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 19-38 is 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 19 recites the limitation "decorative layer" . 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) 19-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senko (JP H02128746) in view of Grunert (U.S. 2204675) or Markovski et al. (U.S. 20210062517).
In re Claim 19, 28, 29, and 30, Senko teaches a floor covering having a decorative/uppermost surface (1) lying in a plane of the floor covering, said floor covering comprising rectangular floor panels, each floor panel having: a core/interior material (5), a first edge and a second edge forming a first pair of opposite edges, a third edge and a fourth edge forming a second pair of opposite edges (there are four edges on the perimeter of the floor covering), and four corners (4) at intersections of said edges, said floor covering further comprising a plurality of alignment elements (7), wherein each edge of said floor panels at least partially defines a hollow receiving cavity (6) below said decorative/upper surface/layer, the hollow receiving cavity having a shape such that when a first edge of a second floor panel is coupled to a second edge of a first floor panel, said hollow receiving cavities are aligned to form a receiving pocket (6) within which one of said plurality of plastic alignment elements (7) is at least partially received. Each of said plurality of alignment elements has a shape corresponding substantially to that of the receiving pocket or substantially closed receiving compartment. Each of said plurality of alignment elements has a substantially planar profile having a thickness. (Figures 1-3)
Senko does not teach at least said first pair of opposite edges being provided with mechanical coupling means so that a plurality of said floor panels can be coupled to one another, said coupling means providing for an interlocking in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the floor covering, as well as in a direction perpendicular to the coupled edges and parallel to the plane of the floor covering.
Grunert teaches at least said first pair of opposite edges being provided with mechanical coupling means (16,18,19,21,26,27) so that a plurality of said floor panels can be coupled to one another, said coupling means providing for an interlocking in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the floor covering, as well as in a direction perpendicular to the coupled edges and parallel to the plane of the floor covering. (Figures 1-8)
Markovski teaches at least said first pair of opposite edges being provided with mechanical coupling means (30,40) so that a plurality of said floor panels can be coupled to one another, said coupling means providing for an interlocking in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the floor covering, as well as in a direction perpendicular to the coupled edges and parallel to the plane of the floor covering. (Figures 1-4)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the mechanical coupling means of taught by Grunert or Markovski. This will allow for a connection of adjacent floor coverings along a length of their side edges in addition to connections at the corners.
In re Claim 20, Senko modified by Grunert has been previously discussed. In addition, Senko teaches that said hollow receiving cavity(6) is provided at each corner (4) of said floor panels (1), said hollow receiving cavity extending from the intersection of the two edges forming the corner and part way along each of the two edges. (Figures 1-3)
In re Claim 21, Senko modified by Grunert has been previously discussed. Senko (Figure 3) and Grunert (Figure 1) teach floor panels are laid to form a chessboard pattern, with no offset edges.
In re Claim 22, Senko modified by Grunert has been previously discussed. In addition, Senko teaches that the hollow receiving cavity (6) is provided at each corner (4) of said floor panels, said hollow receiving cavity extending from the intersection of the two edges forming the corner and part way along each of the two edges and wherein at a meeting point of four floor panels, a substantially closed receiving compartment is formed by the hollow receiving cavities (6) of the corners of the meeting point, said substantially closed receiving compartment accommodating one of said plurality of alignment elements (7). (Figures 1-3)
In re Claim 23, Senko modified by Grunert has been previously discussed. In addition, Senko teaches each hollow receiving cavity (6) is essentially right-triangular shaped such that said substantially closed receiving compartment is essentially square-shaped. (Figures 1-3)
In re Claim 24 and 25, Senko modified by Grunert has been previously discussed but does not teach each hollow receiving cavity is essentially right-triangular shaped such that said closed receiving compartment is essentially lozenge-shaped, said lozenge shape having a major diagonal and a minor diagonal, the major diagonal having a length which is at least 20 % greater than the length of the minor diagonal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a right triangle shaped cavity where, the major diagonal having a length which is at least 20 % greater than the length of the minor diagonal or is between 3 and 4 times greater than the length of the minor diagonal, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such a cavity would allow for greater tolerance in fitting alignment elements along the major diagonal of the right triangle.
In re Claim 26 and 38, Senko modified by Grunert has been previously discussed but does not teach that the right- triangular shaped hollow receiving cavity has a hypotenuse which is curved. However, it has been held that changes in shape involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). This curved hypotenuse would allow for a more snug fit for the alignment elements.
In re Claim 27, Senko modified by Grunert has been previously discussed but does not teach that the hollow receiving cavity is located along each edge, midway along each edge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to hollow receiving cavity is located midway along each edge, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. A receiving cavity and an alignment element at the midpoint would strengthen the alignment and connection of the floor covering panels at the middle of the panel.
In re Claim 31, Senko modified by Grunert has been previously discussed. In addition, Senko teaches a receiving pocket (6) and/or said substantially closed receiving compartment has a depth in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the floor covering, said depth being greater than, or substantially equal to, a thickness of said plurality of alignment elements (7), allowing the alignment elements to be received in the receiving pocket. (Figures 1-3)
In re Claims 32, Senko modified by Grunert has been previously discussed,
Grunert teaches a tongue (16) and a cooperating groove (18,19) delimited by an upper lip and a lower lip, wherein said tongue and groove comprise locking elements due to dovetailed shaped incline surfaces, as can be seen in Figure 8. These surfaces prevent the tongue and groove from moving apart in a coupled condition. The inclined surfaces of tongue 16 and grooves (18,19) are upwardly directed locking element on the lower lip and a downwardly directed locking element on the tongue cooperating with said upwardly directed locking element and wherein, in a coupled condition. The top of the tongue contacts the bottom of the upper lip, forming a combination. Senko, the receiving pocket (Senko 6) and/or said substantially closed receiving compartment has a depth in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the floor covering.
Changes in size, shape, and proportion which have been held to involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137; In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402. Therefore in this combination, it would be obvious to one of said depth of the receiving pocket to be greater than, or substantially equal to, the thickness of the tongue, being the dimension of the tongue in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the floor panel from the contact surface to the lowest point of the downwardly directed locking element of the tongue and wherein the top of said receiving pocket and/or said substantially closed receiving compartment extends at the height of said contact surface. This would assure the pocket was sufficiently sized to receive the alignment elements and tongue.
In re Claims 33 and 34, Senko modified by Grunert has been previously discussed but does not teach that the thickness of the part of the panel situated above the receiving pocket and/or said substantially closed receiving compartment, being the dimension in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the floor covering, between the top of the panel and the receiving pocket and/or said substantially closed receiving compartment, is at least 1.2 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the thickness to be at least 1.2 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.This assures there is adequate material for a structurally sound receiving pocket.
In re Claims 35 and 36, Senko modified by Grunert or Markovski has been previously discussed. Markovski teaches coupling means allow (30,40) said floor panels to be coupled to one another via a snap action. The snap action occurs as two floor panels are shifted towards each other in a direction substantially parallel to the plane of the floor covering and/or said snap action occurs as two floor panels are shifted towards each other in a direction substantially perpendicular to the plane of the floor covering. (Figures 1-4, Abstract, Paragraph 0037))
In re Claims 37, Senko modified by Grunert or Markovski has been previously discussed. Markovski teaches a decorative layer (12) that forms a part of the decorative surface. (Figures 1-4)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633