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 claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “…complementary magnetics is from...". 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.
Claim 11-12 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 11 recites the limitation "the length, the width and the thickness" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stewart GB2507129.
Claim 1. Stewart discloses a tile system for installation on a free floating basis to form a surface covering on a substrate without bonding the tile assembly to the substrate (Illustrated in Fig.2), the tile system comprising: a first tile assembly (10) configured for connection to a second tile assembly (Fig.3a), each of the first and second tile assemblies comprising: a first attachment component (20) connected thereto and extending along a side surface of a first tile of the first tile assembly, the first attachment component including at least one polymeric surface (polypropylene – Pg.6:1-5) contacting the side surface of the first tile assembly, the side surface of the first tile having one or more magnetic elements (26) connected thereto; and a second attachment (20, Fig.3a) component connected thereto and extending along a side surface of a second tile of the second tile assembly, the second attachment including at least one polymeric surface (polypropylene – Pg.6:1-5) contacting the side surface of the first tile assembly, and the side surface of the second tile having one or more other magnetic elements (26), complementary (via tongue 22 and groove 24) to the one or more magnetic elements (26) of the first tile assembly, connected thereto and positioned such that there is a magnetic force of attraction between the complementary magnetic elements (Fig.3a).
Claim 2. Stewart discloses the magnetic elements (26) of the first and second attachment components are protruding from the side surfaces less than the polymeric surfaces such that there is a space between complementary magnetic elements (defined by doffed lines, Fig,3b).
Claim 3. Stewart discloses the first tile (14) is bonded to a layer of stabilizing material (12).
Claim 4. Stewart discloses the first and second attachment components are connected to each side surface of the first and second tiles, respectively (See Fig.5a sand 2).
Claim 5. Stewart discloses the first and second attachment components are the same shape as the tiles, and extend along each side surface of the first and second tiles, respectively (Figs 4a and 3a; note 20 is rectangular in shape same as tile 14).
Claim 6. Stewart discloses the first and second attachment components each include two polymeric tongues (22) on two opposing sides of the tiles, and two complementary polymeric grooves (24) on two other opposing sides of the tiles, and the magnetic force compresses the attachment components so as to create a water resistant seal between the tile assemblies that has the appearance of grout (Pg.4:4-5).
Claim 8. Stewart discloses the first and second tile assemblies each comprises: two of the magnetic elements on each of the side surfaces, the two magnetic elements being on opposite sides of one of the at least one polymeric surface (Fig.4a).
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 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart GB2507129 as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim 7, 11, and 12 Stewart discloses examples of magnet used as 15x8mm cylindrical magnets but failed to disclose at least one magnetic element has a thickness that is less than the width and length, a width that is less than the length and more than the thickness, and a length greater than the thickness and width such that the length is from about 40mm to about 60mm (48mm), the width is from about 2mm to about 6mm (4mm), and the thickness is from about 0.5mm to about 2mm (1.2mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to use the claimed dimension based on the thickness and pull holding strength of the magnet, besides there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent.
Claim 9, 10, and 14-16. Stewart failed to disclose the two magnetic elements are from about 3 to about 9 inches apart from one another, about 6 inches apart from one another and/or the space between the complementary magnetic elements is at least .02 mm, from about 0.4 mm to about 0.8 mm, and from about 0.5 to about 0.7 mm.
Stewart on Pg.6, lines 16-30, however discloses using doffed-lines such that the position of the magnet can be brought closer to the edge of the panel to change the pull, or connection, between the panels, hence the position of the magnets can be adjustable to adjust the holding strength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to provide the claimed distant between the magnets with the motivation of adjusting the holding strength as taught by Stewart, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp.
Claim 13. Stewart is silent on at least one of the magnetic elements is a neodymium magnet, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to use neodymium magnet as it is one of the strongest commercially available permanent magnets in the world, made from an alloy of neodymium, iron, and boron, and are up to 10 times stronger than standard ceramic magnets. Besides, 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.
Claim 17. Stewart does not explicitly disclose an inner surface of the first and second attachment features in contact with the sides of the first and second tiles are roughened to promote adherence between the attachment features and the sides, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to consider a surface roughened to a degree when it comes in contact with another surface due to friction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest the combination of characteristics specified in the independent claim, especially the requirement of a substance concerning the connector treated with plasma light, corona light to roughen and promote adherence between the attachment features and the sides, and also small holes to increase adhesion when using an adhesive to bond the connector to the tile, hence there is no cogent reasoning that is unequivocally independent of hindsight that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to attached NOTICE OF REFERENCE CITED.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BABAJIDE A DEMUREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-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 5712726754. 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.
BABAJIDE A. DEMUREN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/BABAJIDE A DEMUREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights