DETAILED ACTION
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 recites the limitation "the proximally located upper side" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 49 recites the broad recitation at least 75%, and the claim also recites at least 85% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claim 56, in line 2, “whether or not curved” is confusing to the examiner since the applicant claims that the concave surface is curved in claim 49. The applicant needs to clarify what is meant by “whether or not curved” or remove it from the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the coupled state" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the downward directed locking element" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 57, the phrases "in other words" and “yet other words” in lines 25-26 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 57 recites the limitation "the projecting portion" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 57 is very confusing to the examiner because of the use of the ‘and/or’ clause in random parts of the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. The examiner will examine the claim and its dependents as best understood.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 57 and 68 recite the broad recitation less than 10%, and the claim also recites less than 5% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 60 recites the limitation "the horizontal distance" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 60 recites the broad recitation at least 75%, and the claim also recites at least 50% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 62 recites the limitation "the zone" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 64 recites the broad recitation less than 10%, and the claim also recites less than 5% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 66 recites the broad recitation less than 10%, and the claim also recites less than 5% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 67 recite the broad recitation 60% or more, and the claim also recites greater than 50% which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 68 is very confusing to the examiner because of the use of the ‘and/or’ clause in random parts of the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained. The examiner will examine the claim as best understood.
Regarding claim 68, the phrases "in other words" and “yet other words” in lines 24-25 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 68 recites the limitation "the projecting portion" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 49-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandevoorde (US2018/0274246).
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.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the radius of the panel 0.7mm, 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to choose any radius for the curved concave surface, and especially 0.7mm as a matter of design choice to increase the coupling strength of the panel.
For claim 50, Vandevoorde discloses that 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, 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 discloses the obviousness of making the downward directed locking element extend deeper in the proximal half than in the distal half (fig. 3, 16) and it 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 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 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 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 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.
For claim 57, Vandevoorde discloses a panel (figs. 4-5), 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 the 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, the 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, the smallest thickness of the portion of the lower lip, proximal to the upright locking portion, is located at a distal position of the upper lip, or, in other words, in the portion of the lower lip that extends beyond the upper lip or, in yet other words, in the projecting portion of the lower lip (see rejection of claim 49).
Vandevoorde does not explicitly disclose that the difference between the thickness between the upper lip and lower lip is less than 10% of the thickness of the panel or that 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.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the difference between the thickness between the upper lip and lower lip is less than 10% of the thickness of the panel or that 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, 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make such modifications to the size of the panel as a matter of design choice to increase the coupling strength of the panel.
For claim 58, Vandevoorde discloses that 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. 4, 19, slope from high end to valley).
For claim 59, Vandevoorde discloses that the aforementioned smallest thickness of the lower lip (fig. 4, the valley of 19) is manifested at or just before the abutment of the upper side of the lower lip with the aforementioned upright locking element.
For claim 60, it would be obvious 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%, or 75% or more 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, Vandevoorde discloses that in the aforementioned coupled state a
space is present between the upper side of the lower lip and the underside of the tongue (fig. 5, see space adjacent to 18).
For claim 62, Vandevoorde discloses that the space at least is present at the location of the zone or position with the aforementioned smallest thickness (fig. 5, see space adjacent to 18).
For claim 63, Vandevoorde discloses that the space is present continuously from a position vertically under the distal end of the upper lip at least to the proximal position with the aforementioned smallest thickness (fig. 5, see space adjacent to 18).
For claim 64, Vandevoorde discloses that 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. 5, adjacent space to 18).
For claim 65, Vandevoorde discloses that in the coupled state a contact surface is formed between the aforementioned upright locking element and the aforementioned downward directed locking element (fig. 5, see contact surface approximate 18), wherein this contact surface has a tangent increasing in the distal direction of the lower lip, and it would be obvious to make the tangent have an angle from 47.5 to 65° with the horizontal for ease of assembly.
For claim 66, Vandevoorde discloses that the distal position with the smallest thickness is located at a distance from the center of the aforementioned contact surface (fig. 5, see contact surface approximate 18), 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, Vandevoorde discloses that 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.
For claim 68, Vandevoorde 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 the 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 substantially configured 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, the smallest thickness of the portion of the lower lip, proximal to the upright locking portion, is located at a distal position of the upper lip, or, in other words, in the portion of the lower lip that extends beyond the upper lip or, in yet other words, in the projecting portion of the lower lip (see rejection of claim 49 for reference numbers).
Vandevoorde does not disclose that 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, the largest thickness of the tongue at the location of the aforementioned contact surface is less than the smallest thickness of the lower lip; the largest thickness of the tongue at the location of the aforementioned contact surface is less than the largest thickness of the upper lip.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the largest thickness of the aforementioned upper lip at the location of the aforementioned contact surface equal, or 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 less than, but almost equal to, the thickness of the panel, the largest thickness of the tongue at the location of the aforementioned contact surface less than the smallest thickness of the lower lip; the largest thickness of the tongue at the location of the aforementioned contact surface less than the largest thickness of the upper lip, 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make such modifications to the size of the panel as a matter of design choice to increase the coupling strength of the panel and for ease of assembly of the panel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA K IHEZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5347. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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.
/JOSHUA K IHEZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633