DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 2/23/2024. Claims 1-10 are pending and are under consideration.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 5/28/2024 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 2/23/2024 are acceptable for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, “the steps” is objected to because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that it is already implied that the claim comprises steps as the claim is a method claim. This rejection can be overcome by deleting, “the steps of”, to recite, “A method of installing a flooring system, comprising:” or equivalent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “engagement feature” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1 and 10, the phrase "and/or" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The Office’s preferred verbiage of elements A and B is “at least one of A and B” and not “A and/or B”. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal No. 2011-004811 at Footnote 1 (PTAB 2014).
Claim 7, “the same size and shape” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “a same size and shape” or equivalent.
Claim 10, “placing the fibre mat on the support surface; and placing a supported member forming part of a floor structure on the fibre mat” is indefinite because the claim previously defines the fibre mat as being part of the membrane, and it is unclear whether the claim requires placing the membrane on the support surface, or just the fibre mat. Does applicant intend for the claim to require placing the membrane on the support surface, and placing a supported member on the membrane?
The remainder of the claims are dependent upon directly or indirectly a rejected base claim.
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, 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kugler et al. (US 20040261329) (‘Kugler’) in view of DE 19959494 A1 (as cited by applicant) (‘DE ‘494’).
Claim 1, Kugler teaches a flooring system comprising:
a pedestal 2 having a support surface (upper planar surface of 6); and
a membrane 16 comprising an elastomeric material [0064];
wherein the membrane is applied to the support surface [0064] to act as a layer between the pedestal and a supported member forming part of a floor structure (note that the claim does not positively recite a supported member forming part of a floor structure, but that Kugler nonetheless teaches the membrane being suitable to act as a layer between the pedestal and a supported member 28 forming part of a floor structure; [0064]; Fig. 1).
Although, Kugler teaches that other types of materials could be used for the membrane to prevent sliding and slipping (Kugler [0064]), Kugler does not teach the membrane being such that the elastomeric material coats a fibre mat or impregnates a fibre mat.
However, DE ‘494 teaches a flooring system, comprising a membrane comprising a fibre mat and an elastomeric material coating that coats and/or impregnates the fibre mat (9; “glass fibre mat” abstract; “permanently elastic” [0021] as cited by applicant). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the membrane comprising a fibre mat and an elastomeric material coating that coats and/or impregnates the fibre mat, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known material to prevent sliding and slipping of the supported flooring member in the flooring system, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim 2, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and DE ‘494 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the fibre mat comprises fibres exclusively constructed from a non-combustible material (DE ‘494 glass fibres).
Claim 3, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and DE ‘494 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the fibre mat comprises glass fibres (DE ‘494; translation provided by applicant).
Claim 5, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and DE ‘494 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the elastomeric material coating is exclusively constructed from a non-combustible material (DE ‘494 “non-flammable, extremely heat-resistant materials”).
Claim 7, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and DE ‘494 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the membrane is shaped to be the same size and shape as the support surface (Kugler Fig. 4; DE ‘494 Fig. 1).
Claim 8, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and DE ‘494 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the pedestal has at least one engagement feature (Kugler 14; Fig. 4) projecting from the support surface (Kugler Fig. 4), and wherein the membrane has at least one opening (Kugler cutouts; Fig. 4) to receive the at least one engagement feature (Kugler [0064]; Fig. 4).
Claim 10, Kugler teaches a method of installing a flooring system comprising the steps of:
providing a pedestal 2 having a support surface (upper planar surface of 6);
providing a membrane 16 comprising an elastomeric material [0064];
placing the membrane on the support surface [0064]; and
placing a supported member 28 forming part of a floor structure on the [membrane] [0064].
Although, Kugler teaches that other types of materials could be used for the membrane to prevent sliding and slipping (Kugler [0064]), Kugler does not teach the membrane being such that the elastomeric material coats a fibre mat or impregnates a fibre mat.
However, DE ‘494 teaches a flooring system, comprising a membrane comprising a fibre mat and an elastomeric material coating that coats and/or impregnates the fibre mat (9; “glass fibre mat” abstract; “permanently elastic” [0021] as cited by applicant). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the membrane comprising a fibre mat and an elastomeric material coating that coats and/or impregnates the fibre mat, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known material to prevent sliding and slipping of the supported flooring member in the flooring system, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kugler et al. (US 20040261329) (‘Kugler’) in view of DE 19959494 A1 (as cited by applicant) (‘DE ‘494’) and further in view of CN 1654764 A (‘CN ‘764’).
Claim 9, Kugler and DE ‘494 teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Kugler does not teach wherein the support surface is formed from a first metal, and the supported member is formed from a second metal that is different from the first metal. However, CN ‘764 teaches a flooring system, wherein a support surface is formed from a first metal, and a supported member is formed from a second metal that is different from the first metal (machine translation; floor panel 15 made of galvanized steel and supporting member 2 made of aluminum). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the flooring system such that the support surface is formed from a first metal, and the supported member is formed from a second metal that is different from the first metal, with the reasonable expectation of success of leveraging the unique properties of each material to create a more cost-effective product or to provide additional strength or increased corrosion resistance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kugler et al. (US 20040261329) (‘Kugler’) in view of JP 2004270206 A (‘JP ‘206’).
Claim 1, Kugler teaches a flooring system comprising:
a pedestal 2 having a support surface (upper planar surface of 6); and
a membrane 16 comprising an elastomeric material [0064];
wherein the membrane is applied to the support surface [0064] to act as a layer between the pedestal and a supported member forming part of a floor structure (note that the claim does not positively recite a supported member forming part of a floor structure, but that Kugler nonetheless teaches the membrane being suitable to act as a layer between the pedestal and a supported member 28 forming part of a floor structure; [0064]; Fig. 1).
Although, Kugler teaches that other types of materials could be used for the membrane to prevent sliding and slipping (Kugler [0064]), Kugler does not teach the membrane being such that the elastomeric material coats a fibre mat or impregnates a fibre mat.
However, JP ‘206 teaches a flooring system, comprising a membrane 9 comprising a fibre mat and an elastomeric material coating that coats and/or impregnates the fibre mat (machine translation [0017] elastomer that can be used in a mixture comprising silicone and glass wool). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the membrane comprising a fibre mat and an elastomeric material coating that coats and/or impregnates the fibre mat, with the reasonable expectation of success of increasing the fire protection in the flooring system, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim 2, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and JP ‘206 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the fibre mat comprises fibres exclusively constructed from a non-combustible material (JP ‘206 glass wool or inorganic fibers).
Claim 3, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and JP ‘206 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the fibre mat comprises glass fibres (JP ‘206 glass wool)
Claim 5, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and JP ‘206 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the elastomeric material coating is exclusively constructed from a non-combustible material (JP ‘206 glass wool or inorganic fibers).
Claim 6, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and JP ‘206 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the elastomeric material coating is a silicone rubber (JP ‘206 silicone rubber [0017]).
Claim 7, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and JP ‘206 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the membrane is shaped to be the same size and shape as the support surface (Kugler Fig. 4).
Claim 8, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and JP ‘206 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the pedestal has at least one engagement feature (Kugler 14; Fig. 4) projecting from the support surface (Kugler Fig. 4), and wherein the membrane has at least one opening (Kugler cutouts; Fig. 4) to receive the at least one engagement feature (Kugler [0064]; Fig. 4).
Claim 10, Kugler teaches a method of installing a flooring system comprising the steps of:
providing a pedestal 2 having a support surface (upper planar surface of 6);
providing a membrane 16 comprising an elastomeric material [0064];
placing the membrane on the support surface [0064]; and
placing a supported member 28 forming part of a floor structure on the [membrane] [0064].
Although, Kugler teaches that other types of materials could be used for the membrane to prevent sliding and slipping (Kugler [0064]), Kugler does not teach the membrane being such that the elastomeric material coats a fibre mat or impregnates a fibre mat.
However, JP ‘206 teaches a flooring system, comprising a membrane 9 comprising a fibre mat and an elastomeric material coating that coats and/or impregnates the fibre mat (machine translation [0017] elastomer that can be used in a mixture comprising silicone and glass wool). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the membrane comprising a fibre mat and an elastomeric material coating that coats and/or impregnates the fibre mat, with the reasonable expectation of success of increasing the fire protection in the flooring system, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kugler et al. (US 20040261329) (‘Kugler’) in view of JP 2004270206 A (‘JP ‘206’) and further in view of CN 1654764 A (‘CN ‘764’).
Claim 9, Kugler and JP ‘206 teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Kugler does not teach wherein the support surface is formed from a first metal, and the supported member is formed from a second metal that is different from the first metal. However, CN ‘764 teaches a flooring system, wherein a support surface is formed from a first metal, and a supported member is formed from a second metal that is different from the first metal (machine translation; floor panel 15 made of galvanized steel and supporting member 2 made of aluminum). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the flooring system such that the support surface is formed from a first metal, and the supported member is formed from a second metal that is different from the first metal, with the reasonable expectation of success of leveraging the unique properties of each material to create a more cost-effective product or to provide additional strength or increased corrosion resistance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kugler et al. (US 20040261329) (‘Kugler’) in view of Gilman, IV (US 20190063067) (‘Gilman’).
Claim 1, Kugler teaches a flooring system comprising:
a pedestal 2 having a support surface (upper planar surface of 6); and
a membrane 16 comprising an elastomeric material [0064];
wherein the membrane is applied to the support surface [0064] to act as a layer between the pedestal and a supported member forming part of a floor structure (note that the claim does not positively recite a supported member forming part of a floor structure, but that Kugler nonetheless teaches the membrane being suitable to act as a layer between the pedestal and a supported member 28 forming part of a floor structure; [0064]; Fig. 1).
Although, Kugler teaches that other types of materials could be used for the membrane to prevent sliding and slipping (Kugler [0064]), Kugler does not teach the membrane being such that the elastomeric material coats a fibre mat or impregnates a fibre mat.
However, Gilman teaches a flexible elastomer and fiberglass layered building element for use as support in floors of a building [0024], comprising a membrane comprising a fibre mat [0024] and an elastomeric material [0024] coating that coats and/or impregnates the fibre mat [0035]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the membrane comprising a fibre mat and an elastomeric material coating that coats and/or impregnates the fibre mat, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known material to prevent sliding and slipping of the supported flooring member in the flooring system, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim 2, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and Gilman teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the fibre mat comprises fibres exclusively constructed from a non-combustible material (Gilman fiberglass).
Claim 3, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and Gilman teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the fibre mat comprises glass fibres (Gilman fiberglass [0024]).
Claim 4, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and Gilman teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the fibre mat is woven (Gilman woven [0024]).
Claim 7, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and Gilman teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the membrane is shaped to be the same size and shape as the support surface (Kugler Fig. 4).
Claim 8, as modified above, the combination of Kugler and Gilman teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the pedestal has at least one engagement feature (Kugler 14; Fig. 4) projecting from the support surface (Kugler Fig. 4), and wherein the membrane has at least one opening (Kugler cutouts; Fig. 4) to receive the at least one engagement feature (Kugler [0064]; Fig. 4).
Claim 10, Kugler teaches a method of installing a flooring system comprising the steps of:
providing a pedestal 2 having a support surface (upper planar surface of 6);
providing a membrane 16 comprising an elastomeric material [0064];
placing the membrane on the support surface [0064]; and
placing a supported member 28 forming part of a floor structure on the [membrane] [0064].
Although, Kugler teaches that other types of materials could be used for the membrane to prevent sliding and slipping (Kugler [0064]), Kugler does not teach the membrane being such that the elastomeric material coats a fibre mat or impregnates a fibre mat.
However, Gilman teaches a flexible elastomer and fiberglass layered building element for use as support in floors of a building [0024], comprising a membrane comprising a fibre mat [0024] and an elastomeric material [0024] coating that coats and/or impregnates the fibre mat [0035]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the membrane comprising a fibre mat and an elastomeric material coating that coats and/or impregnates the fibre mat, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known material to prevent sliding and slipping of the supported flooring member in the flooring system, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kugler et al. (US 20040261329) (‘Kugler’) in view of Gilman, IV (US 20190063067) (‘Gilman’) and further in view of CN 1654764 A (‘CN ‘764’).
Claim 9, Kugler and Gilman teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Kugler does not teach wherein the support surface is formed from a first metal, and the supported member is formed from a second metal that is different from the first metal. However, CN ‘764 teaches a flooring system, wherein a support surface is formed from a first metal, and a supported member is formed from a second metal that is different from the first metal (machine translation; floor panel 15 made of galvanized steel and supporting member 2 made of aluminum). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the flooring system such that the support surface is formed from a first metal, and the supported member is formed from a second metal that is different from the first metal, with the reasonable expectation of success of leveraging the unique properties of each material to create a more cost-effective product or to provide additional strength or increased corrosion resistance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 101526880 B1 teaches a flooring system and a method of installing a flooring system, comprising a pedestal and a membrane 150 for absorbing shock.
Shaw (US 20100115868) teaches a barrier for use in flooring comprising a membrane including a woven fiberglass material and a silicone coating [0034].
See PTO-892 for a complete listing of cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635