DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/678,759.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are examined.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werzalit (DE 202009001671) in view of Jannsen (EP 2845964), Palmano (U.S. Publication 2021/0324636) and Showers et al. (U.S. Publication 2005/0204661).
Regarding claim 1, Werzalit discloses a deck board assembly for assembling a deck board with drainage and storm surface damage prevention features, comprising:
a plurality of deck board panels (P; see figure 2) comprising a first deck board panel and a second deck board panel (a plurality of panels P are attached to one another in order to form a floor structure, where any two of such panels P are considered the first and second panels as defined), and defining a side comprising an overhang (the right, top overhang portion which forms a groove on the right side of the panel of figure 2), an opposite side comprising a ledge (the left tongue of figure 2 can be considered the ledge), a topside defining drainage openings (L), and an underside defining underside openings (L),
wherein the overhang is configured to engage with an adjacent deck board panel of the deck board (adjacent panels are configured to engage one another by inserting the ledge into the overhang of another panel).
Though Werzalit discloses the boards are formed of a composite, Werzalit does not specifically disclose the material of the deck board panels, so as to determine whether the board can be extruded or pultruded, or whether the top use surface with grooves N can be chemically bonded thereto. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Jannsen, that such deck panels are known in the art to be constructed using polymer materials that can be extruded (see paragraph 37), where the top surface of such panels can comprise of wear/use layer #13, where such a layer #13 can be co-extruded with the material of deck in order to thus be chemically bonded thereto. See paragraph 38. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the panel of Werzalit out of a polymer, as taught in Jannsen, in order to provide a lightweight yet durable deck panel and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As a note, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the deck panels, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the deck panels are extruded or pultruded. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The prior art of record disclose a material which is configured to be extruded and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chemically bonded a use surface to the top of the panels of Werzalit, as taught in Jannsen, in order to provide a durable surface with material that will be better formed for being walked on compared to the decking panel body material and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As a note, the use surface of Werzalit in view of Jannsen would be considered to comprise of such drainage openings as well since Werzalit teaches the requirement for such openings for proper drainage through the panel.
Finally, Werzalit does not disclose a finishing feature configured to engage with the overhang of the panels and configured to straddle the two deck panels or the panel body comprises an internal screw boss. Palmano teaches that such polymer deck panels #2 can be constructed with screw bosses #32b provided on legs thereof in order to allow a trim panel to be screwed thereto by inserting a screw through the trim and into the C-shaped boss. See figure 7A and paragraph 53. Though Palmano does not specifically disclose the structure of such a trim panel, Showers et al. teach that such trim panels #7 of a deck assembly can comprise of a C-shaped channel that is to fit around the perimeter of the deck panels to provide an aesthetic edging for the exposed edges of such panels, where the trim #7 would cover the overhang edge and ledge at the longitudinal ends of such planks. See figures 1 and 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the panels and decking assembly of Werzalit to comprise of a screw boss on the panel bodies, which are used to fasten a trim, finishing feature to the longitudinal ends of the panels to thus engage the overhang features and straddle multiple panel, as taught in Palmano and Shower et al., in order to provide an aesthetic edge of the decking assembly which covers up the exposed edges of the panels.
Regarding claim 2, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious each of the plurality of deck board panels is modular (Werzalit discloses such panels P2 are modular so as to engage one another and provide a plurality thereof in order to cover a decking structure of a size as needed by the end user).
Regarding claim 3, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious the extruded or pultruded panel body further comprises an internal reinforcement (the vertical, internal webs of the panel P of Werzalit, as depicted in figure 2, can be considered the internal reinforcements that reinforce the use surface and provide structure to the panels).
Regarding claim 4, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious the chemically bonded use surface is processed or finished as imitation lineal deck boards or lineal slats (Werzalit, and the rest of the prior art references, teaches the composite panels are formed as slats in order to form an imitation, lineal slat, where the use surface of Jannsen, which is provided within Werzalit would be similarly sized to imitate a lineal slat and fit on the imitation polymer board. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the “imitation lineal” terms, the Examiner takes Official Notice that such deck boards are known in the art to be provided with patterns in order to imitate wooden boards and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to construct the panel of Werzalit to imitate wooden deck boards, such as by changing the color of such a surface to more imitate wood, in order to provide better aesthetics to the board and also since the aesthetics of a product which relate to ornamentation only and have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947); MPEP 2144.04.).
Regarding claim 5, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious the finishing feature is a rounded edge panel (Showers et al. teach in paragraph 61 that such finishing features #7 are generally C-channel shaped and also comprise of rounded corners so as to be considered a rounded edge panel as broadly defined, where such features would be provided within Werzalit as explained above).
Regarding claim 6, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious the rounded edge panel is configured to meet with the chemically bonded use surface of the first deck board panel and the second deck board panel of the deck board (Figure 8 of Showers et al. depicts the finishing feature #7 is to completely cover the top and bottom surfaces of the deck boards #5 and thus would meet, abut, and cover the use surface of Werzalit when applied therein).
Regarding claim 8, Werzalit discloses a deck board assembly for assembling a deck board with drainage features, comprising:
a plurality of deck board panels (P; see figure 2) comprising a first deck board panel and a second deck board panel (a plurality of panels P are attached to one another in order to forma floor structure, where any two of such panels P are considered the first and second panels as defined), and defining a side comprising an overhang (the right, top overhang portion which forms a groove on the right side of the panel of figure 2), an opposite side comprising a ledge (the left tongue of figure 2 can be considered the ledge), and a topside defining drainage openings (L),
wherein the overhang is configured to engage with an adjacent deck board panel of the deck board (adjacent panels are configured to engage one another by inserting the ledge into the overhang of another panel).
Though Werzalit discloses the boards are formed of a composite, Werzalit does not specifically disclose the material of the deck board panels, so as to determine whether the board can be extruded or pultruded, or whether the top use surface with grooves N can be chemically bonded thereto. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Jannsen, that such deck panels are known in the art to be constructed using polymer materials that can be extruded (see paragraph 37), where the top surface of such panels can comprise of wear/use layer #13, where such a layer #13 can be co-extruded with the material of deck in order to thus be chemically bonded thereto. See paragraph 38. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the panel of Werzalit out of a polymer, as taught in Jannsen, in order to provide a lightweight yet durable deck panel and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As a note, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the deck panels, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the deck panels are extruded or pultruded. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The prior art of record disclose a material which is configured to be extruded and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chemically bonded a use surface to the top of the panels of Werzalit, as taught in Jannsen, in order to provide a durable surface with material that will be better formed for being walked on compared to the decking panel body material and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As a note, the use surface of Werzalit in view of Jannsen would be considered to comprise of such drainage openings as well since Werzalit teaches the requirement for such openings for proper drainage through the panel.
Finally, Werzalit does not disclose a finishing feature configured to engage with the overhang of the panels and configured to straddle the two deck panels or the panel body comprises an internal screw boss. Palmano teaches that such polymer deck panels #2 can be constructed with screw bosses #32b provided on legs thereof in order to allow a trim panel to be screwed thereto by inserting a screw through the trim and into the C-shaped boss. See figure 7A and paragraph 53. Though Palmano does not specifically disclose the structure of such a trim panel, Showers et al. teach that such trim panels #7 of a deck assembly can comprise of a C-shaped channel that is to fit around the perimeter of the deck panels to provide an aesthetic edging for the exposed edges of such panels, where the trim #7 would cover the overhang edge and ledge at the longitudinal ends of such planks. See figures 1 and 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the panels and decking assembly of Werzalit to comprise of a screw boss on the panel bodies, which are used to fasten a trim, finishing feature to the longitudinal ends of the panels to thus engage the overhang features and straddle multiple panel, as taught in Palmano and Shower et al., in order to provide an aesthetic edge of the decking assembly which covers up the exposed edges of the panels.
Regarding claim 9, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious each of the plurality of deck board panels is modular (Werzalit discloses such panels P are modular so as to engage one another and provide a plurality thereof in order to cover a decking structure of a size as needed by the end user).
Regarding claim 10, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious the extruded or pultruded panel body further comprises an internal reinforcement (the vertical, internal webs of the panel P of Werzalit, as depicted in figure 2, can be considered the internal reinforcements that reinforce the use surface and provide structure to the panels).
Regarding claim 11, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious the chemically bonded use surface is processed or finished as imitation lineal deck boards or lineal slats (Werzalit, and the rest of the prior art references, teaches the composite panels are formed as slats in order to form an imitation, lineal slat, where the use surface of Jannsen, which is provided within Werzalit would be similarly sized to imitate a lineal slat and fit on the imitation polymer board. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the “imitation lineal” terms, the Examiner takes Official Notice that such deck boards are known in the art to be provided with patterns in order to imitate wooden boards and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to construct the panel of Werzalit to imitate wooden deck boards, such as by changing the color of such a surface to more imitate wood, in order to provide better aesthetics to the board and also since the aesthetics of a product which relate to ornamentation only and have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947); MPEP 2144.04.).).
