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 Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims repeatedly recite “the aforementioned”. “Aformentioned” is superfluous and unnecessary to reflect antecedence. Either of “the” or “said” is sufficient to reflect antecedent basis. 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 49-68 are 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 49 line 10 recites, “wherein the horizontally acting locking system comprises a projecting lip with an upward directed locking element on the underside of the panel.” Line 12 goes on to recite “wherein the upward directed locking element abuts against a proximally located upper side of the aforementioned projecting lip.”
It is unclear if the upward directed locking element is part of the projecting lip as set forth in lines 10 and 11 or if the upward directed locking element is separate such that it abuts the upper side of the projecting lip as set forth in lines 12 and 13. The limitations are contradictory. Based on Fig. 14, it is understood that the distal end of the projecting lip (10) abuts the proximal end of the upwardly directed locking element such that they are separate structures. The claims have been examined as such.
Claim 49 recites, “a concave surface formed by two planes that enclose an angle of at least 105 degrees”. “Concave” implies curved while “planes” are flat surfaces. It is not understood how flat planes form a concave surface.
Claim 57, line 20 recites “the difference in thickness is less than 10% the thickness of the panel”. The claim limitation does not recite what is being compared. It appears the claim intends to recite “the difference in thickness between the largest thickness of the upper lip at the location of the contact surface and the smallest thickness of the lower lip”.
Claim 57, starting at line 33 the limitation is unclear. It recites, “the thickness of the panel there is less than 10% of the thickness of the panel”. The intended scope cannot be reconciled. How can the thickness of the panel at a particular location be less than 10% of the thickness of the panel?
Claim 68 recites “wherein the panel comprises one or more of the following characteristic features, so long as these are not contradictory”. It is unclear what is meant by “so long as these are not contradictory”. Does the panel only need to comprise one of the following if the prior art structure does not have one feature that contradicts another feature? Such that none of the features are necessary? The claim language is confusing.
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) 49-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandevoorde (US2018/0274246) in view of Pervan et al. (7874119).
For claim 49, Vandevoorde discloses a panel (figs. 4-5, 1), wherein this panel has at least one first pair of opposite edges with coupling parts, wherein the aforementioned coupling parts allow two such panels to be couplable together and further have the following characteristic features: the coupling parts comprise a horizontally acting locking system (10), which in a coupled state of two such panels achieve locking in the plane of the panels and perpendicular to the respective edges; the coupling parts also comprise a vertically acting locking system (22), which in a coupled state of two such panels achieve locking transverse to the plane of the panels; wherein the horizontally acting locking system comprises a projecting lip (fig. 4, right 10) with an upward directed locking element on the underside of the panel, wherein the upward directed locking element abuts against the proximally located upper side of the aforementioned projecting lip at least by means of a curved concave surface with a radius (see contact area adjacent 18).
Vandevoorde does not disclose that the radius is at least 0.7mm. Pervan teaches that it is known in the art to provide a concave surface with a radius of at least 0.7mm (figure 4b) or a concave surface formed by two planes that enclose an angle of at least 105 degrees (figure 4a).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the radius of the panel at least 0.7mm and/or the angle of the two planes at least 105 degrees since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in 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), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Further, the at least 0.7mm radius or 105 degree angle will provide a sufficient dimension to allow easy connection between two adjacent panels, but still prevent them from separating after being connected.
For claim 50, Vandevoorde in view of Pervan disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the horizontally acting locking system comprises on the opposite edge, a downward directed locking element, which in the aforementioned coupled state comes into contact with the aforementioned upward directed locking element (fig. 5).
For claim 51, Vandevoorde in view of Pervan disclose the basic claimed invention, except for specifically disclosing that the aforementioned contact extend over a contact surface that is located completely in the lowest 65% of the total height over which the upward directed locking element extends relative to the aforementioned proximally located upper side of the projecting lip. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill to make the aforementioned contact extend over a contact surface that is located completely in the lowest 65% of the total height over which the upward directed locking element extends relative to the aforementioned proximally located upper side of the projecting lip since this means changing the size and location of the already disclosed contact to increase the strength of the connection.
For claim 52, Vandevoorde in view of Pervan disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein the obviousness of making the downward directed locking element extend deeper in the proximal half than in the distal half (fig. 3, 16) would be obvious to make the difference in depth at least 0.20mm since this merely involves a change of size of an already disclosed element to increase the strength of the connection.
For claim 53, Vandevoorde in view of Pervan disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Vandevoorde discloses a downward movement during coupling of the panels [0071] and it is obvious that in the coupled state the projecting lip is bent out downward during the coupled state.
For claim 54, Vandevoorde in view of Pervan disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Vandevoorde discloses that the coupling part comprises a tongue (fig. 4, 18) on the aforementioned opposite edge, wherein the tongue comprises the downward directed locking element on its underside, wherein the aforementioned projecting lip (right 10) is the lower lip of a groove (groove housing 22), which is delimited upward by an upper lip, wherein the interaction of the aforementioned tongue and groove in the aforementioned coupled state brings about locking in the direction perpendicular to the coupled panels, wherein the tongue of a first such panel may be brought by means of a turning motion and/or by means of a substantially horizontal sliding motion, into the groove of a second such panel, wherein coupling is obtained between the first such panel and the second such panel (fig. 5).
For claim 55, Vandevoorde in view of Pervan disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Vandevoorde discloses that the projecting lip comprises a recess on the underside from the distal end of the lower lip (fig. 5, bevel on lower lip).
