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 .
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 8 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 8 recites the limitation "the first veneer" and “the second veneer” in line 1. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 15, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gartland (US Patent No 4,853,062).
Referring to claim 1: Gartland teaches A surfacing product having a longitudinal axis, a transverse axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, and a thickness axis that is perpendicular to each of the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis, the surfacing product comprising: a core (item 10) having a first surface and an opposed second surface that are spaced along the thickness axis; and a veneer coupled to the first surface of the core, wherein the veneer comprises: a first veneer segment (item 18) that is elongate along the longitudinal axis; a second veneer segment (item 19) that is elongate along the longitudinal axis; and an insert segment (items 21 and 22), wherein along the longitudinal axis, the insert segment is positioned between the first veneer segment and the second veneer segment (figure 7).
Referring to claim 2: Gartland teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gartland teaches wherein each of the first veneer segment, second veneer segment, and insert segment have a respective grain, each respective grain extending along a respective grain axis, wherein the grain axis of the grain of the first veneer segment is angularly offset from the grain axis of the grain of the insert segment (item 21 has a grain axis offset from the first veneer segment).
Referring to claim 3: Gartland teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as noted above. Additionally, Gartland teaches wherein the grain axes of the grains of the first and second veneer segments are parallel or generally parallel to each other (figure 7).
Referring to claim 5: Gartland teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gartland teaches wherein the insert segment (item 21) is elongate along the transverse axis (figure 7).
Referring to claim 15: Gartland teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gartland teaches wherein the core comprises wood (col 2, line 52).
Referring to claim 20: Gartland teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gartland teaches wherein the first veneer segment and the second veneer segment abut the insert segment (figure 7).
Referring to claim 21: Gartland teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Gartland teaches wherein the surfacing product has a length along the longitudinal axis, wherein the first, second, and insert segments cooperatively extend along the entire length, or substantially the entire length, of the surfacing product along the longitudinal axis (figure 7).
Claim(s) 1, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sherman (US Patent No 1,548,911).
Referring to claim 1: Sherman teaches a surfacing product having a longitudinal axis, a transverse axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, and a thickness axis that is perpendicular to each of the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis, the surfacing product comprising: a core (item a) having a first surface and an opposed second surface that are spaced along the thickness axis; and a veneer coupled to the first surface of the core, wherein the veneer comprises: a first veneer segment (item C’) that is elongate along the longitudinal axis; a second veneer segment (item C”) that is elongate along the longitudinal axis; and an insert segment (item f), wherein along the longitudinal axis, the insert segment is positioned between the first veneer segment and the second veneer segment (figure 3).
Referring to claim 22: Sherman teaches a method of making a surfacing product, the
method comprising: coupling a first veneer segment (item C’), a second veneer
segment (Item C”), and an insert segment (item f) to a core (item a) with a binder (item
e) (col 3, lines 13-23),
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) 6, 7, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gartland.
Referring to claim 6: Gartland teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gartland does not specifically teach wherein the first veneer segment and the second veneer segment comprise the same material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the veneers would all be the same material in order to achieve a uniform appearance.
Referring to claim 7: Gartland teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gartland does not teach wherein each of the first veneer segment, the second veneer segment, and the insert segment comprise the same material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the veneers would all be the same material in order to achieve a uniform appearance.
Referring to claim 16: Gartland teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Gartland does not specifically teach wherein the wood of the core is Russian Birch. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose Russian Birch as the core material because of its known strength.
Referring to claim 17: Gartland teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Gartland does not specifically teach wherein the core comprises plywood. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose plywood as the core because of its known strength and dimensional stability.
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gartland in view of Chou (US PGPub No 2015/0191917).
Referring to claim 12: Gartland teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gartland does not teach wherein at least one of the first veneer segment, the second veneer segment, or the insert segment comprises wood. However, Chou teaches wherein at least one of the first veneer segment, the second veneer segment, or the insert segment comprises wood (paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Gartland with the wood veneer taught by Chou in order to achieve a desired texture and look.
Referring to claim 18: Gartland teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as noted above. Gartland does not teach wherein the core material comprises a plurality of core segments that are coupled together at one or more respective lap joint junctions. However, Chou teaches wherein the core material comprises a plurality of core segments that are coupled together at one or more respective joint junctions (figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Gartland with the plurality of core segments taught by Chou in order to provide additional dimensional stability. They do not teach the joint junction is a lap joint junction. However, the Examiner gives Official Notice that it is known in the art to join wood segments together using lap joints to provide strength in the joint over a typical butt joint.
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gartland in view of Kahr (US Patent No 2,900,676).
Referring to claim 13: Gartland teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Gartland does not teach wherein at least one of the first veneer segment, the second veneer segment, or the insert segment comprises oak. However, Kahr teaches wherein at least one of the first veneer segment, the second veneer segment, or the insert segment comprises oak (col 4, lines 15-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Gartland with an oak veneer taught by Kahr in order to provide a desired look as well as a durable outer layer. Oak is well known for its durability.
Referring to claim 14: Gartland and Kahr teach all the limitations of claim 13 as noted above. They do not teach wherein the oak is white oak. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to make the veneer white oak because of its durability and desirable appearance.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman in view of Chou.
Referring to claim 19: Sherman teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Sherman does not teach wherein the surfacing product has first and second edges that are spaced along the transverse axis and extend longitudinally along a length of the surfacing product, wherein the first and second edges define, respectively, a tongue and a groove. However, Chou teaches wherein the surfacing product has first and second edges that are spaced along the transverse axis and extend longitudinally along a length of the surfacing product, wherein the first and second edges define, respectively, a tongue and a groove (figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Sherman with the edges taught by Chou in order to allow the device to be created in smaller sections and installed securely with adjacent sections to form a larger surface covering.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman.
Referring to claim 36: Sherman teaches all the structural limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Sherman does not specifically teach A kit comprising: a plurality of surfacing products as in any one of claim 1, wherein the plurality of surfacing products are configured to be selectively coupled together to define a surface covering. However, the Examiner gives Official Notice that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create a plurality of the products of Sherman that would be capable of being attached adjacent each other in order to provide a broader coverage with manageable panels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4, and 9-11 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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 Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635