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 with traverse of Species 9 in the reply filed on 03/24/2026 is acknowledged. The applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the restriction requirement of 01/28/2026 has been withdrawn. Claims 26-45 are hereby examined.
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 26-45 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term and/or renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the limitation is required of the claim. The examiner will examine as best understood with the limitation towards the feature of the fourth edge required of the claim for the fourth edge to cooperate with a third edge. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 27, at least one modified portion has previously been established in the claims, raising an antecedent issue. The examiner will examine as best understood with at least one of said modified portions previously established. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 32, at least one modified portion has previously been established in the claims, raising an antecedent issue. The examiner will examine as best understood with at least one of said modified portions previously established. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 34, the term and/or renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the limitation is required of the claim. The examiner will examine as best understood with the slot requiring only one of the recited limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 39, at least one modified portion has previously been established in the claims, raising an antecedent issue. The examiner will examine as best understood with at least one of said modified portions previously established. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 28-31, 33, 35-38, 40-45 rejected under 35 USC 112 as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 26-41, 43-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cappelle et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0192158.
Regarding claim 1, Cappelle discloses a floor panel comprising: - a core (10) provided with an upper side (11) and a lower side (12), said core being provided with: o a first pair of opposite edges (6, 7), comprising:- a first edge (6) comprising a sideward tongue (39), extending in a direction substantially parallel to the upper side of the panel (Fig. 12),- an opposite, second edge (7) comprising a recess (40) for accommodating at least a part of the sideward tongue, of a further panel, said recess being defined by an upper lip (see Fig. 12, core portion above the recess shown at 40) and a lower lip (see Fig. 12, core portion below the recess shown at 40), said lower lip being provided with a upwardly protruding shoulder (distal upwardly turned portion of the lower lip as shown in Fig. 12),- the first edge and the second edge being designed such that these edges allow to realize a locking between adjacent panels by insertion of the sideward tongue, of said panel into the recess of a further panel by means of an angling down movement about an axis parallel to the first edge (paragraph 91; see Fig. 12); and o a second pair of opposite edges (8, 9), comprising:- a third edge (9) comprising a single upward tongue (16), at least one upward flank (upward portion containing 26) lying at a distance from the upward tongue and a single upward groove (groove at 19 between the upward tongue and upward flank) formed between the upward tongue and the upward flank, wherein at least a part of a side of the upward tongue facing toward the upward flank is upwardly inclined towards the upward flank (uppermost surface, see Fig. 2), and- a fourth edge (8) comprising a single downward tongue (25), at least one downward flank (see Fig. 2, vertical surface shown between 12 and 17) lying at a distance from the downward tongue, and a single downward groove (Fig. 2, groove formed between the downward flank and downward tongue at 17) formed between the downward tongue and the downward flank, wherein at least a part of a side of the downward tongue facing toward the downward flank is downwardly inclined towards the downward flank (at the outermost curved lower portion of the tongue, see Fig. 2), and wherein at least a first distal end of the third edge, adjacent to the first edge, comprises a modified portion (10A at portions 32), for facilitating coupling of the panel with another panel, wherein the modified portion makes part of the upward tongue (see Fig. 2), and/or wherein at least a first distal end of the fourth edge, adjacent to the first edge, comprises a modified portion (25), for facilitating coupling of the panel with another panel, wherein the modified portion makes part of the downward tongue.
Regarding claim 27, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein at least one modified portion is configured to deform at least temporarily during coupling of two panels (see Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 28, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein the modified portion of the upward tongue has a varying cross section along the length of the third edge, wherein, said cross section decreases towards the first distal end of the third edge (in Fig. 3, when looking at the center portion of 10a, the cross section will be at its greatest in the center, then lesser at a portion towards the third/fourth edges where 32 is present).
