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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11987990 in view of Palsson (6536178). US Patent 11987990 claims the same claimed invention as presently pending including the structural features of a set of essentially identical floor panels having long an short edges, provide with a locking strip and groove having locking surfaces for horizontal locking and a tongue, formed in one piece with the core, and groove for vertical locking, but does not claim the core is plastic or that the locking strip and groove have guiding surfaces, wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel. Palsson discloses a set of essentially identical floor panels having a plastic core and guiding surfaces, wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel as noted in the rejection of claim 21 below). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the panels of US Patent 11987990 to have the claimed features to achieve the predictable result of easily inserted the locking element in the locking groove.
Claims 21-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11519183 in view of Palsson (6536178). US Patent 11519183 claims the same claimed invention as presently pending including the structural features of a set of essentially identical floor panels having long and short edges, provide with a locking strip and groove having locking surfaces for horizontal locking and a tongue, formed in one piece with the core, and groove for vertical locking, but does not claim the core is plastic or that the locking strip and groove have guiding surfaces, wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel. Palsson discloses a set of essentially identical floor panels having a plastic core and guiding surfaces, wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel as noted in the rejection of claim 21 below). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the panels of US Patent 11519183 to have the claimed features to achieve the predictable result of easily inserted the locking element in the locking groove.
Claims 21-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10214917 in view of Palsson (6536178). US Patent 10214917 claims the same claimed invention as presently pending including the structural features of a set of essentially identical floor panels having long and short edges, provide with a locking strip and groove having locking surfaces for horizontal locking and a tongue, formed in one piece with the core, and groove for vertical locking, but does not claim wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel. Palsson discloses a set of essentially identical floor panels wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel as noted in the rejection of claim 21 below). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the panels of US Patent 10214917 to have the claimed features to achieve the predictable result of easily inserted the locking element in the locking groove.
Claims 21-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 9777487 in view of Palsson (6536178). US Patent 9777487 claims the same claimed invention as presently pending including the structural features of a set of essentially identical floor panels having long and short edges, provide with a locking strip and groove having locking surfaces for horizontal locking and a tongue, formed in one piece with the core, and groove for vertical locking, but does not claim wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel. Palsson discloses a set of essentially identical floor panels wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel as noted in the rejection of claim 21 below). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the panels of US Patent 9777487 to have the claimed features to achieve the predictable result of easily inserted the locking element in the locking groove.
Claims 21-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9212492 in view of Palsson (6536178). US Patent 9212492 claims the same claimed invention as presently pending including the structural features of a set of essentially identical floor panels having long and short edges, provide with a locking strip and groove having locking surfaces for horizontal locking and a tongue, formed in one piece with the core, and groove for vertical locking, but does not claim wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel. Palsson discloses a set of essentially identical floor panels wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel as noted in the rejection of claim 21 below). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the panels of US Patent 9212492 to have the claimed features to achieve the predictable result of easily inserted the locking element in the locking groove.
Claims 21-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 8544234 in view of Palsson (6536178).
US Patent 8544234 claims the same claimed invention as presently pending including the structural features of a set of essentially identical floor panels having long and short edges, provide with a locking strip and groove having locking surfaces for horizontal locking and a tongue, formed in one piece with the core, and groove for vertical locking, but does not claim the core is plastic or that the locking strip and groove have guiding surfaces, wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel. Palsson discloses a set of essentially identical floor panels having a plastic core and guiding surfaces, wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel as noted in the rejection of claim 21 below). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the panels of US Patent 8544234 to have the claimed features to achieve the predictable result of easily inserted the locking element in the locking groove.
Claims 21-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8353140 in view of Palsson (6536178).
US Patent 8353140 claims the same invention in the presently pending claims except for the core is plastic and wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel as noted in the rejection of claim 21 below). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the panels of US Patent 8353140 to have the claimed features to achieve the predictable result of easily inserted the locking element in the locking groove.
Claims 21-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 8499521 in view of Palsson (6536178). US Patent 8499521 claims the same invention in the presently pending claims except for the core is plastic and wherein horizontal extension of the locking and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than the length of the tongue from the vertical surface or wherein a lower part of the locking strip is above the rear face of the panel as noted in the rejection of claim 21 below). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the panels of US Patent 8499521 to have the claimed features to achieve the predictable result of easily inserted the locking element in the locking groove.
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.
Claim(s) 21-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Palsson (6536178).