Regarding claim 12, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious the finishing feature is a rounded edge panel (Showers et al. teach in paragraph 61 that such finishing features #7 are generally C-channel shaped and also comprise of rounded corners so as to be considered a rounded edge panel as broadly defined, where such features would be provided within Werzalit as explained above).
Regarding claim 13, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious the rounded edge panel is configured to meet with the chemically bonded use surface of the first deck board panel and the second deck board panel of the deck board (Figure 8 of Showers et al. depict the finishing feature #7 is to completely cover the top and bottom surfaces of the deck boards #5 and thus would meet, abut, and cover the use surface of Werzalit when applied therein).
Regarding claim 15, Werzalit discloses a deck board assembly for assembling a deck board with storm surge damage prevention features, comprising:
a plurality of deck board panels (P; see figure 2) comprising a first deck board panel and a second deck board panel (a plurality of panels P are attached to one another in order to forma floor structure, where any two of such panels P are considered the first and second panels as defined), and defining a side comprising an overhang (the right, top overhang portion which forms a groove on the right side of the panel of figure 2), an opposite side comprising a ledge (the left tongue of figure 2 can be considered the ledge), and an underside defining underside openings (L),
wherein the overhang is configured to engage with an adjacent deck board panel of the deck board (adjacent panels are configured to engage one another by inserting the ledge into the overhang of another panel).
Though Werzalit discloses the boards are formed of a composite, Werzalit does not specifically disclose the material of the deck board panels, so as to determine whether the board can be extruded or pultruded, or whether the top use surface with grooves N can be chemically bonded thereto. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Jannsen, that such deck panels are known in the art to be constructed using polymer materials that can be extruded (see paragraph 37), where the top surface of such panels can comprise of wear/use layer #13, where such a layer #13 can be co-extruded with the material of deck in order to thus be chemically bonded thereto. See paragraph 38. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the panel of Werzalit out of a polymer, as taught in Jannsen, in order to provide a lightweight yet durable deck panel and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As a note, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the deck panels, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the deck panels are extruded or pultruded. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The prior art of record disclose a material which is configured to be extruded and thus meets such limitations as broadly defined.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chemically bonded a use surface to the top of the panels of Werzalit, as taught in Jannsen, in order to provide a durable surface with material that will be better formed for being walked on compared to the decking panel body material and also since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). As a note, the use surface of Werzalit in view of Jannsen would be considered to comprise of such drainage openings as well since Werzalit teaches the requirement for such openings for proper drainage through the panel.
Finally, Werzalit does not disclose a finishing feature configured to engage with the overhang of the panels and configured to straddle the two deck panels or the panel body comprises an internal screw boss. Palmano teaches that such polymer deck panels #2 can be constructed with screw bosses #32b provided on legs thereof in order to allow a trim panel to be screwed thereto by inserting a screw through the trim and into the C-shaped boss. See figure 7A and paragraph 53. Though Palmano does not specifically disclose the structure of such a trim panel, Showers et al. teach that such trim panels #7 of a deck assembly can comprise of a C-shaped channel that is to fit around the perimeter of the deck panels to provide an aesthetic edging for the exposed edges of such panels, where the trim #7 would cover the overhang edge and ledge at the longitudinal ends of such planks. See figures 1 and 8. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the panels and decking assembly of Werzalit to comprise of a screw boss on the panel bodies, which are used to fasten a trim, finishing feature to the longitudinal ends of the panels to thus engage the overhang features and straddle multiple panel, as taught in Palmano and Shower et al., in order to provide an aesthetic edge of the decking assembly which covers up the exposed edges of the panels.
Regarding claim 16, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious each of the plurality of deck board panels is modular (Werzalit discloses such panels P are modular so as to engage one another and provide a plurality thereof in order to cover a decking structure of a size as needed by the end user).
Regarding claim 17, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious the extruded or pultruded panel body further comprises an internal reinforcement (the vertical, internal webs of the panel P of Werzalit, as depicted in figure 2, can be considered the internal reinforcements that reinforce the use surface and provide structure to the panels).