For claim 56, Vandevoorde in view of Pervan disclose the basic claimed invention, wherein Vandevoorde discloses that the recess (It would be obvious to extend it to vertically under the aforementioned concave surface to provide more space for the bending of the lower lip during assembly), a height, measured perpendicular to the plane of the panel and it would be obvious to make the height at least 10% of the total thickness of the panel since changing the size of an already disclosed element has been proven obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to get predictable and expected results like providing a space so that the lower lip can bend during assembly for ease of assembly.
Claim(s) 57-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rick (20190136545).
For claim 57, De Rick discloses a panel, wherein this panel has at least one first pair of opposite edges with coupling parts, wherein the aforementioned coupling parts allow two such panels to be couplable together, wherein in athe coupled state locking is obtained on the respective edges both in a horizontal direction in the plane of the panels and perpendicular to the respective edges and in a vertical direction transverse to the plane of the panels, wherein the coupling parts are configured substantially as a tongue and a groove delimited by means of a lower lip and an upper lip, wherein the aforementioned tongue and groove are provided with locking elements that prevent the tongue and groove moving apart and wherein the aforementioned locking elements comprise an upright locking element on the aforementioned lower lip and, interacting therewith, a downward directed locking element on the underside of the tongue, wherein in the aforementioned coupled state a contact surface is formed between the upper side of the aforementioned tongue and the underside of the aforementioned upper lip, wherein one or more of the following features is present: the largest thickness of the aforementioned upper lip at the location of the aforementioned contact surface is equal, or is approximately equal, to the smallest thickness of the aforementioned lower lip, or the sum of the aforementioned largest thickness of the upper lip, the smallest thickness of the lower lip and the largest thickness of the tongue at the location of the aforementioned contact surface is less than, but is almost equal to the thickness of the panel (see figure below). The examiner would like to acknowledge that the drawings are not to scale but contends that the above relationships are obviously shown in the figure below. One can see that the elements in the drawing equate to the applicant’s elements and obviously appear to be of the same dimensions claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
545
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 58, De Rick discloses the basic claimed invention, wherein the thickness of the projecting portion of the lower lip decreases continuously in the distal direction to the proximal position with the aforementioned smallest thickness (fig. 12).
For claim 59, De Rick discloses that the smallest thickness of the lower lip (fig. 12 above at B) is manifested at or just before the abutment of the upper side of the lower lip with the upright locking element.
For claim 60, De Rick discloses the basic claimed invention, but does not specifically disclose that the horizontal distance of the distal position with the aforementioned smallest thickness from the lower lip to the distal end of the upper lip is at least 50% of the distance by which the lower lip projects beyond the upper lip. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the horizontal distance of the distal position with the aforementioned smallest thickness from the lower lip to the distal end of the upper lip at least 50% of the distance by which the lower lip projects beyond the upper lip since this merely involves changing the size of lower lip which is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to get predictable and expected results like ease of assembly of the panels and a stronger connection.
For claim 61, De Rick discloses the basic claimed invention, wherein in the coupled state a space is present between the upper side of the lower lip and the underside of the tongue (fig. 12, see spaces under tongue).
For claim 62, De Rick discloses the basic claimed invention, wherein the space at least is present at the location of the zone or position with the aforementioned smallest thickness (fig. 12).
For claim 63, De Rick discloses the basic claimed invention, wherein the spaces extend from a position vertically under the distal end of the upper lip at least to the proximall position with the smallest thickness. De Rick does not disclose that the space is continuous because of the one point of contact seen in figure 12 between the two spaces. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the space extend continuously because the mere one point of contact does not appear to be critical to De Rick’s connection. The connection would function the same with or without that single point of contact between the two panels.
For claim 64, De Rick discloses the basic claimed invention, wherein the space, at least over 80% of the distance over which the space extends in the horizontal direction, has an almost (broad limitation) constant vertical dimension (fig. 12).
For claim 65, De Rick discloses the basic claimed invention, wherein in the coupled state a contact surface is formed between the aforementioned upright locking element and the aforementioned downward directed locking element (fig. 12, see contact surface approximate 61-62), wherein this contact surface has a tangent increasing in the distal direction of the lower lip that appears to be approximately 45 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tangent have an angle from 47.5 to 65° with the horizontal to increase the ease of assembly.
For claim 66, De Rick discloses the basic claimed invention, wherein the distal position with the smallest thickness is located at a distance from the center of the aforementioned contact surface (fig. 12), and it would be obvious to make this distance less than 20% of the thickness of the panel since this merely involves changing the size of already disclosed elements to get predictable results like ease of assembly.
For claim 67, De Rick discloses the basic claimed invention, wherein the center of the contact surface is located at a horizontal distance from the distal end of the upper lip and it would be obvious to make it greater than 50% of the thickness of the panel for ease of assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 49-68 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection presented in the above office action.
The amendments made have overcome the previous 112b rejections, but additional issues have been discovered and set forth above. In light of the new grounds of rejection, this office action is non-final.
The examiner would like to point out that the applicant has argued the criticality of the .7mm limitation in the claims. While the examiner has now provided a reference to teach this limitation, the examiner would like to point out that the way the claims are written, this limitation does not even have to be taught by the prior art. The claims are written so that only one of the list of elements has to be taught in order for the prior art to read on the claimed invention. This is so because of the use of the term “or” in claim 49. Also, as for claims 57 and 68, the prior art only has to teach one of the limitations following the language “wherein one or more of the following features is present” or “wherein the panel comprises one or more of the following characteristics”. Again, only one of the elements following these statements must be shown by the prior art for the claim limitations to be met. The prior art does not have to show or teach all of the listed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
