DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 16-25 in the reply filed on 02/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 26-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/09/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
claims 17 and 18 recite that the edges are “in square each other” which appears to be missing the word “with”
claim 21 recites “maximum dimension blow” it is believed this is a typo and should read “below”
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.
Claims 16-25 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.
Claim 16 recites that the tile comprises “a ceramic body and a decor of said upper face” which is not grammatically correct. It is unclear if applicant intends to recite a decorative layer on the upper face or only suggest that the upper layer comprises decoration.
For sake of further examination, “a décor of said upper face” will be examined as a decoration on the upper face.
Claims 17-25 are rejected as being dependent upon indefinite claim 16.
Claims 17, 20, and 21 are further indefinite as they claim a broad feature and also “a preferable” feature. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by the “preferable” language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For sake of further examination, preferable embodiment will be viewed as optional.
Claim 21 is further indefinite as it recited “a maximum dimension” without defining what dimension(s) are being referenced.
For sake of further examination, if any dimension is below 35 cm it will be viewed as meeting the claimed maximum dimension.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-18 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Evangelisti et al. (US 2021/0070095).
Regarding claim 16, Evangelisti discloses a tile having upper and lower faces (Fig. 1 and 2) having a ceramic body (0044) and a pattern (5) on the upper face (Fig. 1, 0047). The shape and dimensions of the lower face differing from the upper face (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Evangelisti teaches the lower face has edges in square with each other.
Regarding claim 18, Evangelisti teaches the upper edges are distress thus not in square with each other (0046).
Regarding claim 22, Evangelisti teaches a coating on the upper surface (0010).
Regarding claim 23, Evangelisti teaches the upper surface having a relief structure comprises recesses and protrusions and along with a pattern (instant coarse and detailed structures) make a more realistic natural surface (0013).
Regarding claim 24, Evangelisti teaches the pattern formed via digital printing (0009) and the relief structure formed by pressing (0056).
Please note, claim 24 includes product by process language with regards to the recitation of “is obtained through”. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[E]ven 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 does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 25, Evangelisti teaches a set of tiles (0015) wherein at least one tile has and upper and lower face (Fig. 1 and 2) having a ceramic body (0044) and a pattern (5) on the upper face (Fig. 1, 0047). The shape and dimensions of the lower face differing from the upper face (Fig. 2). The lower faces of the tiles having the same shape and dimension (Fig. 9).
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.
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evangelisti as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Loebel et al. (US 2019/0003188).
Regarding claim 19, Evangelisti discloses the limitations of claim 16 as discussed above. Evangelisti teaches the body having wall extending in a vertical direction (Fig. 1 and 2). However, Evangelisti does not disclose the walls having an inclination with respect to the horizontal or plane of the lower face which is different from the other walls and shows a varying inclination along its longitudinal direction.
Loebel, in the analogous field of decorative panels (0002), teaches panel having panel edges 2, 3 and 4, 5 (Fig. 1), the edges comprising an edge break having an inclination with respect to the horizontal/lower face plane, the inclination varying along the longitudinal direction (Fig. 2).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the covering element of Evangelisti to comprise an edge surface having a varying inclination as taught by Loebel, to fit two panel together concealing irregularities and offer a less blunt top edge which is less sensitive to mechanical shocks (0004).
Regarding claim 21, Evangelisti discloses the limitation of claim 16 as discussed above. Evangelisti does not teach any suitable dimensions for the covering element.
Loebel, in the analogous field of decorative panels (0002), teaches a thickness in the range of 1.5 to 5 mm (0051), overlapping the claimed maximum dimension below 35 cm.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the thickness of the covering element of Evangelisti to be in the range of 1.5 to 5 mm as taught by Loebel, as this thickness is suitable for the joining of the panels (0051).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Drinkall (US 2,335,493), Emmerling (US 2,904,990), and Fisher (US 5,945,181) teaching tiles with angled and/or inclined edges.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights