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 statements (IDS) submitted on 2/29/24 and 6/19/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 96 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 17 of the claim recites “each third edge”. The recitation is redundant and appears to be in error. It should be removed.
Claim 115 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 37 of the claim recites “an third tile”. It appears it should instead recite “a third tile”.
Claim 116 appears that they should start with “A” rather than “The”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 96-117 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.
The claims are replete with indefinite language. The examiner has attempted to set forth all of the indefinite language below. However, the claims should be carefully and thoroughly reviewed for complete clarity.
Claim 96 in the preamble recites “the tiles comprise” and then the body describes a single tile. Should the claim instead recite “wherein each tile comprises”?
Claim 96, line 20 recites “a further tile”. Line 19 previously introduced “a further tile”. Is the same further tile being referenced? Antecedence should be clearly reflected or claim terms clearly differentiated from each other.
Claim 96, line 33 recites “a tile”. A tile has already been introduced be the preamble of the claim. It is unclear if the recitation of “a tile” is referring to the previously introduced “each tile” or an additional tile. Antecedence should be clearly reflected or claim terms clearly differentiated from each other.
Claim 96, line 39 recites “the two of such tiles” lacking antecedent basis. It is unclear which tiles are being referenced.
Claim 96, line 43 recites “an adjacent tile”. “An adjacent tile” was previously introduced in line 34. It is unclear if the same adjacent tile is being referenced. Antecedence should be clearly reflected or claim terms clearly differentiated from each other.
Claim 96, line 55 recites “the tile”. It is unclear if this is referring to “a tile” introduced in line 33 or the “each tile” introduced by the preamble. Should the claim recite “each tile”?
Claim 96, line 55 recites “the plane” lacking antecedent basis. It appears the claim should recite “a plane”.
Claim 115, line 22 recites “the first coupling profile of a further tile”. The previously introduced “at least one first tile” introduces “a first coupling profile”. It is unclear if “a further tile” is the same as “the at least one first tile” or if it is a fourth tile. If it is a fourth tile, “the first coupling profile” in association with the further tile has not been previously introduced so it appears it should instead recite “a first coupling profile of a further tile”.
Claim 115, line 36 recites “a first tile”. It appears this is referring to the previously introduced “at least one first tile”. Antecedence should be clearly reflected or claim terms clearly differentiated from each other. Should it recite “the at least one first tile”?
Claim 115, line 37 recites “an third tile [sic]”. It appears this is referring to the previously introduced “at least one third tile”. Antecedence should be clearly reflected or claim terms clearly differentiated from each other. Should it recite “the at least one third tile”?
Claim 115, line 44 recites “a second tile”. It appears this is referring to the previously introduced “at least one second tile”. Antecedence should be clearly reflected or claim terms clearly differentiated from each other. Should it recite “the at least one second tile”?
Claim 115, line 45 recites “a third tile”. It appears this is referring to the previously introduced “at least one third tile”. Antecedence should be clearly reflected or claim terms clearly differentiated from each other. Should it recite “the at least one third tile”?
Claim 115, line 54 recites “wherein the first tile and/or the second tile and/or the third tile may be formed by the same tile [emphasis added by the examiner]”. It is unclear what this limitation denotes. Are the three tiles essentially identical? Could they optionally be identical? Is the limitation denoting something else?
Claim 117 recites “The tile for use in multi-purpose tile system according to claim 96”. It is unclear if THE tile of claim 96 is being claimed or just the multi-purpose tile system according to claim 96. A plurality of different tiles are claimed in claim 96.
Claim 97 has the article “the” omitted before “third lower contact portion” in the first line. Claim 97 also recites “a first direction” and “a second direction” which appear in parent claim 96. Antecedence should be clearly reflected or claim terms clearly differentiated from each other.
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 96-117 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucke, US 2020/0131784 in view of Kiefel et al., US 2008/0245020.
Regarding claims 96 and 97:
Boucke discloses a multi-purpose tile system comprising a plurality of multi-purpose tiles, wherein each tile comprises the three claimed edges and coupling profiles as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
618
1137
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Boucke does not expressly disclose wherein the proximal side of the upward locking element comprises a third lower contact portion extending in a first direction and a third upper contact portion extending in a second direction deviating from the first direction, nor does Boucke disclose wherein a bottom side of the sideward tongue situated in between said tip and said heel is upwardly inclined in a direction towards the first downward flank, and wherein the direction in which the bottom side of the sideward tongue extends and the plane defined by the tile mutually enclose an angle of between 2° and 10°.
Kiefel discloses a tile system comprising a tile wherein the proximal side of an upward locking element comprises a third lower contact portion (28a) extending in a first direction and a third upper contact portion extending in a second direction (38) deviating from the first direction, and wherein a bottom side (32) of a sideward tongue situated in between a tip and a heel is upwardly inclined (gamma) in a direction towards a first downward flank, and wherein the direction in which the bottom side of the sideward tongue extends and the plane defined by the tile mutually enclose an angle of between 2° and 10° (7°, para. 0026).
PNG
media_image2.png
299
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill (PHOSITA) to substitute the lower and upper contact portions and the angled bottom side as suggested by Kiefel into the tile of Boucke in order to achieve positive engagement which does not cause deformation and splitting (para. 0009 and 0028 of Kiefel).
Regarding claim 115:
Boucke modified in view of Kiefel also applies to the claimed tile system comprising a plurality of tiles. Boucke discloses three discrete tiles of the same structure (Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 116:
Boucke discloses a tile covering consisting of mutually coupled tiles (Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 117:
Boucke modified in view of Kiefel discloses the tiles of the tile system of claim 96.
Regarding claim 98:
Kiefel discloses wherein a first angle enclosed by the first direction in which the third lower contact portion extends and a plane defined by the tile is larger than a second angle enclosed by the second direction in which the third upper contact portion extends and a plane defined by the tile.
Regarding claim 99:
Kiefel does not expressly disclose wherein the first direction in which the third lower contact portion extends encloses an angle with a plane define by the tile which is 50° to 85° and/or wherein the second direction in which the third upper contact portion extends encloses an angle with a plane define by the tile which is 30° to 65°.
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)
Regarding claim 100:
Boucke discloses wherein, in coupled condition of the first coupling profile and the third coupling profile of adjacent tiles, the proximal side of the sideward tongue, facing the first downward flank, co-acts only with the third upper contact portion of the upward locking element of the third coupling profile and/or wherein, in coupled condition of the second coupling profile and the third coupling profile of adjacent tiles, the proximal side of Attorney Docket No. 03135-2309437 the downward tongue, facing the second downward flank, co-acts only with the third lower contact portion of the upward locking element of the third coupling profile.
Regarding claim 101:
Boucke discloses wherein a heel of the downward tongue, defined by a bottom side of the downward tongue and the proximal side of the downward tongue, is provided with a cut-out portion to facilitate uncoupling of second coupling and the third coupling profile.
Regarding claim 102:
Boucke discloses wherein the first edge and the third edge, in coupled condition, define a first closing surface which defines a first vertical plane through the upper edges of the coupled tiles or at least the location where the tiles come together at the upper side of the tiles.
Regarding claim 103:
Boucke discloses wherein the second edge and the third edge, in coupled condition, define a second closing surface which defines a second vertical plane through the upper edges of the coupled tiles or at least the location where the tiles come together at the upper side of the tiles.
Regarding claim 104:
Boucke discloses wherein the distal side of the downward tongue, facing away from the second downward flank, is provided with a fourth locking element, and wherein the upper lip of the third coupling profile is provided with a fifth locking element configured to face said fourth locking element to achieve a vertical locking effect, in coupled condition of the second coupling profile and the third coupling profile of adjacent tiles.
Regarding claim 105:
Boucke discloses wherein an upper side of the lower lip defines to a support surface for both the downward tongue of the second coupling profile of an adjacent tile, and the sideward tongue of the first coupling profile of an adjacent tile.
Regarding claim 106:
Boucke discloses wherein the first coupling profile and third coupling profile are configured to allow these coupling profiles, in coupled condition, to be uncoupled by means of an upward turning movement and/or wherein the second coupling profile and third coupling profile are configured to allow these coupling profiles, in coupled condition, to be uncoupled by means of an upward turning movement.
Regarding claim 107:
Boucke discloses wherein the third locking element comprises at least one outward bulge (440), and that the second locking element comprises at least one second locking recess (407), and wherein the bulge and recess have a substantially complementary shape.
Regarding claim 108:
Boucke discloses wherein at least one second locking element of the second coupling profile is provided at a distal side of the downward tongue facing away from the second downward recess, and wherein at least one third locking element of the third coupling profile is provided at a side of the upper lip, in coupled condition facing said distal side of the downward tongue of the second coupling profile of an adjacent tile.
Regarding claim 109:
Boucke discloses wherein at least a part of the proximal side of the downward tongue of the second coupling profile, facing the second downward recess, is downwardly inclined in a direction away from the second downward flank and/or wherein at least a part of the proximal side of the sideward tongue of the first coupling profile, facing the first downward recess, is downwardly inclined in a direction away from the first downward flank.
Regarding claim 110:
Boucke discloses wherein at least a part of the proximal side of the sideward tongue of the first coupling profile, facing the first downward recess, is downwardly inclined in a direction towards the first downward flank.
Regarding claim 111:
Boucke discloses wherein the first coupling profile and the third coupling profile are configured such that in coupled condition the first coupling profile is clamped by the third coupling profile and/or wherein the second coupling profile and the third coupling profile are configured such that in coupled the second coupling profile is clamped by the third coupling profile.
Regarding claim 112:
Boucke discloses wherein in a coupled condition of tiles, the first downward flank of the first coupling profile and a distal side of the upward locking element and/or lower lip of the third coupling profile, facing the first downward flank, are positioned at a distance from each other and/or wherein in a coupled condition of tiles, the second downward flank of the second coupling profile and a distal side of the upward locking element and/or lower lip of the third coupling profile, facing the second downward flank, are at least partially positioned at a distance from each other.
Regarding claim 113:
Boucke discloses wherein at least a part of upper side of the upward locking element is inclined downwardly in a direction facing way from the upper lip of the third coupling profile and/or wherein at least a part of upper side of the first downward recess is inclined downwardly towards the first downward flank and/or wherein at least a part of upper side of the second downward recess is inclined downwardly towards the second downward flank.
Regarding claim 114:
Boucke discloses wherein, in coupled condition of two tiles, the upper side of the upward locking element of the third coupling profile is positioned at a distance from the upper side of the first downward recess of the first coupling profile, and wherein, in coupled condition of two tiles, the upper side of the upward locking element of the third coupling profile is positioned at a distance from the upper side of the second downward recess of the second coupling profile.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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