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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 16 (appearing in Fig. 4). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patki et al., US 2020/0011071.
Regarding claim 1:
Patki discloses a covering element (1) for floors comprising a tile (7) made of ceramic material (para. 0104), and a lower element (3) attached to a lower surface of the tile, wherein the lower element projects beyond one or more edges of the tile (Figs. 1-4);
wherein an adhesive portion (19) is arranged on an upper surface of projecting portions of the lower element;
wherein said lower element comprises a reinforcing element (13) and wherein said reinforcing element increases an impact resistance of the tile;
wherein said reinforcing element comprises a resin, thermosetting or thermoplastic, arranged to permeate open pores of the tile (para. 0114 and Fig. 3), and
wherein said resin of the reinforcing element is different from said adhesive portion (epoxy grout).
Regarding claims 2-4:
Patki discloses wherein the lower element projects beyond two subsequent edges of the tile wherein the lower element is off center relative to the tile and wherein the tile comprises one or more edges projecting beyond respective edges of the lower element (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9:
Patki discloses wherein the lower element is free from mechanical locking elements.
Regarding claim 11:
Patki discloses wherein the reinforcing element comprises a metal sheet which compresses the tile (para. 0036).
Regarding claim 13:
Patki discloses wherein the met al sheet comprises a coating (para. 0106).
Regarding claim 15:
Patki discloses wherein resin acts as a glue between the tile and a support element.
Regarding claim 16:
Patki discloses wherein the supporting element is made of plastic material (para. 0108).
Regarding claims 18-20:
Patki discloses a plurality of covering elements (Fig. 5), comprising a grout filling a space between edges of the tiles (19) and an underlay (para. 0067) between the covering elements and a sub-base to be covered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patki et al., US 2020/0011071 in view of Scott et al., US 2013/0014460.
Regarding claim 6:
Patki does not expressly disclose wherein the adhesive portion is covered with a removable film.
Scott discloses an adhesive portion covered with a removable film (26).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to use removable film as suggested by Scott with the adhesive portion of Patki in order to keep the adhesive portion clean prior to use.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patki et al., US 2020/0011071.
Regarding claim 12:
Patki does not expressly disclose the thickness of the metal sheet.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the metal sheet 0.01 to 1mm in thickness, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). There would be no unexpected or unpredictable result obtained from the specific thickness. There is no evidence that the claimed dimensions not specifically taught by Patki provide a criticality that would be unachievable and unexpected with a reasonable amount of experimentation.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patki et al., US 2020/0011071 in view of Voith et al., US 2011/0183101.
Regarding claim 17:
Patki does not expressly disclose wherein the lower element comprises magnetic properties.
Voith discloses a covering element wherein the lower element comprises magnetic properties (para. 0021).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to provide magnetic properties as suggested by Voith to the lower element of Patki in order to provide a means for attaching to a subsurface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the most relevant prior art to Patki discloses an adhesive portion that forms a grouting surface. There is no reason or motivation to modify the adhesive portion of Patki to have an adhesive with a tensile strength as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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