Claim 21. A set of essentially identical floor panels each comprising long and short edges (where it is disclosed it can be rectangular which includes long and short edges) and a core comprising a plastic material (col. 9, lines 18-24 where thermoplastic is plastic), wherein the short edges are provided with a mechanical locking system comprising first and second connectors integrated with the floor panels (as noted in the figures and disclosure, as seen at figures 4a-b), wherein the first connector comprises a locking strip (21) with an upwardly directed locking element (A in the annotated figure below), at a first short edge of a floor panel, configured to cooperate with a downwardly open locking groove (B in the annotated figure below) at an adjacent second short edge of another floor panel for connecting the adjacent edges horizontally (as seen in figures 4A-B and noted throughout the disclosure),
wherein the second connector comprises a tongue (C1 as noted in the annotated figure below), at one of the first short edge or the second short edge, extending horizontally, configured to cooperate with a horizontally open tongue groove (D1 as noted in the annotated figure below) at the other one of the first short edge or the second short edge, for connecting and locking the adjacent edges in a vertical direction by a vertical motion (as noted throughout the disclosure), wherein the tongue is formed in one piece with the floor panel of the one of the first short edge or the second short edge, and is configured to protrude from a substantially vertical upper surface of the floor panel of the one of the first short edge or the second short edge (as seen in the figures where at least C1 protrudes from the vertical surface as seen in figure 4B),
wherein the locking element has a guiding surface (E as seen in the annotated figure below) at an upper part and a locking surface (F as seen in the annotated figure below) below and adjacent to the guiding surface, and the locking groove has a guiding surface (G as seen in the annotated figure below) on a lower part under and adjacent to a locking surface (H as seen in the annotated figure below),
wherein the locking surfaces are configured to cooperate to prevent separation of the floor panels in a horizontal direction, and the guiding surfaces are configured to cooperate to guide the locking element into the locking groove during locking by the vertical motion (as seen in the figures), wherein a horizontal extension of the locking surfaces and guiding surfaces is equal or larger than a length of the tongue from the vertical upper surface in a locked state of the first short edge with the second short edge (as seen in figure 4B), and
wherein a lower part of the locking strip, at an outer part of the strip and below the locking element, extends above a rear face of the floor panel in a state in which the floor panel is provided on a sub floor (as seen in figures 4a-b).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 22. The set of essentially identical floor panels as claimed in claim 21, wherein a lower part of the locking strip between the outer part of the strip and the vertical upper surface extends above the rear face of the floor panel in the state in which the floor panel is provided on a sub floor (as seen in the installed condition of figure 4b).
Claim 23. The set of essentially identical floor panels as claimed in claim 22, wherein an angle of the locking surfaces against the horizontal plane is more than about 50 degrees (as seen in the figures and note din the disclosure where a1 and b1 are 0-30 degrees from the vertical, figure 1b,2b, where 90degrees plus 0-30 degrees is more than 50 degrees).
Claim 24. The set of essentially identical floor panels as claimed in claim 22, wherein an angle of the locking surfaces against the horizontal plane is more than about 60 degrees (as seen in the figures and note din the disclosure where a1 and b1 are 0-30 degrees from the vertical, figure 1b,2b, where 90degrees plus 0-30 degrees is more than 60 degrees).
Claim 25. The set of essentially identical floor panels as claimed in claim 22, wherein an angle of the locking surfaces against the horizontal plane is more than about 70 degrees (as seen in the figures and note din the disclosure where a1 and b1 are 0-30 degrees from the vertical, figure 1b,2b, where 90degrees plus 0-30 degrees more than 70 degrees).
Claim 26. The set of essentially identical floor panels as claimed in claim 21, wherein an angle of the locking surfaces against the horizontal plane is more than about 50 degrees (as seen in the figures and note din the disclosure where a1 and b1 are 0-30 degrees from the vertical, figure 1b,2b, where 90degrees plus 0-30 degrees more than 50 degrees).
Claim 27. The set of essentially identical floor panels as claimed in claim 21, wherein an angle of the locking surfaces against the horizontal plane is more than about 60 degrees (as seen in the figures and note din the disclosure where a1 and b1 are 0-30 degrees from the vertical, figure 1b,2b, where 90degrees plus 0-30 degrees more than 60 degrees).
Claim 28. The set of essentially identical floor panels as claimed in claim 21, wherein an angle of the locking surfaces against the horizontal plane is more than about 70 degrees (as seen in the figures and note din the disclosure where a1 and b1 are 0-30 degrees from the vertical, figure 1b,2b, where 90degrees plus 0-30 degrees more than 70 degrees).
Claim 29. The set of essentially identical floor panels as claimed in claim 21, wherein the second connector comprises another tongue (such as C2 as noted in the annotated figure above), at the other one of the first short edge and the second short edge, extending horizontally, configured to cooperate with another horizontally open tongue groove (D2 as noted in the annotated figure above) at the one of the first short edge or the second short edge, for connecting and locking the adjacent edges in the vertical direction by the vertical motion (as seen in figures 4a-b).
Claim 30. The set of essentially identical floor panels as claimed in claim 22, wherein the second connector comprises another tongue (C2 as noted in the annotated figure above), at the other one of the first short edge and the second short edge, extending horizontally, configured to cooperate with another horizontally open tongue groove (D2 as noted in the annotated figure above) at the one of the first short edge or the second short edge, for connecting and locking the adjacent edges in the vertical direction by the vertical motion (as see in figures 4a-b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635