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 .
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s patent application number 18/729,634.
Currently, claims 1-19 and 21 are pending and examined.
Claim 20 has been cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/17/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required.
The WO 2023/144321 abstract is unacceptable.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: headings are missing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: means of hot air and /or thermal radiation in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-19 and 21 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.
Re claim 1, line 1; a citation “A method for producing floorboards for a floor covering…”; however, there are no method steps are producing floorboards, which related to the claimed preamble or in body of the claims cited for. Clarification is required. Claims 2-19 and 21 depending upon the rejected claim 1 are also rejected.
Re claim 1, lines 2, 3, and 7; a citation “which” renders the claim indefinite and confusing because it’s unclear whether “which” referring to which structure? Correction is required. Claims 2, 5, 6, 11; having the same issues as mentioned are also rejected.
Re claim 12, line 3; a conditional phrase “when” renders the claim indefinite and confusing because "when" is language that suggests or makes optional the subsequent limitation or limitations. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. See § MPEP 2103 (C). Correction is required. Claim 21, lines 3, 5; having the same issues as mentioned is also rejected.
Re claim 12, line 4; a citation “the substrate” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Correction is required.
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) 1, 2, 5-7, 10-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 10,975,580 to Pervan et al. (‘Pervan’).
Re claims 1, 11: Pervan discloses a method for producing floorboards (2) for a floor covering having end sides which are coated 24 at least in portions 20 (Figs. 4a-4d) or sealing (Figs. 8a-8e); wherein provided are a plurality of floorboards (2) which have in each case a plurality of end sides; wherein at least one of the end sides of the plurality of the floorboards (2) is at least in portions coated 24 with a material capable of biological growth, or with a component of a material capable of biological growth, so as to form in each case one end side is coated at least in portions.
Note, the coating material 24 as shown in Figs. 4a-4d or sealing materials 50 as shown in Figs. 8a-8e are capable of growing some kinds of fungi, molds or bacteria over time due to environmental moisture condition (see Abstract).
Re claim 2: (see also Note above) wherein the material capable of biological growth, or the component of the material capable of biological growth, is designed to alter surface tension of the end side which is coated 24 at least in portions (see Figs. 4a-4d).
Re claims 5, 15, 16, 17: wherein at least one further one of the end sides (Figs. 2-4) of the floorboards (2) is coated at least in portions with a nutrient (i.e. moisture, col. 4, line 29) for the material capable of biological growth so as to form in each case one further end side which is coated at least in portions.
Re claim 6: wherein the further end side which is coated at least in portions is arranged opposite the end side which is coated at least in portions (Figs. 4a-4d).
Re claim 7: (see also Note above) wherein the material capable of biological growth, or the component of the material capable of biological growth, is provided in liquid form for coating (see Figs. 4a-4d).
Re claim 10: (see also Note above) wherein the material capable of biological growth grows biologically on the end side and forms a compressible coating (Figs. 8a-8e).
Re claim 12: wherein the end sides of the floorboards (2) have in each case one tongue element (8) or one groove element (9), and a tongue-and-groove connection (see Figs. 3a, 3b) is formed in the connection region (i.e. wherein 1 points to in Fig. 3a) when arranged on the substrate (i.e. a floor surface).
Re claim 13: wherein the end sides of the floorboards (2) have in each case one mechanical coupling element (8) and a force-fitting connection of two coupling elements (8/9) is formed in the connection region (i.e. wherein 1 points to, Fig. 3a) when arranged on the substrate.
Re claim 14: wherein the floorboards (2) prior to arrangement on the substrate are retrieved from a pack (col. 14, line 17) that impedes the biological growth of the material capable of biological growth (i.e. prior the coating or sealing take place).
Re claims 18, 19: wherein thermal energy is introduced into the floorboards and/or the connection regions so as to activate and/or promote the growth of the material capable of biological growth or wherein the thermal energy (i.e. heat, col. 14, lines 28-29) is introduced by means of hot air and/or thermal radiation.
Re claim 21: (see also Note above) wherein when coating, the end sides of different floorboards (see Figs. 4a-4d) are at least in portions coated (24) with different components of a material capable of biological growth; and when arranging the floorboards (2) on the substrate (i.e. a flooring surface), different components of the material capable of biological growth are brought in contact with one another in the connection region and form the material capable of biological growth (Figs. 3a, 3b).
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) 3, 4, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US No. 10,975,580 to Pervan et al. (‘Pervan’) in view of US No. 10,604,734 to Amstislavski et al. (‘Amstislavski’).
Re claims 3, 4: Pervan discloses basic steps of producing floorboards as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein the material capable of biological growth comprises a fungus mycelium, fungal spores. Amstislavski discloses a method of using mycelium or fungal spores for producing a thermal insulation board (Figs. 3A, 3B, 3C; col. 10, line 10, Abstract). In view of Amstislavski, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose different coating materials as suggested by Amstislavki in order to meet one’s utilizing purposes for producing floorboards.
Re claims 8, 9: Pervan in view of Amstislavki disclose basic method steps of producing floorboards and Pervan further discloses wherein the floorboards are cured under heat and pressure (col. 14, lines 28-29) after coating but do not disclose expressly after coating are radiated with electromagnetic radiation so as to activate the growth of the material capable of biological growth or after radiation with electromagnetic radiation are packed in such a manner that the biological growth of the material capable of biological growth is impeded. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose different coating radiation, e.g. electromagnetic in order to facilitate for producing floorboards.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
100
143
media_image1.png
Greyscale