DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-14 as filed on 09/08/2026 are pending and herewith considered as indicated below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/08/2026 has been entered.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IT 102023000008790, filed on 11/24/2024.
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.
8. Claims 1-14 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.
In regards to Claims 1-14, each instance of the term “stem” lacks proper antecedent basis. It appears each instance of the term “stem” is intended to recite “at least one longitudinal stem” as properly introduced in claims 1 and 14.
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.
9. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sighnolfi (US20190345724) (Herein with Sighnolfi) in view of Frisco (US20180355623).
In regards to Claim 1, Sighnolfi discloses A tile levelling device (10) configured for the mutual levelling of two or more tiles (Claim 1) (P) already laid on a not fully hardened glue [0068], wherein a joint [0202] [Figs 16a-16d] is defined between two adjacent laying tiles (P), wherein the tile levelling device (10) comprises:
a monolithic [0092] tie rod (20, 30, 40) [Fig 1] comprising,
at least one abutment body (40) [Figs 4-5] joined to a second end [Unnumbered, Fig 4] of the longitudinal stem (112, Frisco (as indicated below))[Fig 1A]
the tile levelling device (10) further comprising:
a presser (50) adapted to cooperate with the abutment body (40) [Figs 4-5] of the monolithic tie rod (20, 30, 40) [Fig 1] and configured to exert pressure [0137] on the two adjacent tiles (P)
However, Sighnolfi fails to disclose
at least one longitudinal stem protruding from the transverse element with a central axis squared with the rest plane of the transverse element and having a first end joined to the transverse element, the stem has a height greater than the maximum thickness of without overflow in between the two adjacent laying tiles to be levelled; and
at least one transverse element elongated along at least one longitudinal axis and defining a rest plane for two adjacent laying tiles
wherein the transverse element and the monolithic tie rod are insertable through the joint from above when the longitudinal axis of the transverse element is aligned with the joint, and wherein the monolithic tie rod is rotatable about the central axis of the stem after insertion through the joint so as to arrange the transverse element below the two adjacent laying tiles in an operative position in which the transverse element defines said rest plane for the two adjacent laying tiles.
Furthermore, Frisco discloses
at least one longitudinal stem (112) [Fig 1A] protruding [0051] from the transverse element (114) [Fig 1A] with a central axis squared [0051, “A vertical shaft 112 projects vertically preferably from a center region of the transverse member 114”] with the rest plane [0054, “In addition, the transverse member 114 further preferably comprises beveled ends 114A, 114B. These beveled ends allow the transverse member to more easily slide underneath the bottom surfaces of tiles.”] of the transverse element (114) [Fig 1A] and having a first end [Lower end of (114), Fig 1A] joined to the transverse element (114) [Fig 1A] , the stem (112) [Fig 1A] has a height greater [Fig ] than the maximum thickness of without overflow [Fig 3C, 0051] in between the two adjacent laying tiles (P, Sighnolfi) [additionally, (5/6) [Fig 3C], Frisco] to be levelled [0066, Intended Use] ; and
at least one transverse element (114) [Fig 3A] elongated along at least one longitudinal axis [0051, “A transverse member 114 extends generally horizontally in use.”] and defining a rest plane [0054, “In addition, the transverse member 114 further preferably comprises beveled ends 114A, 114B. These beveled ends allow the transverse member to more easily slide underneath the bottom surfaces of tiles.”] [Fig 3C] for two adjacent laying tiles (P, Sighnolfi) [additionally, (5/6) [Fig 3C], Frisco]
wherein the transverse element (114) [Fig 3A] and the monolithic tie rod (combination of (40, 30, 20) [Fig 1], Sighnolfi) [Additionally, (100, Fig 3A-3C], Frisco] are insertable [Figs 3A-3C, Showing Insertion] through the joint [0202, Sighnolfi] [Figs 16a-16d] from above [As shown in Fig 3A-3C] when the longitudinal axis [0051, “A transverse member 114 extends generally horizontally in use.”] of the transverse element (114) [Fig 3A] is aligned [0062, Figs 3A-3C] with the joint [0202, Sighnolfi] [Figs 16a-16d], and wherein the monolithic tie rod (combination of (40, 30, 20) [Fig 1], Sighnolfi) [Additionally, (100, Fig 3A-3C], Frisco] is rotatable [0064] about the central axis of the stem (112) [Fig 1A] after insertion [0062-0064, detailing installation and then rotation] through the joint [0202, Sighnolfi] [Figs 16a-16d] so as to arrange the transverse element (114) [Fig 3A] below [0063, “the tile lifter 100 must be inserted into the grout gap 56 to a depth such that the top face 120 of the transverse member 114 is lower than the bottom faces 5A, 6A of the adjacent tiles 5, 6.”] the two adjacent laying tiles (P, Sighnolfi) [additionally, (5/6) [Fig 3C], Frisco] in an operative position [As Shown in Fig 3C] in which the transverse element (114) [Fig 3A] defines said rest plane [0054, “In addition, the transverse member 114 further preferably comprises beveled ends 114A, 114B. These beveled ends allow the transverse member to more easily slide underneath the bottom surfaces of tiles.”] for the two adjacent laying tiles (P, Sighnolfi) [additionally, (5/6) [Fig 3C], Frisco].