Regarding claim 18, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious the chemically bonded use surface is processed or finished as imitation lineal deck boards or lineal slats (Werzalit, and the rest of the prior art references, teaches the composite panels are formed as slats in order to form an imitation, lineal slat, where the use surface of Jannsen, which is provided within Werzalit would be similarly sized to imitate a lineal slat and fit on the imitation polymer board. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret the “imitation lineal” terms, the Examiner takes Official Notice that such deck boards are known in the art to be provided with patterns in order to imitate wooden boards and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to construct the panel of Werzalit to imitate wooden deck boards, such as by changing the color of such a surface to more imitate wood, in order to provide better aesthetics to the board and also since the aesthetics of a product which relate to ornamentation only and have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947); MPEP 2144.04.).).
Regarding claim 19, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious the finishing feature is a rounded edge panel (Showers et al. teach in paragraph 61 that such finishing features #7 are generally C-channel shaped and also comprise of rounded corners so as to be considered a rounded edge panel as broadly defined, where such features would be provided within Werzalit as explained above).
Regarding claim 20, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious the rounded edge panel is configured to meet with the chemically bonded use surface of the first deck board panel and the second deck board panel of the deck board (Figure 8 of Showers et al. depict the finishing feature #7 is to completely cover the top and bottom surfaces of the deck boards #5 and thus would meet, abut, and cover the use surface of Werzalit when applied therein).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, Showers et al, and Simko et al. (U.S. Publication 2006/0242916).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al. render obvious the claimed invention except specifically for a plug for an aperture through the finishing features. However, providing plugs or other surface coverings to cover an exposed fastener head is common and known in the art. Simko et al. teach that trim panels #40 of a decking assembly are known to comprise of plugs #136 in order to plug holes used for fasteners and prevent the ingress of water or provide better aesthetics to the assembly after installation. See figure 12. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a plug to the finishing feature of Werzalit in view of Jannsen, Palmano, and Showers et al., as taught in Simko et al., in order to provide an aesthetic surface for the exterior of the decking assembly.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-7 of copending Application No. 18/216,739 in view of Werzalit.
Claim 1 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 1 of U.S. App. ‘739 except for the openings within the underside and topside of the panel. Werzalit teaches the obviousness of providing openings L within the top and bottom surfaces of a deck panel and thus it would have been obvious to apply such features within U.S. App. ‘739 for proper drainage.
Claim 2 of the present application is defined within claim 1 of U.S. App. ‘739 in view of Werzalit as explained above, where Werzalit teaches the obviousness of using modular panels in order to attach adjacent panels to one another to form a flooring of a needed size.
Claim 3 of the present application is defined in claim 1 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
Claim 4 of the present application is defined in claim 4 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
Claim 5 of the present application is defined in claim 5 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
Claim 6 of the present application is defined in claim 6 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
Claim 7 of the present application is defined in claim 7 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
Claim 8 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 1 of U.S. App. ‘739 except for the openings within the topside of the panel. Werzalit teaches the obviousness of providing openings L within the top and bottom surfaces of a deck panel and thus it would have been obvious to apply such features within U.S. App. ‘739 for proper drainage.
Claim 9 of the present application is defined within claim 1 of U.S. App. ‘739 in view of Werzalit as explained above, where Werzalit teaches the obviousness of using modular panels in order to attach adjacent panels to one another to form a flooring of a needed size.
Claim 10 of the present application is defined in claim 1 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
Claim 11 of the present application is defined in claim 4 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
Claim 12 of the present application is defined in claim 5 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
Claim 13 of the present application is defined in claim 6 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
Claim 14 of the present application is defined in claim 7 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
Claim 15 of the present application is broader than but entirely defined within claim 1 of U.S. App. ‘739 except for the openings within the underside of the panel. Werzalit teaches the obviousness of providing openings L within the top and bottom surfaces of a deck panel and thus it would have been obvious to apply such features within U.S. App. ‘739 for proper drainage.
Claim 16 of the present application is defined within claim 1 of U.S. App. ‘739 in view of Werzalit as explained above, where Werzalit teaches the obviousness of using modular panels in order to attach adjacent panels to one another to form a flooring of a needed size.
Claim 17 of the present application is defined in claim 1 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
Claim 18 of the present application is defined in claim 4 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
Claim 19 of the present application is defined in claim 5 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
Claim 20 of the present application is defined in claim 6 of U.S. App. ‘739, in view of Werzalit as explained above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635