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 .
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 38-40 have been renumbered 37-39. (Claim 37 was omitted in the original claim filing)
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the decorative material of claim 24, hinge comprising multiple hinges or gaps of claim 30 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
Regarding claim 35: It is unclear how there can be different adhesives. Only a single adhesive is previously claimed, not more than one adhesive. Claim 35 recites the limitation "the sections" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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) 39 (Original 40) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown (GB 2,198,941).
Referring to claim 39: Brown 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 and a side vertical surface of the flooring without concealing a top horizontal surface of the flooring via a hinge in the flexible strip (figure 3).
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, 22, 25-27, 30-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Breustedt (DE29912240).
Referring to claim 21: Brown teaches a flooring edge finish comprising a flexible strip (item 1) comprising a hinge (item 3), wherein the flexible strip is upwardly foldable along the hinge and is capable of being bound to an edge of a flooring without concealing a top horizontal surface of the flooring (figure 3). Brown does not teach wherein an adhesive 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. However, Breustedt teaches an adhesive (item 13) 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 (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Brown with the adhesive taught by Breustedt in order to provide a strong bonded connection between the strip and the edge of the flooring that stays in place during moving of the flooring.
Referring to claim 22: Brown and Breustedt teach all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. They do 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 25: Brown and Breustedt teach all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Breustedt teaches wherein the flexible strip comprises a woven or non-woven composition comprising a natural fiber, a synthetic fiber, or a mixture thereof (paragraph 0018). Synthetic fibers are strong and durable and resist moisture.
Referring to claim 26: Brown and Breustedt teach all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. They do not specifically 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.
Referring to claim 27: Brown and Breustedt teach all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Breustedt teaches wherein the flexible strip comprises a material comprising a paper, a fabric, a plastic, or a mixture thereof (paragraph 0018). Plastic taught by Breustedt is durable in high traffic areas.
Referring to claim 20: Brown and Breustedt teach 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 31: Brown and Breustedt teach all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Brown teaches wherein the hinge comprises an about 20-170 degree bend in the flexible strip along a bottom section of the flooring edge after binding of the third section of the flexible strip to the flooring edge (figure 3).
Referring to claim 32: Brown and Breustedt teach 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 33: Brown and Breustedt teach all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Brown teaches wherein the hinge comprises an about 90 degree bend in the flexible strip along a bottom section of the flooring edge after binding of the third section of the flexible strip to the flooring edge (figure 3).
Referring to claim 34: Brown and Breustedt teach all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Breustedt teaches wherein the adhesive comprises one or more layers comprising a hotmelt adhesive (paragraph 0015), a tape adhesive, or a mixture thereof. Hotmelt adhesive allows for installation at the final or desired location.
Referring to claim 35: Brown and Breustedt teach all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the adhesive of any of the sections of the flexible strip are the same or different than the adhesive of other sections. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that having the same type of adhesive at different sections aids in easier installation.
Referring to claim 36: Brown and Breustedt teach 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 (original 38): Brown and Breustedt teach all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Brown teaches wherein the flexible strip comprises one piece of material or multiple pieces of material attached together (figure 3).
Referring to claim 38 (original 39): Brown and Breustedt teach all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. They do not specifically teach wherein the adhesive is pre-applied to the flexible strip. However, it is well known in the art that hot melt adhesive, as taught by Bruestedt is commonly pre-applied and later reactivated to bind two components together.
Claim(s) 23, 24, 28, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Breustedt and Boatwright et al. (US Patent No 7,998,550) (“Boatwright”).
Referring to claim 23: Brown and Breustedt teach all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. They do not teach wherein the flexible strip further comprises an additional peel and seal adhesive to aid in positioning the flexible strip in proper position before permanently adhering to the flooring. However, 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Brown and Breustedt with the adhesive taught by Boatwright in order to provide additional bonding and aid in bonding before final placement.
Referring to claim 24: Brown, and Breustedt teach all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. They do not teach wherein the flexible strip comprises a decorative material comprising a braid or a tassel. However, Boatwright teaches wherein the flexible strip comprises a decorative material comprising a braid or a tassel (col 4, lines 54-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Brown and Breustedt with the decorative material taught by Boatwright in order to provide a finished edge.
Referring to claim 28: Brown and Breustedt teach all the limitations of claim 21 as noted above. Additionally, Brown teaches wherein the flexible strip comprises: a first section (item 5) located at one end of the flexible strip; a second section (item 3) comprising a hinge, which is adjacent to the first section and applicable to and directly below the flooring edge; and a third section (item 4 located at a second end of the flexible strip, which third section is attachable to a vertical surface of the flooring edge. They do not teach the first section comprising an adhesive (item 2) wherein the adhesive lies along a surface of the flexible strip, which adhesive is attachable to a bottom surface of a flooring edge, and an adhesive (item 9) along a surface of the flexible strip, adjacent to the second section. However, Boatwright teaches the first section comprising an adhesive (item 2) wherein the adhesive lies along a surface of the flexible strip, which adhesive is attachable to a bottom surface of a flooring edge, and an adhesive (item 9) along a surface of the flexible strip, adjacent to the second section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to create the device taught by Brown and Breustedt with the adhesive taught by Boatwright in order to secure the strip to the edge of a flooring in a more permanent manner.
Referring to claim 29: Brown, Breustedt and Boatwright teach all the limitations of claim 28 as noted above. Additionally, Brown teaches wherein a length of the hinge, or second section, and a length of the third section each comprise a length comparable to the length of the flexible strip (figure 3).
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