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tile leveling device by Sighnolfi to further include at least one longitudinal stem protruding from the transverse element with a central axis squared with the rest plane of the transverse element and having a first end joined to the transverse element, the stem has a height greater than the maximum thickness of without overflow in between the two adjacent laying tiles to be levelled; and at least one transverse element elongated along at least one longitudinal axis and defining a rest plane for two adjacent laying tiles wherein the transverse element and the monolithic tie rod are insertable through the joint from above when the longitudinal axis of the transverse element is aligned with the joint, and wherein the monolithic tie rod is rotatable about the central axis of the stem after insertion through the joint so as to arrange the transverse element below the two adjacent laying tiles in an operative position in which the transverse element defines said rest plane for the two adjacent laying tiles as disclosed by Frisco. When modified, the stem and transverse element with all limitations allows for a tile leveling system to level two adjacent tiles after those tiles have been laid as disclosed by Frisco [paragraph 0007]
In regards to Claim 2, Sighnolfi as modified discloses
the tile levelling device (10) according to claim 1, wherein the first end [Bottom End of (112) [Fig 1A]] of the stem (112) [Fig 1A] is joined to the transverse element (114, Frisco) [Fig 3A] in a frangible manner [0081] [0055, Frisco].
In regards to Claim 3, Sighnolfi discloses the tile levelling device (10) according to claim 2, wherein the first end [Bottom End of (112), [Fig 1A], Frisco] of the stem (112, Frisco) [Fig 1A] forms with the transverse element (114, Frisco) [Fig 3A] an edge (118, Frisco) [0055, Fig 3B] that acts as a fracture trigger line (18) [Fig 3B] [0055] at a stem-transverse element connection [Fig 1, Frisco].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tile leveling device by Sighnolfi to further include an edge that acts as a fracture trigger line as disclosed by Frisco. When modified, when modified the fracture trigger line allows for breakaway after installation [paragraph 0055; Typically, the tile lifter 100 is constructed as a unitary piece of plastic. It can be formed by 3-D printing or by a molding process, such as injection molding. Preferably, the type of plastic used should have a relatively high brittleness. This allows the vertical shaft 112 to be snapped at a neck down region or breakaway region 118 near the transverse member 114.]
In regards to Claim 4, Sighnolfi as modified discloses
the tile levelling device (10) according to claim 1,
However fails to disclose wherein the stem has a constant cross-section over an entire height of the stem .
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stem of Sighnolfi to have the stem has a constant cross-section over an entire height of the stem in order to further facilitate tile adjustment and transverse element rotation. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is able to understand from Frisco [paragraph 0052] which discloses “this width 116 and the width 122 of at least the bottom section of the vertical shaft 112 are sized to be equal to or less than the gap or the width of the grout line that is desired or used between the tiles during installation. As a result, the transverse member 114 of the tile lifter 100 can be inserted into the grout gap and then underneath the tiles, even after those tiles have been laid out. This allows the tile lifter to then be rotated 90° to bring the transverse member 114 underneath the two adjacent tiles such that the transverse member extends in a direction that is orthogonal to the lateral extent of the grout gap.” to come to the conclusion of the constant cross section of the stem.
In regards to Claim 5, Sighnolfi discloses the tile levelling device (10) according to claim 1,
however, fails to disclose wherein the stem has a cross section having an elongate shape, wherein a larger diameter is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the transverse element.
Furthermore, Frisco discloses
wherein the stem (118) [0055, Fig 3B] has a cross section [As shown in Fig 3A-3C] having an elongate shape [As shown in Fig 3A-3C]
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stem of Sighnolfi to further incorporate a stem wherein a larger diameter is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the transverse element in shape in order to further facilitate tile adjustment and transverse element rotation. Furthermore, the larger diameter allows for structural capability ensuring failure doesn’t occur, when in use. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In regards to Claim 7, Sighnolfi discloses the tile levelling device (10) according to claim 1, wherein the abutment body (40) comprises a threaded pin (41) provided with a thread [Fig 4] having a parallel screwing axis [Fig 4] coinciding with the central axis of the stem (118) [0055, Fig 3B] and the presser (50) comprises a knob (51) provided with a screw nut [Fig 1] (see examiners comments) that can be screwed [Fig 4] on the threaded pin (41).
In regards to Claim 8, Sighnolfi discloses the tile levelling device (10) according to claim 1, the monolithic tie rod (combination of (40, 30, 20) [Fig 1]) and abutment body (40)
However, Sighnolfi does not disclose the tie rod comprises a handle element protruding from the abutment body
Furthermore, Frisco discloses the tie rod (combination of (40, 30, 20) [Fig 1], Sighnolfi) comprises a handle element (110) [Fig 1A] protruding from the abutment body (40, Sighnolfi) [Fig 4] and configured to be able to rotate [0064, “the installer rotates the handle 110 ideally a full 90° so that the transverse member 114 now extends under the two adjacent tiles 5, 6 as shown in FIG. 3C”] the tie rod (combination of (40, 30, 20) [Fig 1], Sighnolfi) about the central axis of the (112) [Fig 1A].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tile levelling device as disclosed by Sighnolfi to further incorporate a handle element protruding from the abutment body and configured to be able to rotate the tie rod about the central axis of the stem as disclosed by Frisco. When modified tile leveling device would incorporate a handle protruding from the abutment body further facilitating the ability to rotate the tie rod for easier use of the apparatus. [paragraph 0007, “The present invention takes a different approach. The present tile leveling system can be used to level two adjacent tiles after those tiles have already been laid out into the setting compound.”]
In regards to Claim 11, Sighnolfi as modified discloses the tile leveling device (10) according to claim 1, wherein the monolithic tie rod (combination of (40, 30, 20), Fig 1] is made of a plastic material [0092]
In regards to Claim 12, Sighnolfi as modified discloses the tile leveling device (10) according to claim 1.
However, fails to disclose wherein the stem has a cross section having an elliptical shape, wherein a larger diameter is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the transverse element.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stem of Sighnolfi to further incorporate a stem that has a cross section having an elliptical shape, wherein a larger diameter is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the transverse element in shape in order to further facilitate tile adjustment and transverse element rotation. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In regards to Claim 14, Sighnolfi discloses
A tile levelling device (10) configured for the mutual levelling of two or more tiles (Claim 1) (P) already laid on a not fully hardened glue [0068], wherein a joint [0202] [Figs 16a-16d] is defined between two adjacent laying tiles (P), wherein the tile levelling device (10) comprises:
a monolithic [0092] tie rod (20, 30, 40) [Fig 1] comprising,
at least one abutment body (40) [Figs 4-5] joined to a second end [Unnumbered, Fig 4] of the longitudinal stem (112, Frisco (as indicated below))[Fig 1A]
the tile levelling device (10) further comprising:
a presser (50) adapted to cooperate with the abutment body (40) [Figs 4-5] of the monolithic tie rod (20, 30, 40) [Fig 1] and configured to exert pressure [0137] on the two adjacent tiles (P)
However, fails to disclose
at least one transverse element elongated along at least one longitudinal axis and defining a rest plane for two adjacent laying tiles;
at least one longitudinal stem protruding from the transverse element with a central axis squared with the rest plane of the transverse element and having a first end joined to the transverse element, wherein a maximum width of the transverse element is equal to or less than a width of the joint defined between the two adjacent laying tiles and the stem has a height greater than maximum thickness without overflow in between the two adjacent laying tiles to be levelled, wherein the stem has a transverse overall dimension equal to or less than the width of said joint; and
wherein the stem and the transverse element are dimensioned such that the monolithic tie rod can be inserted through the joint after the adjacent tiles have been laid.
Furthermore, Frisco discloses
at least one transverse element (114) [Fig 3A] elongated along at least one longitudinal axis [0051, “A transverse member 114 extends generally horizontally in use.”] and defining a rest plane [0054, “In addition, the transverse member 114 further preferably comprises beveled ends 114A, 114B. These beveled ends allow the transverse member to more easily slide underneath the bottom surfaces of tiles.”] [Fig 3C] for two adjacent laying tiles (P, Sighnolfi) [additionally, (5/6) [Fig 3C], Frisco]
at least one longitudinal stem (112) [Fig 1A] protruding [0051] from the transverse element (114) [Fig 1A] with a central axis squared [0051, “A vertical shaft 112 projects vertically preferably from a center region of the transverse member 114”] with the rest plane [0054, “In addition, the transverse member 114 further preferably comprises beveled ends 114A, 114B. These beveled ends allow the transverse member to more easily slide underneath the bottom surfaces of tiles.”] of the transverse element (114) [Fig 1A] and having a first end [Lower end of (114), Fig 1A] joined to the transverse element (114) [Fig 1A] , wherein a maximum width (116) [Fig 1A] of the transverse element (114) [Fig 3A] is equal to or less than a width of the joint [0052, “This width 116 and the width 122 of at least the bottom section of the vertical shaft 112 are sized to be equal to or less than the gap or the width of the grout line that is desired or used between the tiles during installation.”] defined between the two adjacent laying tiles (P, Sighnolfi) [additionally, (5/6) [Fig 3C], Frisco] and the stem (112) [Fig 1A] has a height greater [Fig ] than the maximum thickness of without overflow [Fig 3C, 0051] in between the two adjacent laying tiles (P, Sighnolfi) [additionally, (5/6) [Fig 3C], Frisco] to be levelled [0066, Intended Use] ;
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tile leveling device by Sighnolfi to further include at least one transverse element elongated along at least one longitudinal axis and defining a rest plane for two adjacent laying tiles;
at least one longitudinal stem protruding from the transverse element with a central axis squared with the rest plane of the transverse element and having a first end joined to the transverse element, wherein a maximum width of the transverse element is equal to or less than a width of the joint defined between the two adjacent laying tiles and the stem has a height greater than maximum thickness without overflow in between the two adjacent laying tiles to be levelled, wherein the stem has a transverse overall dimension equal to or less than the width of said joint; and wherein the stem and the transverse element are dimensioned such that the monolithic tie rod can be inserted through the joint after the adjacent tiles have been laid as disclosed by Frisco. When modified, the stem and transverse element with all limitations allows for a tile leveling system which can be used to level two adjacent tiles after those tiles have already been laid out into the setting compound as disclosed by Frisco [paragraphs 0007]
11. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sighnolfi (US 2019/0345724) (Herein with Sighnolfi) in view of Frisco (US20180355623A1) and Torrents Comas Josep (WO 2014177736)(Herein with Torrents).
In regards to Claim 9, Signinolfi discloses the tile levelling device (10) according to claim 1, wherein the abutment body (40) comprises the presser (50) comprises a knob (51), however fails to disclose comprises a serrated strap and provided with at least one tooth configured to engage the serrated strap in a pop-up manner.
Furthermore, Torrents discloses comprises a serrated strap (2) [Fig 4] and provided with at least one tooth (32) [Fig 4] configured to engage [Claim 1, Fig 4] the serrated strap (2) [Fig 4] in a pop-up manner [Fig 4].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tile levelling device as disclosed by Sighnolfi to further incorporate abutment body comprises a serrated strap, with at least one tooth configured to engage the serrated strap in a pop-up manner as disclosed by Torrents. When modified the abutment body would incorporate a serrated strap with one tooth for engagement in a pop-up manner, furthermore the reasoning includes facilitating axial insertion for tile placement, moreover, this tooth and serrated strap is used for tile installation with a pushing effected is used as the method for the apparatus. The tooth and serrated strap further engages for precise tile placement.
12. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sighnolfi (US 2019/0345724) (Herein with Sighnolfi) in view of Frisco (US20180355623A1), and TSL50-BIHUI All-in-One Reusable Tile Leveling System (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4JBIIqxREI – DATED 03/08/2021)(Herein TSL50)
In regards to Claim 6, Sighnolfi discloses the tile levelling device (10) according to claim 1,
However, fails to disclose, wherein the stem has a predetermined torsional elasticity, so as to allow a rotation of the transverse element joined to the first end of the stem, around the longitudinal axis of the stem , by at least 90° with respect to the second end, starting from an unperturbed starting position, without plastic yielding of the stem, and an elastic return of the transverse element to a starting position between the adjacent tiles.
Furthermore, Frisco discloses
wherein the stem (112) [0055, Fig 3B] has a predetermined torsional elasticity [as intended for purposes of rotation], so as to allow a rotation [0064, “With reference back to FIG. 2, in the next step 314, the installer rotates the handle 110 ideally a full 90° so that the transverse member 114 now extends under the two adjacent tiles 5, 6 as shown in FIG. 3C, see arrow 182.”] of the transverse element (114) [Fig 3C] joined to the first end [Bottom End of (112), [Fig 1A]] of the stem (112) [0055, Fig 3B], around the longitudinal axis of the stem (112) [0055, Fig 3B] , by at least 90° [0052] with respect to the second end [Upper end of (112), Fig 1A] starting from an unperturbed starting position [Fig 3B], without plastic yielding of the stem [Upper end of (112), Fig 1A],
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tile leveling device by Sighnolfi to further include wherein the stem has a predetermined torsional elasticity, so as to allow a rotation of the transverse element joined to the first end of the stem, around the longitudinal axis of the stem , by at least 90° with respect to the second end, starting from an unperturbed starting position, without plastic yielding of the stem as disclosed by Frisco. When modified, the stem limitations allows for an ease of installation, providing access to leveling after the tiles have been placed by installing the stem post tile placement and leveling [paragraphs 0052-0065]
Furthermore, TSL50 discloses
elastic return [0:00 to 1:17, showing tile leveling system in use, and clean, dry and store for reuse, indicating an elastic return without deformation] of the transverse element (114, Frisco) [Fig 3C] to a starting position [Initial position, Figure 3A, Frisco] between the adjacent tiles (P, Sighnolfi) [additionally, (5/6) [Fig 3C], Frisco].
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tile leveling device by Sighnolfi to further include elastic return of the transverse element to a starting position between the adjacent tiles as disclosed by TSL50. When modified, the elastic return allows for ease of installation and reusability as disclosed by TSL50, as shown in the video, cleaning, storing and reusable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sighnolfi (US 2019/0345724) (Herein with Sighnolfi) in view of Frisco (US20180355623A1) and Sighinolfi (US 20220025662)(Herein with Sighnolfi (2022))
In regards to Claim 10, Signinolfi discloses the tile levelling device (10) according to claim 1, wherein the presser (50) and monolithic tie rod (40).
However fails to disclose wherein the presser comprises a wedge and the monolithic tie rod comprises a pair of stems spaced apart from each other by a through opening adapted to be crossed at least partially by the wedge and delimited at the top by a crosspiece that acts as an abutment element and that unites the second end of the stems, wherein a respective transverse element is joined to the first end of each stem, wherein the longitudinal axis of each transverse element is orthogonal to a longitudinal axis of the crosspiece,
Furthermore, Sighnolfi (2022) discloses a wedge (50) and the monolithic tie rod comprises a pair of stems (31) [Fig 19] spaced apart from each other by a through opening (40) adapted to be crossed at least partially by the wedge (50) [Fig 12] and delimited [Abstract] at the top by a crosspiece (32) that acts as an abutment element and that unites the second end [Fig 19] of the stems (31) , wherein a respective transverse element (right/left of 23) [Fig 1] is joined to the first end of each stem [Fig 19], wherein the longitudinal axis of each transverse element (right/left of 23) [Fig 1] is orthogonal [As shown in Fig 1, see below for examiners comment] to a longitudinal axis of the crosspiece (32) [Fig 1],
Based on the prior art relied upon above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tile levelling device as disclosed by Sighnolfi to further incorporate the presser comprising a wedge and the tie rod comprising a pair of stems spaced apart from each other by a through opening adapted to be crossed at least partially by the wedge and delimited at the top by a crosspiece that acts as an abutment element and that unites the second end of the stems as disclosed by Sighnolfi (2022). When modified, the tile leveling device uses the wedge as a means for further leveling the tiles in a secured method by the delimitator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 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: In regards to Claim 13, the prior art of record fails to teach the totality of the invention, in combination with the additionally claimed elements, wherein each stem has a predetermined torsional elasticity, so as to allow a rotation of the respective transverse element joined to the first end of the stem, around the longitudinal axis of the same stem, by at least 90° with respect to the second end, starting from an unperturbed starting position, without plastic yielding of the stem, and a return of the transverse element to a starting position between the adjacent tiles.
Examiners Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
390
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, Sighinolfi
PNG
media_image2.png
399
332
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sighinolfi (2022), Figure 1
Response to Arguments
15. Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant' s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby withdrawn. However, new grounds of 112 rejections have been raised. Please see 112-rejections section in the above.
17. Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant' s arguments with respect to all claims rejected under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered, and are directed to the amended language, which is addressed in the above rejection.
Additionally, Sighinolfi (724’) is no longer relied upon for disclosing the stem and transverse elements. Frisco is now relied upon for disclosing the limitations (see above in the 103 rejection).
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA K. AL-ASWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-6335. The examiner can normally be reached M through F 7:30 to 5PM.
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.
/Z.K.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
