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 first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 21-26, 28, 30-32, 36, 39-45, 47-48, as originally filed 10 JUN. 2026, are pending and have been considered as follows; a terminal disclaimer filed 01 OCT. 24 was approved and can be viewed in the record:
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 JUN. 26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed 10 JUN. 26 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c). Claim 23 appears to include an incorrect status identifier of “(Previously presented)” as this claim appears to be amended at least in view of the preceding claims filed 21 NOV. 2025.
Claim 23 should have the correct status identifier of --(Currently amended)--.
Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
However, rather than mail a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (37 CFR 1.121), and to facilitate an advancement of prosecution, the Examiner will examine the amended claims as presented 10 JUN. 2026 with the acknowledgment that Claim 23 appears to be currently amended. Applicant is cautioned that any future response must present the correct status identifiers or the Examiner will be forced to send a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (37 CFR 1.121).
Claim Objections
Claim 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
Cl. 22 ln. 4: after “the second edge of the” delete “first”
Cl. 22 ln. 6: after “the first edge of the” delete “first”
Cl. 22 ln. 7: after “the second edge of the” delete “first” and after “tile so that the second edge of the” delete “first”
Appropriate correction 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 21-26, 28, 30-32, 36, 43-45, 42, 39-40 and 47-48 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abendroth US 4616462 A in view of Aristodimou US 4840825 A and WILLECK HERMANN ING GRAD DE 3303225 A1 (Willeck).
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; and
the protrusion to maintain a defined clearance between the second edge of the tile and the edge of the second tile.
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.
Willeck teaches protrusions defining a clearance, specifically:
the protrusion (cam 82 on left edge 81 of lower right stone 80’, FIG. 14) to maintain a defined clearance between the second edge of the tile and the edge of the second tile.
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 defining a clearance as taught by Willeck in order to introduce breathability between the flooring members.
As per claim 22 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou and Willeck teaches the limitations according to claim 21, and Willeck further discloses teaches abutting 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 and Willeck 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 and Willeck teaches the limitations according to claim 21, and Willeck further discloses 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 and Willeck 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 and Willeck teaches the limitations according to claim 21, and (Cl. 24) Willeck further discloses 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); (Cl. 25) the second and fourth edges are parallel with respect to one another (see “parallel” FIG. 14); and (Cl. 26) 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 and Willeck 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 30 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou and Willeck 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 in view of Aristodimou and Willeck 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 and Willeck 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 and Willeck 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 and Willeck 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 and Willeck 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 and Willeck 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 in view of Aristodimou and Willeck 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 and Willeck 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 and Willeck 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 surface that is positioned substantially at about a centerline of the second edge (see “about a centerline”, FIG. 1).
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; and
wherein the first protrusion is configured to maintain a defined clearance between the second edge of the tile and an edge of a second tile.
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.
Willeck teaches protrusions defining a clearance, specifically:
wherein the first protrusion (cam 82 on left edge 81 of lower right stone 80’, FIG. 14) is configured to maintain a defined clearance between the second edge of the tile and an edge of a second tile.
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 defining a clearance as taught by Willeck in order to introduce breathability between the flooring members.
As per claim 39 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou and Willeck teaches the limitations according to claim 42, and Willeck further discloses teaches spaced protrusions, specifically 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 and Willeck 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 and Willeck teaches the limitations according to claim 42, and Willeck further discloses spaced protrusions, specifically 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 and Willeck by including the spacing of protrusions as taught by Willeck in order to introduce breathability between the flooring members.
As per claim 47 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou and Willeck 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 and Willeck 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 41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abendroth in view of Aristodimou and Willeck as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Potter US 6941715 B2.
As per claim 41 Abendroth in view of Aristodimou and Willeck 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 and Willeck 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 filed 10 JUN. 26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the argument:
(p. 8) “A. Abendroth Does Not Disclose a Protrusion Configured to Maintain a Defined Clearance Between Adjacent Tiles”
the Examiner submits in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Abendroth was not relied upon to teach a “clearance”.
As per Applicant’s supposition that (p. 9) “B. The Combination of Abendroth and Aristodimou Would Destroy Abendroth's Principle of Operation… They cannot be machined into the thin tongue profiles required by Abendroth's interlocking system without fracturing” —namely that a stone layer would be inoperable— the Examiner submits Aristodimou contemplates thin layers.
As per the argument (p. 10):
“C. Willeck Does Not Disclose the Claimed Protrusion and Cannot Be Combined with Abendroth and Aristodimou to Render Claims 21 and 42 Obvious…1. Willock’s Cams ("Nocken") Are Anti-Rotation Bracing Elements, Not Clearance-Maintaining Spacers”
the Examiner submits “Anti-Rotation” can be reasonably broadly interpreted as “Clearance-Maintaining”. Insofar as the elements in Willeck prevent rotation, the Examiner notes that by preventing rotation of the floorboards of Abendroth, a clearance would be maintained.
Stated differently, the Examiner submits the elements in Willeck naturally provide a clearance between their proximal wider sections and their distal narrower sections; this distance extends away from the body of the stones.
As per Applicant’s supposition that (p. 11) “2. The Gap Produced with Willeck Is Not a "Defined Clearance" in the Claimed Sense” the Examiner submits applicant has not redefined the term “clearance” beyond the normal definition of “the distance by which one object clears another or the clear space between them”. The elements in Willeck clearly provide at least some clearance. The specification only mentions a “predefined clearance” with reference to “FIGS. 38A-39F” but does not provide a definition which cannot be reasonably broadly interpreted from the elements in Willeck.
As per the argument (p. 12-13):
“3. The Three-Reference Combination of Willeck, Abendroth, and Aristodimou Is Improper at Least Due to No Motivation To Combine”
and
D. Potter Does Not Cure the Deficiencies of the Combination of Abendroth, Aristodimou, and Willeck
the Examiner submits In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the reference teach floor elements and the individual features would make a contribution to the functionality of Abendroth as noted in the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
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/
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights