DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/694,689. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-14 are pending.
Claims 1-7 are cancelled.
Claims 8-14 are examined.
Specification
Applicant’s amendments to the abstract overcome the specification objection of the previous Office Action. Therefore, the specification objection of the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the claim objections of the previous Office Action. Therefore, the claim objections of the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dahm (EP 3441541).
Regarding claim 8, Dahm discloses a tile levelling device of the type used on a surface to level at least two adjacent tiles (see figure 2) comprising:
a support (#24) designed to be positioned between at least two adjacent tiles and equipped with a base (#36) designed to be positioned underneath the at least two tiles (see figure 2), an elongated body or rod (#34) which extends orthogonally from the base (see figure 2) and is equipped with means for gripping thereof consisting of an external thread (see figure 2);
a pressure and levelling body (#12) designed to be removably connected to the said support by means of the elongated body or rod (see figure 2 and lines 14-18 of page 5 of the English translation) and comprising a structure which is endowed with a lower edge (lower flat edge as depicted in figure 2) endowed with a flat support surface (see figure 2) intended to operate in contact with at least one of an upper surface of the at least two adjacent tiles (see figure 2), the said support surface being positioned perpendicular to a central axis of the pressure body (see figure 2, where the support surface extends horizontal and thus perpendicular to a vertical, central axis of the body #12);
wherein the pressure body is configured to be coaxially coupled to an external rotating member (#10; as a note, such an external rotating member is not positively defined) whose task is to generate, on command, a rotation thereof in both directions (see figures 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Caruso (U.S. Publication 2023/0091132, using the filing date of 09/21/2021 of the provisional application 63/246,381 which Caruso claims benefit to).
Regarding claim 8, Caruso discloses a tile levelling device (#100) for the type used on a surface to level at least two adjacent tiles (see paragraph 24) comprising:
a support (#30) designed to be positioned between at least two adjacent tiles and equipped with a base (#32) designed to be positioned underneath the at least two tiles (see paragraph 24), an elongated body or rod (#38) which extends orthogonally from the base (see figure 1) and is equipped with means for gripping thereof consisting of an external thread (#40);
a pressure and levelling body (#10) designed to be removably connected to the said support by means of the elongated body or rod (see figure 1 and paragraph 31) and comprising a structure which is endowed with a lower edge (lower edge #15 or lower edge #26 of element #20, which can be considered part of body #10 as well) endowed with a flat support surface (figure 2D depicts the lower edge of both elements #15 and #26 can be flat) intended to operate in contact with at least one of an upper surface of the at least two adjacent tiles (see paragraph 43), the said support surface being positioned perpendicular to a central axis (#24) of the pressure body (see figure 2B);
wherein the pressure body is configured to be coaxially coupled to an external rotating member (#60; as a note, such an external rotating member is not positively defined) whose task is to generate, on command, a rotation thereof in both directions (see figure 1 and paragraph 36).
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) 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso in view of Uyar (DE 202004013167).
Regarding claim 9, Caruso discloses the claimed invention except for the pressure body is configured to be coupled to an external rotating member by means of a magnetic attraction coupling. Caruso does not specifically disclose use of metal material for such a body nor use of a magnet therein. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Uyar, that a coupling between two elements that are configured to rotate together in order to transfer a rotational force can comprise of two ring magnets #13 and #23, one on each element to be coupled to one another in order to allow for a fast connection and quick release between such elements while also allowing coupling elements #36.1 and #36.2 to engage one another and transfer rotational forces between such elements. See figures 3 and 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the pressure body of Caruso to comprise of a magnetic attraction coupling, such as a magnet ring as taught in Uyar, in order to allow for fast engagement of the body and external rotating member with one another and thus allow for quicker installation of the body to the support when levelling multiple tiles with one another. As a note, the claim further defines limitations regarding the external rotating member; however, as explained above, such an external rotating member is not positively defined and such limitations are considered to only further define the external rotating member which the body of claim 8 is configured to be used with.
Regarding claim 10, Caruso in view of Uyar render obvious the external rotating member has an axially symmetrical bell shape, shaped to accommodate perfectly centered therewithin at least part of the upper portion of the pressure body, and comprises, integrally coupled with at least part of the internal surface thereof, at least one insert consisting of a ring-shaped magnet (as explained above, such an external rotating member is not positively defined and such limitations are considered to only further define the external rotating member which the body of claim 8 is configured to be used with.).
Regarding claim 11, Caruso in view of Uyar render obvious the pressure body has a cylindrical shape overall (the tapering cylindrical shape of body of figure 2B of Caruso) and is provided with an annular insert, made of a ferromagnetic material and positioned integrally and coaxially with the side walls of the said device (as explained above, the ring magnet of Uyar would be modified into the top end of the pressure body of Caruso, where such an annular ferromagnetic insert would be coaxially positioned with the side walls of the overall device in order to extend along the same central axis).
Regarding claim 12, Caruso in view of Uyar render obvious the ring-shaped magnet of the at least one insert fulfills the function of providing magnetic attraction with the annular insert made of ferrous or ferromagnetic material (as explained above, such an external rotating member is not positively defined and such limitations are considered to only further define the external rotating member which the body of claim 8 is configured to be used with, where Uyar teaches the obviousness of using such a ferromagnetic ring within such a rotating member as defined).
Claim(s) 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahm in view of Uyar.
Regarding claim 9, Dahm discloses the claimed invention except for the pressure body is configured to be coupled to an external rotating member by means of a magnetic attraction coupling. Dahm does not specifically disclose use of metal material for such a body nor use of a magnet therein. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Uyar, that a coupling between two elements that are configured to rotate together in order to transfer a rotational force can comprise of two ring magnets #13 and #23, one on each element to be coupled to one another in order to allow for a fast connection and quick release between such elements while also allowing coupling elements #36.1 and #36.2 to engage one another and transfer rotational forces between such elements. See figures 3 and 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the pressure body of Dahm to comprise of a magnetic attraction coupling, such as a magnet ring as taught in Uyar, in order to allow for fast engagement of the body and external rotating member with one another and thus allow for quicker installation of the body to the support when levelling multiple tiles with one another. As a note, the claim further defines limitations regarding the external rotating member; however, as explained above, such an external rotating member is not positively defined and such limitations are considered to only further define the external rotating member which the body of claim 8 is configured to be used with.
Regarding claim 10, Dahm in view of Uyar render obvious the external rotating member has an axially symmetrical bell shape, shaped to accommodate perfectly centered therewithin at least part of the upper portion of the pressure body, and comprises, integrally coupled with at least part of the internal surface thereof, at least one insert consisting of a ring-shaped magnet (as explained above, such an external rotating member is not positively defined and such limitations are considered to only further define the external rotating member which the body of claim 8 is configured to be used with.).
Regarding claim 11, Dahm in view of Uyar render obvious the pressure body has a cylindrical shape overall (the cylindrical shape of body of figures 1 and 2 of Dahm) and is provided with an annular insert, made of a ferromagnetic material and is positioned integrally and coaxially with the side walls of the said device (as explained above, the ring magnet of Uyar would be modified into the top end of the pressure body of Dahm, where such an annular ferromagnetic insert would be coaxially positioned with the side walls of the overall device in order to extend along the same central axis).
Regarding claim 12, Dahm in view of Uyar render obvious the ring-shaped magnet of the at least one insert fulfills the function of providing magnetic attraction with the annular insert made of ferrous or ferromagnetic material (as explained above, such an external rotating member is not positively defined and such limitations are considered to only further define the external rotating member which the body of claim 8 is configured to be used with, where Uyar teaches the obviousness of using such a ferromagnetic ring within such a rotating member as defined).
Claim(s) 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahm in view of Moon (U.S. Publication 2016/0298342).
Regarding claim 9, Dahm discloses the claimed invention except for the pressure body is configured to be coupled to an external rotating member by means of a magnetic attraction coupling. Dahm does not specifically disclose use of metal material for such a body nor use of a magnet therein. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Moon, that such tile aligning devices #10 can be constructed from plastic, steel, or wood materials and such materials can be substituted for one another. See paragraph 32. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the body of Dahm out of steel, as taught in Moon, in order to construct the body to be less likely to break and thus more reuseable 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). Thus, the body of Dahm in view of Moon would be configured to form a magnetic attraction coupling with an external rotating member as defined. As a note, the claim further defines limitations regarding the external rotating member; however, as explained above, such an external rotating member is not positively defined and such limitations are considered to only further define the external rotating member which the body of claim 8 is configured to be used with.
Regarding claim 10, Dahm in view of Moon render obvious the external rotating member has an axially symmetrical bell shape, shaped to accommodate perfectly centered therewithin at least part of the upper portion of the pressure body, and comprises, integrally coupled with at least part of the internal surface thereof, at least one insert consisting of a ring-shaped magnet (as explained above, such an external rotating member is not positively defined and such limitations are considered to only further define the external rotating member which the body of claim 8 is configured to be used with.).
Regarding claim 13, Dahm in view of Moon render obvious the pressure body has a cylindrical shape overall (see figures 1 and 2 of Dahm) and is made of a magnetic material (As explained above, the body of Dahm is modified in view of Moon in order to be constructed from a magnetic material, such as steel).
Regarding claim 14, Dahm in view of Moon render obvious the axially symmetrical bell-shaped external rotating member is made of a ferromagnetic material, thereby fulfilling the function of providing magnetic attraction with the magnetic material of which the pressure body is made and with which the external rotating member is coupled (as explained above, such an external rotating member is not positively defined and such limitations are considered to only further define the external rotating member which the body of claim 8 is configured to be used with).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruso in view of Uyar, or in the alternative in view of Uyar and Moon.
Regarding claim 13, Caruso in view of Uyar render obvious the pressure body has a cylindrical shape overall (the tapering cylindrical shape of body of figure 2B of Caruso) and is made of a magnetic material (As explained above, the ring magnet of Uyar would be modified into the top end of the pressure body of Caruso, and thus form the body with a magnetic material. Alternatively, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Moon, that such tile aligning devices #10 can be constructed from plastic, steel, or wood materials and such materials can be substituted for one another (see paragraph 32), and thus it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the body of Caruso to comprise of a ferrous material, such as steel, since Moon teaches such materials are interchangeable with one another for constructing such a body and such a metal material would be less likely to break and thus more reuseable 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).).
Regarding claim 14, Caruso in view of Uyar, or in the alternative in view of Uyar and Moon, render obvious the axially symmetrical bell-shaped external rotating member is made of a ferromagnetic material, thereby fulfilling the function of providing magnetic attraction with the magnetic material of which the pressure body is made and with which the external rotating member is coupled (as explained above, such an external rotating member is not positively defined and such limitations are considered to only further define the external rotating member which the body of claim 8 is configured to be used with, where Uyar teaches the obviousness of using such a ferromagnetic ring within such a rotating member as defined).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “Dahm does not disclose a feature in which the pressure body is configured to be coaxially coupled to an external rotating member” as defined in claim 8, figure 1 and the disclosure of Dahm explicitly teaches fins #14 on the outer perimeter of the pressure body which are configured to couple to the arms #20 of the external rotating member #10 and thus allow for rotation in both directions of rotation. Applicant does not further define such a coaxial coupling nor positively define such an external rotation member is provided. Dahm meets the structural and functional limitations as presently defined and thus anticipates the claimed invention as broadly defined.
Applicant includes similar rejections with respect to the Caruso reference, where Caruso explicitly discloses and depicts spokes #16 configured to mate with slots #68 of an external rotating members #60 so as to allow rotation in both directions of the assembly. Again, Applicant does not further define such a coaxial coupling nor positively define such an external rotation member is provided. Caruso meets the structural and functional limitations as presently defined and thus anticipates the claimed invention as broadly presently defined.
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).
In response to applicant's argument that Uyar is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Uyar is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem which the inventor is concerned, which is maintaining a tool in connection with the piece it is to rotate using a magnetic connection to maintain a removable connection between such elements during use and one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the Uyar reference to further enhance the external rotating member tool engagement with the pressure body of the prior art. As held in KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., applying a known technique in the rotating tool art to improve other similar rotating tool connections in the same way would have yielded the same predictable result within the prior art references and thus such modifications are considered proper. 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “a system relying on magnetic contact is not compatible with a threaded contact-based system,” the inter-engagement of the tongues and grooves of the pressure body and external rotating member elements of the prior art are not modified and are still in use to allow for threaded engagement of the pressure body to the support. Instead, it is the addition of the magnet coupling to prevent initial disengagement between such elements during the rotating process, as taught in Uyar. Similar to the magnetic connection between a magnetic screw bit holder and a ferrous bit which is commonly used in the tool industry to initially hold the hexagonal bit into a hexagonal hole within the holder (which hexagonal shapes provide the rotational force transfer and not the magnetic connection) and prevent disengagement or falling before engaging a screw or other fastener with the bit, the magnetic coupling of the prior art would initially engage the external rotating member with the pressure body and thus prevent accidental removal of the two before engaging and rotating the pressure body onto support. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “Moon merely relates to components made of metal and fails to teach or suggest any magnetic coupling or functional interaction between magnetic materials,” all that claims 13 and 14 positively define are that the pressure body be made of a magnetic material. The external rotating member is not positively defined nor required in the claimed invention. Since a pressure body of the prior art, such as taught in Moon, would be configured to engage a magnet formed in an external rotating member, the prior art would thus be considered to render such features obvious because such a ferrous metal configures such a prior art invention to function as defined. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
Prosecution Insights