Regarding claim 29, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein at least one modified portion comprises a section where panel material is removed (32), at least compared to a middle portion of the third edge or a portion of the third edge not adjacent the first edge, or compared to a portion of the third edge adjacent the second edge (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 30, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein at least a part of a side of the upward tongue facing away from the upward flank comprises a first locking element (surface 22); and wherein the downward flank comprises a second locking element (surface 29) adapted for co-action with the first locking element of a third edge of yet a further panel.
Regarding claim 31, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein the modified portion of the upward tongue is free of said first locking element or comprises a modified first locking element (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 32, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein at least one modified portion extends along a part of the third edge, at most along a third of the length of the third edge (one of the modified portions, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 33, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein the modified portion of the upward tongue and/or downward tongue is decreasing in height and/or width over at least part of its length towards the first edge (see width of 10A including 26 in Fig. 4 to Fig. 5) and is positioned in a region near the first edge (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 34, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein the modified portion of the first distal end of the third edge, and the modified portion of the upward tongue, and/or of the fourth edge comprises at least one slit or slot (32) extending parallel to the third edge (see Fig. 3), wherein a plane defined by at least one slit or slot is parallel to a plane defined by the panel (see Fig. 3), and/or wherein a plane defined by at least one slit or slot is perpendicular to a plane defined by the panel.
Regarding claim 35, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein the modified portion of the first distal end of the third edge comprises an oblique upper surface (28), enclosing an angle with the lower side of the panel (see Fig. 2), wherein said oblique upper surface extends over the entire length of the modified portion (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 36, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein the width of the oblique surface widens towards the first edge (as shown in Figs. 4-6, the surface widens in a direction parallel to the panel surface towards/away from first and second edges).
Regarding claim 37, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein the oblique surface is at least partially curved (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 38, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein the modified portion of the first distal end of the third edge comprises an oblique upper surface portion (upper surface of 26 as shown in Fig. 2), enclosing an angle with the lower side of the panel, and a horizontal upper surface portion (34) connecting to said oblique upper surface portion, wherein the horizontal upper surface portion is located closer to the first distal end than the oblique upper surface portion (see Fig. 2, generally).
Regarding claim 39, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein at least one modified portion allows the first edge of the panel to be coupled to the second edge of an adjacent panel, by means of an angling down movement about an axis parallel to the first edge (as shown in Fig. 12), such that the panel can be angled unobstructedly into each until the panels mutually enclose an angle of less than 45 degrees.
Regarding claim 40, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein the panel is substantially rigid (paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 41, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein the first distal end of the third edge comprises at least one wedge-shaped recess (33), wherein the V of the wedge-shape runs substantially parallel to the first edge of the panel, extending over the entire width of the upward tongue (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 43, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein the first edge and the second edge being designed such that these edges allow to realize a locking between adjacent panels by insertion of the sideward tongue of said panel into the recess of a further panel by means of an vertical movement (along the third and fourth edges as shown in Figs. 4-6).
Regarding claim 44, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein the third edge and the fourth edge being designed such that these edges are configured to be coupled by means of a fold- down movement (between the first and second edges as shown in Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 45, Cappelle discloses a floor panel wherein the panel is a decorative panel, and wherein the panel comprises a decorative top structure (45) affixed, either directly or indirectly, to the upper side of the core.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cappelle et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0192158 in view of Coors Stefan et al., Genrman Patent Publication DE10305695.
Regarding claim 42, Cappelle discloses a floor board but does not disclose wherein the first distal end of the third edge comprises a slit, which slit comprises at least one V-shaped slit, wherein the V-shaped slit runs substantially perpendicular to the first edge of the panel, extending over the entire length of the upward tongue. Coors teaches a third panel edge (edge with the upward tongue, see Fig. 3) including a slit (52) running perpendicular to the opposing edges which it extends between. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a slit on the upward tongue along the entire length to allow for more flexibility and for ease of assembly. It would also be obvious to produce the slit in a V-shape depending on the method with which the slit is produced, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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 Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights