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 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 7 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.
In regard to claim 7, the phrase “said solid surface area may include a shape indicium” renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the claim requires the area to include the shape indicium or not.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scissom US 6519902 B1 (hereinafter ‘Scissom’).
In regard to claim 1, Scissom teaches a vented tile system (100 see col. 5, ln. 59 permits “airflow”), comprising:
a plurality of adjoining tiles (150), each tile having an upper surface (seen in fig. 2) and a solid surface area (166) situated across at least a portion of the upper surface (see figs. 2 Note that area 166 extends across at least part of the upper surface); and
a vented surface (inner area as seen in fig. 2) located across at least a portion of the upper surface of the tile, said vented surface area including a plurality of strips (see fig. 2, portions between slots 162) defining a plurality of slots (162) therebetween;
wherein said solid surface area is located across said upper surface such that said solid surface area is aligned with a solid surface area of a respective adjoining tile. It is noted that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the tiles are assembled such that the solid areas (166) are aligned as suggested by figure 1 (see also col. 5, ln. 47) so as to enable the installation of the floor system disclosed by Scissom.
Alternatively,
Claims 1-7, 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huss US 2015/0376904 A1 (hereinafter ‘Huss’) in view of Scissom.
In regard to claim 1, Huss teaches a vented tile system (see fig. 4A), comprising:
a plurality of adjoining tiles (1), each tile having an upper surface (seen in fig. 1A) and a solid surface area situated across at least a portion of the upper surface (see figs. 1A and 1B. Note the upper surface area lacking apertures is considered the solid area); and
a vented surface (inner area of core structure 2) located across at least a portion of the upper surface of the tile (see fig. 1B) defining apertures (7);
wherein said solid surface area is located across said upper surface such that said solid surface area is aligned with a solid surface area of a respective adjoining tile (note that the solid areas align as shown in fig. 4A).
Huss does not explicitly teach said vented surface area includes a plurality of strips defining a plurality of slots therebetween.
Scissom ‘902 teaches a vented floor system (100) comprising a plurality of tiles (150) comprising a vented area including a plurality of strips defining a plurality of slots (162) therebetween (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apertures of Huss in the form of strips defining a plurality of slots therebetween, as taught by Scissom, so as to provide a pattern easier to fabricate for being repetitive, and also because Huss teaches that its ventilation apertures (7) can be of any shape and size (see Huss [0045]).
In regard to claims 2 and 16, the combination of Huss/Scissom teaches the solid surface has a generally flat configuration (see figs. 2A and 2B) and also teaches a plurality of raised lugs (6) configured to enhance traction atop said solid surface area.
The combination fails to teach the raised lugs atop the solid surface area, thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the lugs also in atop the solid area so as to provide slip resistance on a larger area and thus increasing safety for users.
In regard to claims 3 and 12, the combination of Huss/Scissom teaches the claimed invention having a peripheral edge (seen in Huss’ figs. 2B and 2C) and further comprising an interlocking portion (Huss 9) having a configuration complementary to said interlocking portion (Huss 10) of an adjacent tile.
In regard to claims 4 and 13, the combination of Huss/Scissom teaches the claimed invention wherein said interlocking portion includes a plurality of projections (10) and a plurality of receiving portions (9) to receive said plurality of projections, respectively, of an adjacent interlocking portion in a friction fit manner (See Huss [0048]).
In regard to claims 5 and 14, the combination of Huss/Scissom teaches the solid and vented areas together form a top surface of a tile (as seen in Huss’ figs. 1A and 1B); and
said solid surface area covers from about 30% to 70% of a total surface area of the top surface of said respective tile.
It is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art looking at Huss’ tile would readily conclude the solid area covers about 30%-70% of the tile. Nevertheless, , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a value within the claimed range (30%-70%) as a matter of routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. (In the instant case, area covered differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such distance is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
In regard to claims 6 and 15, the combination of Huss/Scissom teaches the solid and vented areas together form a top surface of a tile (as seen in Huss’ figs. 1A and 1B); and
said solid surface area covers about 50% of a total surface area of the top surface of said respective tile.
It is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art looking at Huss’ tile would readily conclude the solid area covers about 50% of the tile. Nevertheless, , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a value within the claimed range (about 50%) as a matter of routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. (In the instant case, area covered differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such distance is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
In regard to claim 7, the combination of Huss/Scissom teaches the solid area has a shape indicium such that corresponding solid surface areas of said plurality of adjoining tiles, when interlocked form a pattern (see the pattern formed in fig. 4A).
In regard to claim 10, the combination of Huss/Scissom teaches the claimed invention further comprising a support structure mounted beneath said solid surface of each tile and including a plurality of solid surface supports extending parallel and perpendicular so as to form a grid beneath said solid surface area (See Huss’ fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 11, the combination of Huss/Scissom teaches the claimed invention as addressed above for claims 1 and 10. Thus claim 11 is rejected in the same manner as claims 1 and 10.
Claims 9, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huss and Scissom and in further view of Mangus US 9068720 B2 (hereinafter ‘Mangus’) and Hardesty US 2011/0310595 A1 (hereinafter ‘Hardesty’).
In regard to claims 9 and 18, the combination of Huss/Scissom does not explicitly teach a lighted portion mounted to an underside of each tile including an LED light strip that when energized reflects light off of said underside through a respective vented area.
Mangus teaches a floor mat comprising a lighted portion (36) mounted to an underside (30) of the mat including an LED light (see col. 3, ln. 54) that when energized (via 15) reflects light off of said underside (see col. 3, ln. 65).
Mangus does not explicitly teach an LED strip.
Hardesty teaches a floor tile comprising an LED strip (120) extending along the panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an LED strip, as taught by Hardesty, in the floor of Mangus so as to save energy and provide a long lasting source of light (see Hardesty [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lighted portion as taught by Mangus and Hardesty, in the tile of the combination so as to illuminate the path for the user of the floor.
In regard to claim 19, Huss teaches a vented tile system (see fig. 4A), comprising:
a plurality of adjoining tiles (1), each tile having an upper surface (seen in fig. 1A) and a solid surface area situated across at least a portion of the upper surface (see figs. 1A and 1B. Note the upper surface area lacking apertures is considered the solid area);
a support structure mounted beneath said solid surface of each tile and including a plurality of solid surface supports extending parallel and perpendicular so as to form a grid beneath said solid surface area (See Huss’ fig. 1C);
a vented surface (inner area of core structure 2) located across at least a portion of the upper surface of the tile (see fig. 1B) defining apertures (7);
a peripheral edge (seen in figs. 2B and 2C) and further comprising an interlocking portion (9) having a configuration complementary to said interlocking portion (10) of an adjacent tile;
wherein said interlocking portion includes a plurality of projections (10) and a plurality of receiving portions (9) to receive said plurality of projections, respectively, of an adjacent interlocking portion in a friction fit manner (See Huss [0048]).
Huss does not explicitly teach said vented surface area includes a plurality of strips defining a plurality of slots therebetween.
Scissom teaches a vented floor system (100) comprising a plurality of tiles (150) comprising a vented area including a plurality of strips defining a plurality of slots (162) therebetween (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apertures of Huss in the form of strips defining a plurality of slots therebetween, as taught by Scissom, so as to provide a pattern easier to fabricate for being repetitive, and also because Huss teaches that its ventilation apertures (7) can be of any shape and size (see Huss [0045]).
The combination does not explicitly teach a lighted portion mounted to an underside of each tile including an LED light strip that when energized reflects light off of said underside through a respective vented area.
Mangus teaches a floor mat comprising a lighted portion (36) mounted to an underside (30) of the mat including an LED light (see col. 3, ln. 54) that when energized (via 15) reflects light off of said underside (see col. 3, ln. 65).
Mangus does not explicitly teach an LED strip.
Hardesty teaches a floor tile comprising an LED strip (120) extending along the panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an LED strip, as taught by Hardesty, in the floor of Mangus so as to save energy and provide a long-lasting source of light (see Hardesty [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lighted portion as taught by Mangus and Hardesty, in the tile of the combination so as to illuminate the path for the user of the floor.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huss, Scissom, Mangus and Hardesty as applied to claim 19, and in further view of Su US 2020/0270877 A1 (hereinafter ‘Su’).
In regard to claim 20, the combination of Huss/Scissom/Mangus/Hardesty does not explicitly teach the tile is made of a phosphors material that glows in the dark.
Su teaches a floor tile that includes glow-in the dark portions (see end of [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a glow in the dark portion, as taught by Su, in the tile of the combination so as to make it visible in darkness. Note that it would have been obvious to make the glow in the dark portion to be the solid portion so as to make it properly visible. Further, it is noted that it is widely well known in the art that the glow in the dark quality is provided by phosphorous materials and therefore obvious because the use of conventional materials to perform their known function is prima facie obvious.
Alternative rejection of claims 1, 8, 11, 12 and 17
Claims 1, 8, 11, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huss US 2015/0376904 A1 (hereinafter ‘Huss’) in view of Scissom.
In regard to claim 1, Huss teaches a vented tile system (see fig. 4A), comprising:
a plurality of adjoining tiles (1), each tile having an upper surface (seen in fig. 1A) and a solid surface area situated across at least a portion of the upper surface (see annotated figure below); and
a vented surface (see annotated figure below. Note that there are several vented surfaces) located across at least a portion of the upper surface of the tile (see fig. 1B) defining apertures (7);
wherein said solid surface area is located across said upper surface such that said solid surface area is aligned with a solid surface area of a respective adjoining tile (note that the solid areas align as shown in fig. 4A).
Huss does not explicitly teach said vented surface area includes a plurality of strips defining a plurality of slots therebetween.
Scissom teaches a vented floor system (100) comprising a plurality of tiles (150) comprising a vented area including a plurality of strips defining a plurality of slots (162) therebetween (see fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
1045
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apertures of Huss in the form of strips defining a plurality of slots therebetween, as taught by Scissom, so as to provide a pattern easier to fabricate for being repetitive, and also because Huss teaches that its ventilation apertures (7) can be of any shape and size (see Huss [0045]).
In regard to claim 8, the combination teaches the claimed invention wherein the vented surface area has a triangular configuration (as seen in the annotated figure above) that may be positioned adjacent a corresponding vented surface area of said respective adjoining tile. Note that per MPEP 2114 the tiles can be arranged as claimed during installation.
In regard to claim 11, the combination of Huss/Scissom teaches the claimed invention as addressed above for claim 1 further comprising a support structure mounted beneath said solid surface of each tile and including a plurality of solid surface supports extending parallel and perpendicular so as to form a grid beneath said solid surface area (See Huss’ fig. 1C).
In regard to claim 12, the combination of Huss/Scissom teaches the claimed invention having a peripheral edge (seen in Huss’ figs. 2B and 2C) and further comprising an interlocking portion (Huss 9) having a configuration complementary to said interlocking portion (Huss 10) of an adjacent tile.
In regard to claim 17, the combination teaches the claimed invention wherein the vented surface area has a triangular configuration (as seen in the annotated figure above) that may be positioned adjacent a corresponding vented surface area of said respective adjoining tile. Note that per MPEP 2114 the tiles can be arranged as claimed during installation.
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 PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 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 E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633