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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a fourth Office Action on the Merits. Claims 21-26, 28, 30-32, 36, 39-48, as amended 21 NOV. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Claim Objections
Claim 24 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 24 ln. 3: after “tile such that” delete “the”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 46 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 46 ln. 2-3: after “top edge” the recitation(s) of “that is positioned at about a centerline of the second edge and extends therefrom” and “and terminates at the second face” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether the language of “extends therefrom” is directed to the “top edge” or the “centerline of the second edge”. Similarly, it is unclear whether the language of “terminates at the second face” is directed to the “top edge” or the “centerline of the second edge”.
Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 21, 30-32, 36, 43-46, 42, 47-48 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abendroth US 4616462 A in view of Aristodimou US 4840825 A.
As per claim 21 Abendroth teaches flooring member having a length, a width, and a thickness (see floorboards 18, FIG. 1), the
tile flooring member comprising:
a first face (top surface 58, FIG. 1), wherein the first face (top surface 58, FIG. 1) is configured to be generally facing upward during use;
a second face (bottom surface or base 62, FIG. 1), wherein the second face (bottom surface or base 62, FIG. 1) is opposite the first face (top surface 58, FIG. 1), wherein the first and second faces are separated by the thickness of the tile (see the thickness of elements 18, FIG. 1), and
wherein a surface area of the first and second faces is defined by the length and the width of the tile (see length and width of elements FIG. 1; also “a plurality of adjacent generally rectangular floorboards” Cl. 13);
a first edge (front ends 38, FIG. 1), a second edge (proximal first side or “second edge” as claimed 30, FIG. 1), a third edge (rear end 42, FIG. 1), and a fourth edge (distal second side or “fourth edge” 34, hidden from view, FIG. 1) defining a periphery of the flooring member (see boards 18 meeting at their periphery, FIG. 1),
wherein the first (front ends 38, FIG. 1), second (proximal first side or “second edge” as claimed 30, FIG. 1), third (rear end 42, FIG. 1) and fourth (distal second side or “fourth edge” 34, hidden from view, FIG. 1) edges are substantially planar, and
wherein a length of the first edge (front ends 38, FIG. 1) is perpendicular to a length of the second edge (proximal first side or “second edge” as claimed 30, FIG. 1);
a groove (see groove engaging first upper portion 94, FIG. 1) formed in the first edge (front ends 38, FIG. 1) between the first face (top surface 58, FIG. 1) and
the second face (bottom surface or base 62, FIG. 1); and
a first protrusion (protrusion 50, FIG. 1) extending from the second edge (proximal edges —first sides 30— with protrusions 50, FIG. 1),
wherein the first protrusion (protrusion 50, FIG. 1) is configured to abut an edge of a second flooring member (see boards 18 meeting at their periphery, FIG. 1),
adjacent to the flooring member (see boards 18 meeting at their periphery, FIG. 1), .
Abendroth but fails to explicitly disclose:
the flooring member is a tile comprising a top half and a lower half respectively of a stone or porcelain member adhered to a subjacent substrate
Aristodimou teaches such a flooring member, specifically:
the flooring member a tile comprising a top half and a lower half respectively of a stone or porcelain member adhered to a subjacent substrate (see top half “relatively thin stone layer 11” and lower half “a substrate made up from three sub-layers 13A, 13B and 13C” abstract ln. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Abendroth by substituting distinct upper and lower members as taught by Aristodimou in order to allow the upper or lower member to be replaced if one or the other became damaged.
As per claim 30 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 21, and Aristodimou further discloses the tile further comprises a substrate engaged with the second face (see top half “relatively thin stone layer 11” and lower half “a substrate made up from three sub-layers 13A, 13B and 13C” abstract ln. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Abendroth by substituting distinct upper and lower members as taught by Aristodimou in order to allow the upper or lower member to be replaced if one or the other became damaged.
As per claim 31 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 30, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein a thickness of the substrate is less than half the thickness of the tile/flooring member.
Regarding the limitations of the relative thicknesses, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Abendroth in view of Aristodimou by making the thickness of the substrate to be less than half the thickness of the tile in order to create a sleek assembly which would be easier to handle and because changes in size/proportion do not constitute a patentable difference.
As per claim 32 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 21, and Abendroth further discloses a second groove (see groove engaging second upper portion 98, FIG. 1) formed on the third (rear end 42, FIG. 1) edge of the tile(see boards 18 meeting at their periphery, FIG. 1).
As per claim 36 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 21, and Abendroth further discloses the first protrusion (protrusion 50, FIG. 1) is formed on the second edge (proximal first side or “second edge” as claimed 30, FIG. 1) of the tile to form a unitary structure.
As per claim 43 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 21, and Aristodimou further discloses the tile is further defined as being constructed of a stone or porcelain material (see top half “relatively thin stone layer 11” and lower half “a substrate made up from three sub-layers 13A, 13B and 13C” abstract ln. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Abendroth by substituting distinct upper and lower members as taught by Aristodimou in order to allow the upper or lower member to be replaced if one or the other became damaged.
As per claim 44 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 21, and Abendroth further discloses the first (front ends 38, FIG. 1), second (proximal first side or “second edge” as claimed 30, FIG. 1), third (rear end 42, FIG. 1), and fourth (distal second side or “fourth edge” 34, hidden from view, FIG. 1) edges are further defined as being perpendicular to the first and second faces (see “generally rectangular” Cl. 13).
As per claim 45 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 21, and Abendroth further discloses the first protrusion (protrusion 50, FIG. 1) is further defined as having a top edge that is positioned at about a centerline of the second edge and extends therefrom and terminates at the second face (see “centerline”, FIG. 1).
As per claim 46 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 21, and Abendroth further discloses the first protrusion (protrusion 50, FIG. 1) is further defined as having a top edge (see “top edge” of 50, FIG. 1) that is positioned at about a centerline of the second edge and extends therefrom and terminates at the second face (see FIG. 1; element 50 is recognized as positioned halfway between the top and bottom faces —a centerline— and terminates at the body of the element 18).
As per claim 42, Abendroth teaches a flooring member (see top halves of boards 18 meeting at their periphery, FIG. 1), comprising:
a first face (top surface 58, FIG. 1), wherein the first face (top surface 58, FIG. 1) is configured to be generally facing upward during use;
a second face (bottom surface or base 62, FIG. 1), wherein the second face (bottom surface or base 62, FIG. 1) is opposite the first face (top surface 58, FIG. 1),
wherein a surface area of the first and second faces is defined by the length and the width of the flooring member (see top halves of boards 18 meeting at their periphery, FIG. 1),
the flooring member comprises a lower half (lower half of board 18) having a first side (top surface 58, FIG. 1) and a second side (bottom surface or base 62, FIG. 1),
wherein the first side (top surface 58, FIG. 1) of the lower half (lower half of board 18) is positioned at the second face (bottom surface or base 62, FIG. 1) of the flooring member (see top halves of boards 18 meeting at their periphery, FIG. 1), and
wherein a distance from the second side of the substrate (lower half of board 18) to the first face (top surface 58, FIG. 1) of the flooring member (see top halves of boards 18 meeting at their periphery, FIG. 1), defines a thickness of the flooring member (see top halves of boards 18 meeting at their periphery, FIG. 1),
a first (front ends 38, FIG. 1), second (proximal first side or “second edge” as claimed 30, FIG. 1), third (rear end 42, FIG. 1), and fourth (distal second side or “fourth edge” 34, hidden from view, FIG. 1) edge defining a periphery of the flooring member (see top halves of boards 18 meeting at their periphery, FIG. 1),
wherein the first (front ends 38, FIG. 1), second (proximal first side or “second edge” as claimed 30, FIG. 1), and third (rear end 42, FIG. 1) edges are substantially planar (see “substantially planar” as broadly claimed, FIG. 1);
a first groove (see groove engaging first upper portion 94, FIG. 1) formed in the first edge (front ends 38, FIG. 1);
a first protrusion (protrusion 50, FIG. 1) formed in the second edge (proximal first side or “second edge” as claimed 30, FIG. 1); and
a second groove (see groove engaging second upper portion 98, FIG. 1) formed in the third edge (rear end 42, FIG. 1).
Abendroth but fails to explicitly disclose:
the flooring member a tile comprising a top half and a lower half respectively of a stone or porcelain member adhered to a subjacent substrate
Aristodimou teaches such a flooring member, specifically:
the flooring member a tile comprising a top half and a lower half respectively of a stone or porcelain member adhered to a subjacent substrate (see top half “relatively thin stone layer 11” and lower half “a substrate made up from three sub-layers 13A, 13B and 13C” abstract ln. 1-3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Abendroth by substituting distinct upper and lower members as taught by Aristodimou in order to allow the upper or lower member to be replaced if one or the other became damaged.
As per claim 47 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 42, and Abendroth further discloses the first (front ends 38, FIG. 1), second, third (rear end 42, FIG. 1), and fourth (distal second side or “fourth edge” 34, hidden from view, FIG. 1) edges are further defined as being perpendicular to the first and second faces (see “perpendicular” FIG. 1).
As per claim 48 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 42, and Abendroth further discloses a length of the first edge (front ends 38, FIG. 1) and a length of the second edge (proximal first side or “second edge” as claimed 30, FIG. 1) are perpendicular to one another (see “perpendicular” FIG. 1).
Claim 22-24, 26, 28 and 39-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abendroth in view of Aristodimou as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of WILLECK HERMANN ING GRAD DE 3303225 A1 (Willeck)
As per claim 22 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 21, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
the first protrusion is a pair of first protrusions extending from the second edge, and
wherein the pair of first protrusions are configured to abut a pair of protrusions on a fourth edge of the second tile/flooring member with the clearance between the second edge of the first tile/flooring member and the fourth edge of the second tile being twice the width of the pair of first protrusions, and
wherein each protrusion of the pair of protrusions on the first edge of the first tile has a distal surface extending an entire length of the protrusion and parallel to the second edge of the first tile so that the second edge of the first tile and the fourth edge of the second tile are parallel.
Willeck teaches spaced protrusions, specifically:
the first protrusion is a pair of first protrusions (cam 82 on left edge 81 of lower right stone 80’, FIG. 14) extending from the second edge, and
wherein the pair of first protrusions (see pair of cams as above identified, FIG. 14) are configured to abut a pair of protrusions on a fourth edge of the second tile,
with the clearance between the second edge of the first tile and the fourth edge of the second tile being twice the width of the pair of first protrusions (see distal surfaces at flat outer surfaces 83, extending a length as claimed, with a clearance as claimed, and parallel, as claimed, FIG. 14), and
wherein each protrusion of the pair of protrusions on the first edge of the first tile has a distal surface extending an entire length of the protrusion and parallel to the second edge of the first tile so that the second edge of the first tile and the fourth edge of the second tile are parallel (see distal surfaces at flat outer surfaces 83, extending a length as claimed, with a clearance as claimed, and parallel, as claimed, FIG. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Abendroth in view of Aristodimou by including the spacing of protrusions as taught by Willeck in order to introduce breathability between the flooring members.
As per claim 23 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 21, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the first protrusion is a plurality of first protrusions extending from the second edge, and
wherein the plurality of first protrusions are configured to abut a plurality of protrusions on a fourth edge of the second tile
such that the second edge of the tile is spaced apart from the fourth edge of the second tile member by the plurality of first protrusions on the second edge of the tile and the plurality of protrusions on the fourth edge of the second tile with a clearance equal to twice the width of the first protrusion, and
wherein the plurality of first protrusions on the second edge of the tile and the plurality of protrusions on the fourth edge of the second tile member each have the same dimensions with a surface parallel to their corresponding second edge and fourth edge..
Willeck teaches spaced protrusions, specifically:
the first protrusion is a plurality of first protrusions (cam 82 on left edge 81 of lower right stone 80’, FIG. 14) extending from the second edge, and
wherein the plurality of first protrusions are configured to abut a plurality of protrusions on a fourth edge of the second tile such that the second edge of the tile/flooring member is spaced apart from the fourth edge of the second tile by the plurality of first protrusions on the second edge of the tile and the plurality of protrusions on the fourth edge of the second tile/flooring member with a clearance equal to twice the width of the first protrusion (see distal surfaces at flat outer surfaces 83, extending a length as claimed, with a clearance as claimed, and parallel, as claimed, FIG. 14), and
wherein the plurality of first protrusions on the second edge (proximal first side or “second edge” as claimed 30, FIG. 1) of the tile/flooring member and the plurality of protrusions on the fourth edge of the second tile each have the same dimensions with a surface parallel to their corresponding second edge and fourth edge (see distal surfaces at flat outer surfaces 83, extending a length as claimed, with a clearance as claimed, and parallel, as claimed, FIG. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Abendroth in view of Aristodimou by including the spacing of protrusions as taught by Willeck in order to introduce breathability between the flooring members.
As per claim 24-26 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 21, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
further comprising a second protrusion extending from the fourth edge, and wherein the second protrusion is configured to abut a third tile/flooring member, such that the tile/flooring member is spaced apart from the third tile by the second protrusion;
the second and fourth edges are parallel with respect to one another; and
the second and fourth edges are on opposite edges of the first face and the second face .
Willeck teaches spaced protrusions, specifically:
a second protrusion (see second cam 14, FIG. 14) extending from the fourth edge (unidentified outer edge of lower left stone 80 between elements 83, 83, FIG. 14), and wherein the second protrusion is configured to abut a third tile/flooring member (see flat outer surfaces 83, FIG. 14) such that the tile is spaced apart from the third tile by the second protrusion (see “spaced” FIG. 14);
the second and fourth edges are parallel with respect to one another (see “parallel” FIG. 14); and
the second and fourth edges are on opposite edges of the first face and the second face (see “opposite” FIG. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Abendroth in view of Aristodimou by including the spacing of protrusions as taught by Willeck in order to introduce breathability between the flooring members.
As per claim 28 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou and Willeck teaches the limitations according to claim 26, and Abendroth further discloses wherein the tile is rectangular shaped (see “generally rectangular” Cl. 13).
As per claim 39 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 42, but fails to explicitly disclose:
further comprising a plurality of first protrusions extending from the second edge, and wherein the plurality of first protrusions are configured to abut a second tile
such that the first face of the tile is spaced apart from the second tile by the plurality of first protrusions.
Willeck teaches spaced protrusions, specifically:
further comprising a plurality of first protrusions (cam 82 on left edge 81 of lower right stone 80’, FIG. 14) extending from the second edge, and wherein the plurality of first protrusions (see pair of cams as above identified, FIG. 14) are configured to abut a second tile/flooring member such that the first face of the tile/flooring member is spaced apart from the second tile by the plurality of first protrusions (see “spaced” FIG. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Abendroth in view of Aristodimou by including the spacing of protrusions as taught by Willeck in order to introduce breathability between the flooring members.
As per claim 40 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 42, but fails to explicitly disclose:
further comprising a plurality of second protrusion extending from the fourth edge and wherein the plurality of second protrusions are configured to abut a third tile,
such that the first face of the tile is spaced apart from the third tile by the plurality of second protrusions.
Willeck teaches spaced protrusions, specifically:
further comprising a plurality of second protrusion (see second cam 14, FIG. 14) extending from the fourth edge (unidentified outer edge of lower left stone 80 between elements 83, 83, FIG. 14) and wherein the plurality of second protrusions are configured to abut a third tile such that the first face of the tile is spaced apart from the third tile by the plurality of second protrusions (see “spaced” FIG. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Abendroth in view of Aristodimou by including the spacing of protrusions as taught by Willeck in order to introduce breathability between the flooring members.
Claim 41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abendroth in view of Aristodimou as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Abendroth US 4616462 A in view of Potter US 6941715 B2.
As per claim 41 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou teaches the limitations according to claim 42, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the substrate is adhered to the second face by two-part epoxy, and wherein the substrate comprises a fiberglass.
Potter teaches such an adhesively joined member, specifically:
wherein the substrate is adhered to the second face by two-part epoxy (“two-part epoxy disposed as a layer between the elements” 6:56), and wherein the substrate comprises a fiberglass (“underlying support structure 32… fiberglass” 4:57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Abendroth in view of Aristodimou by substituting the fiberglass and epoxy as taught by Potter in order to create a resilient —i.e. reinforced— covering element because doing so would preserve the life of the element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-26, 28, 30-32, 36, 39-48 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:
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-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 D MATTEI can be reached on (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.
/JJS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635