasing profile away from said small contact area; where at least one said micropoint structure protrudes from a first face of said spacing tab, and an additional said micropoint structure protrudes from a second face of said spacing tab at a location corresponding to and opposite each said micropoint structure protruding from the first face of said spacing tab (shown in Fig.11); and where the distance between said small contact areas of each corresponding and opposing pair of said micropoint structures defines a spacing distance between tiles (P.0008).
Claim 10. Biec discloses micropoint structures for tile edge spacing method comprising: (i) providing a micropoint structures (denoted MS1 and MS2 above) for tile edge spacing system comprising: (a) a spacing tab (denoted S above) adapted to set a spacing between tiles (14), having two opposing faces oriented along the gap between tiles; and (b) at least two micropoint structures, each adapted to protrude from a face of said spacing tab, each having a small contact area at an extreme point, and having a decreasing profile away from said small contact area; where at least one said micropoint structure protrudes from a first face of said spacing tab, and an additional said micropoint structure protrudes from a second face of said spacing tab at a location corresponding to and opposite each said micropoint structure protruding from the first face of said spacing tab; and where the distance between said small contact areas of each corresponding and opposing pair of said micropoint structures defines a spacing distance between tiles (illustrated in Fig 11G above in various figures); (ii) applying mortar (12) to the prepared surface (Fig.2-4); (iii) placing said spacing tabs between two adjacent tiles (Fig.5); (iv) allowing curing and setting of the mortar (P.0045:1); (v) removing said spacing tabs from the grout joint (P.0045:2-3); and (vi) grouting the grout joint (P.0004:16-18).
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biec US20150308130 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Crawford US5675942.
Claims 3-5. Biec is silent on the said spacing tab is further made of a recyclable plastic material and/or high-density polyethelene. Crawford discloses a spacer molded from a plastic such as polyethylene or polypropylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to form the spacer from the claimed material for its rigidity which can be beneficial in preventing damage from improper use or accidental pressure. Furthermore, 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biec US20150308130 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hoffman US US8429879.
Claim 6. Biec is silent said spacing tab is further adapted for re-use as a spacer in later tile installations however, Hoffman discloses a reusable spacer (800) detachable from its base (740, Fig.9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to provide a re-usable spacer with the motivation of saving manufacturing cost as suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art from the teaching of Hoffman. Furthermore, a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biec US20150308130 as applied to claim 1 above.
Claims 7-8. Biec is silent said small contact area is not larger than three square millimeters or 0.005 square inches. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to have the contact area not larger than 3mm2 or 0.005-inch2 or any desired area based on use cases and desired aesthetic feature. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to attached NOTICE OF REFERENCE CITED.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BABAJIDE A DEMUREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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 5712726754. 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.
BABAJIDE A. DEMUREN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/BABAJIDE A DEMUREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633