Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/744,346

STONE SURFACE COVERING

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jun 14, 2024
Examiner
AHMED, SHEEBA
Art Unit
1787
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Transversality
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
890 granted / 1105 resolved
+15.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
1142
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§102
33.7%
-6.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.3%
-19.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1105 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Objections 2. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites the multilayer material according to claim 1 “is muscovite, phlogopite, synthetic mica types, or a combination thereof” and should appropriately state that “the mica flakes are selected from muscovite, phlogopite, synthetic mica types, or a combination thereof.” Appropriate correction or clarification is required. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 3. Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,445 B2. Claim 1 of the instant application recite a multilayer material comprising a layer of stone laminated to a layer of reinforcing element wherein each layer comprises a first face and a second face opposite to the first face, and wherein said layer of reinforcing element comprises a mica plate or mica layer, the second face of said layer of stone and the first face of said layer of reinforcing element are laminated together at least by an adhesive layer, said stone having a thickness of at least 1 mm said mica plate or mica layer comprising between 70 wt% and 95 wt% of mica and between 5 wt% and 30 wt% of a binder, said multilayer material not comprising a backing layer made of honeycomb structure. Claims 2-5 recite that the multilayer material has an impact resistance at least 5 times higher than the stone alone for the same thickness, the mica is a muscovite, phlogopite, synthetic mica types, or a combination thereof, the adhesive layer is an epoxy-based adhesive, silicone-based adhesive, polyurethane, cyanoacrylate, polyvinyl acetate, hot melt or polymeric glue, the binder is an epoxy-binder, a polyester-binder, a borosilicate or silicone-binder or a combination thereof. Claims 6 and 7 recite that there is an additional layer laminated to the face of the reinforcing element opposite to the layer of stone and the layer is a sound-insulating layer, a magnetic layer, a light-comprising layer and/or a hook-and-loop fastener, the mica plate or mica layer consists of a superposition of mica papers or of mica sheets impregnated with the binder. Claims 8 and 9 recites that there is a covering element provided with at least one coupling means, said coupling means being provided engaging mutual coupling means for connecting with another covering and the coupling means are chosen amongst notches, a U-shape interlocking element, a straight-shape interlocking element, a male interlocking element, or a female interlocking element. Claims 10 and 11 recite that the stone of said layer of stone is marble, ceramic, travertine, blue stone, limestone, basalt, опух, sandstone, granite, quartzite, slate, agglomerated stones, composite stones or combination thereof and the first face of said layer of stone is coated with a protective coating. On the other hand, US Patent No. 12,017,445 B2 recites a multilayer material comprising a layer of stone laminated to a layer of reinforcing element wherein each layer comprises a first face and a second face opposite to the first face, and wherein said layer of reinforcing element comprises a mica plate or mica layer, the second face of said layer of stone and the first face of said layer of reinforcing element are laminated together at least by an adhesive layer, said stone having a thickness from 1 mm to 10 mm, and wherein said mica plate or mica layer comprises mica flakes, wherein said multilayer material comprises no backing layer facing the second face of the layer of reinforcing element (equivalent to claim 1 of the instant application and meeting the limitation that the multilayer material does not comprise a backing layer made of honeycomb structure) such that the multilayer material presents an impact resistance at least 5 times higher than the stone alone for the same thickness (equivalent to claim 2 of the instant application) and the mica flakes are selected from muscovite, phlogopite, synthetic mica types, or a combination thereof and wherein said mica plate or mica layer further comprises an epoxy-binder, a polyester-binder, a borosilicate or silicone-binder or a combination thereof (equivalent to claims 3 and 5 of the instant application). Claims 5-7 of US Patent No. 12,017,445 B2 recites that the adhesive layer is a layer of adhesive chosen from the group of epoxy-based adhesive, silicone-based adhesive, polyurethane, cyanoacrylate, polyvinyl acetate, hot melt or polymeric glue (equivalent to claim 4 of the instant application), the multilayer material is shaped to be a standardised covering element having at least one coupling means, said coupling means being provided engaging mutual coupling means for connecting with another covering and chosen amongst notches, a U-shape interlocking element, a straight-shape interlocking element, a male interlocking element, or a female interlocking element (equivalent to claims 8 and 9 of the instant application and meeting the limitations of claim 6). Claims 8 and 9 of US Patent No. 12,017,445 B2 recite that the stone is at least a stone chosen from the group of marble, ceramic, travertine, blue stone, limestone, basalt, onyx, sandstone, granite, quartzite, slate, agglomerated stones, composite stones or a combination thereof and the first face of said layer of stone is coated with a protective coating (equivalent to claims 10 and 11 of the instant application). The scope of the multilayer material in the patented claims 1-11 and the scope of the claims 1-6 and 8-11 of the instant application overlap and include patented subject matter in the instant claims. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the entire scope of the reference claims falls within the scope of the instant claims and a patent to the claimed invention would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by the already issued patent. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to prepare and claim the scope of the multilayer material in the issued patent again in the instant application since the scope already patented covers the full scope of the instant claims. As a result, the claims are rejected under obviousness-type double patenting. 4. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,445 B2 in view of Towne et al. (US 3,880,972 A). Claim 7 of the instant application recites that the mica plate or mica layer consists of a superposition of mica papers or of mica sheets impregnated with the binder and such a limitation is not recited in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,445 B2. However, Towne et al. teach that a mica sheet can be formed by using a colloid mixture of ground mica, water, a colloid agent and a resin binder. The resin may be coated on the ground mica prior to the formation of the collodial mixture, or the resin may be applied to the sheet after the sheet has been subjected to vacuum treatment and prior to being pressed. The disclosed micaceous insulating structures are formed from finely divided, highly-flaked mica sheet composites having a resinous binder constituent uniformly incorporated therein to give the mica sheet added strength (See Abstract and Column 1). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a mica sheet formed by finely divided, highly-flaked mica sheet composites having a resinous binder constituent uniformly incorporated in the multilayer material claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,017,445 B2 given that Towne et al. teach that finely divided, highly-flaked mica sheet composites having a resinous binder constituent uniformly incorporated therein give the mica sheet added strength. Conclusion 5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-6pm. 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, CALLIE SHOSHO can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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. /SHEEBA AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 14, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600883
PROCESS TO SYNTHESIZE/INTEGRATE DURABLE/ROBUST LOW SURFACE ENERGY "HYDROPHOBIC" DROPWISE CONDENSATION PROMOTER COATINGS ON METAL AND METAL OXIDE SURFACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594750
TEXTILE FABRIC AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595362
Polypropylene Resin Composition with Excellent Flame Retardancy and Formability
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590365
HYDROPHILIC ANTI FOG FILM LAYER, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND APPLICATION AND PRODUCT THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590196
LAMINATED FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+14.2%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1105 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month