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 Office Action is in response to the Amendment dated September 15, 2026. Currently, claims 21-39 are pending in the application.
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 35 recites the limitation "the first, second, or third sections" in line 2. 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) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boatwright et al. (US Patent No 7,998,550) (“Boatwright”).
Referring to claim 39: Boatwright teaches a flooring with a custom appearance comprising a hidden edge along a perimeter of the flooring, wherein the hidden edge comprises a flexible strip (item 1) bound to a raw edge of the flooring; and wherein the flexible strip is adhered to a bottom horizontal surface (using adhesive 2) and a side vertical surface (using adhesive 9) of the flooring without concealing a top horizontal surface of the flooring via a hinge in the flexible strip (figure 8).
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) 21-25, 27, 30, 32, 34, and 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boatwright.
Referring to claim 21: Boatwright teaches a flooring edge finish comprising a flexible strip (item 1) comprising a hinge (at item 8), wherein the flexible strip capable of being bound to an edge of a flooring without concealing a top horizontal surface of the flooring (figure 8); and wherein an adhesive (item 9) is pre-applied to the flexible strip, or the adhesive can be applied to the flexible strip at a later time upon application of the flexible strip to the flooring. Boatwright does not specifically teach the flexible strip is upwardly folded along the hinge. However, Boatwright teaches the strip would be foldable upward from a lowered orientation to a finished orientation as in from figures 7 to 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that under broadest reasonable interpretation Boatwright teaches the upwardly foldable flexible strip.
Referring to claim 22: Boatwright teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Boatwright does not specifically teach wherein the flexible strip comprises more than one flexible strips. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have multiple strips, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378. Multiple strips allows coverage of a larger distance with shorter, easier to manage strips.
Referring to claim 23: Boatwright teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Boatwright teaches wherein the flexible strip further comprises an additional peel and seal adhesive (items 2 and 4) to aid in positioning the flexible strip in proper position before permanently adhering to the flooring.
Referring to claim 24: Boatwright teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Boatwright teaches wherein the flexible strip comprises a decorative material comprising a braid or a tassel (col 4, lines 54-56).
Referring to claim 25: Boatwright teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Boatwright does not teach wherein the flexible strip comprises a woven or non-woven composition comprising a natural fiber, a synthetic fiber, or a mixture thereof. However, Boatwright teaches a fabric (col 3, line 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the fabric of Boatwright could be characterized as woven or non-woven as these are commonly how fabrics are constituted. They do not teach the composition comprising a natural fiber, a synthetic fiber, or a mixture thereof. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use natural, synthetic, or a combination of fibers as it is well known in the art to use natural or synthetic fibers in flooring such as carpeting.
Referring to claim 27: Boatwright teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Boatwright teaches wherein the flexible strip comprises a material comprising a paper, a fabric, a plastic, or a mixture thereof (col 3, line 31 teaches a fabric).
Referring to claim 30: Boatwright teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the hinge comprises multiple hinges or multiple gaps. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have multiple hinges or gaps, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378. Multiple hinges or gaps reduces the stress at the hinge joint.
Referring to claim 32: Boatwright teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the flexible strip comprises an additive comprising an antimicrobial compound. However, the Examiner gives Official Notice that it would have been obvious to include an antimicrobial compound in order to allow the flooring to be used in a sterile environment.
Referring to claim 34: Boatwright teaches all the limitations of claim 21. Additionally, Boatwright teaches wherein the adhesive comprises one or more layers comprising a hotmelt adhesive, a tape adhesive, or a mixture thereof (col 4, lines 11-15 teaches hot melt adhesive).
Referring to claim 35: Boatwright teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Boatwright teaches wherein the adhesive of any of the first, second, or third sections of the flexible strip are the same or different than the adhesive of other sections (items 2 and 9 are different adhesives).
Referring to claim 36: Boatwright teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein a thickness of the adhesive comprises about 0.1 to 1 inch. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose any specific thickness of adhesive that adequately adheres the two components together.
Referring to claim 37: Boatwright teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Boatwright teaches wherein the flexible strip comprises one piece of material or multiple pieces of material attached together (figure 8 shows one piece of material).
Referring to claim 38: Boatwright teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Boatwright teaches wherein the adhesive is pre-applied to the flexible strip (col 4, lines 12-15).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boatwright in view of Breustedt (DE 29912240U1).
Referring to claim 26: Boatwright teaches all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Boatwright does not teach wherein the flexible strip comprises natural fibers; thermoplastics; rubber; polytetrafluoroethylene; or a mixture thereof. However, Breustedt teaches plastic fibers (paragraph 0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have specifically thermoplastic or polytetrafluoroethylene fibers since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) One of ordinary skill would choose one of these fibers because they are known for their durability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28, 29, 31, and 33 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
