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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/19/26 has been entered.
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 1-23 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 inconsistencies in claim language muddying the scope of the claim. The following listing is representative but not exhaustive of the inconsistencies in the claim language.
In claim 1:
Line 3 (the preamble) recites “each tile comprises.” Line 29 recites “said tiles”. Line 30 recites “a tile”. Line 31 recites “another tile”. Line 31 recites “the tile”. Line 34 recites “a tile”. Line 35 recites “said tile”. Line 35 recites “each tile”. Line 37 recites “at least one tile”. Line 38 also recites “at least one tile”. Line 42 recites “said tile”. Line 43 recites “the tile”. And line 45 recites “the tile”. Claim language should be clear and consistent, wherein antecedence is reflected and/or claim terms are clearly differentiated from each other. If the claim is referring back to “a plurality of multi-purposes tiles” as stated in the preamble, it should state “THE plurality of multi-purpose tiles”. If it is referencing each tile as stated in the preamble, it should state “each tile”. If an additional tile is being introduced it should state “an additional tile OF THE PLURALITY OF MULTI-PURPOSE TILES”.
Line 37 introduces “at least one upper substrate”. Then line 38 recites “said upper substrate”, line 39 recites “upper substrates”, lines 40 and 41 each recites “said upper substrates” and 44 recites “each upper substrate”. As explained above, antecedence should be reflected (Are the “upper substrates” of line 39 the same as the “at least one upper substrate” introduced in line 37?)
The dependent claims are also replete with inconsistent language drawn to the tiles (e.g. “a tile”, “at least one tile”, etc.) and the upper substrate. For example, is “a further tile” of line 8 of claim 5 the same as “another tile” of claim 1? The claims should be carefully reviewed for claim term consistency and clarity. Claim 6 specifies “a scissoring movement”. Is that the same scissoring movement introduced in line 32 of claim 1 or a different scissoring movement?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 appear that they would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record reasonably suggests a multi-purpose tile system as set forth in the prior office actions. However, the prior art does not reasonably suggest wherein a longitudinal direction of each upper substrate is substantially parallel to the third and fourth edges of the tile. Modifying the upper substrate of the prior art to be a plurality of upper substrates, each upper substrate having the claimed configuration would require improper hindsight reasoning.
A broadening of claim 1 in addressing the 112 rejections set forth above may result in allowability being rescinded.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights