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 amendment filed on 17 June 2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 25 March 2026 has been considered. Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-11 is/are pending. Claim(s) 5 and 6 has/have been canceled. Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-11 has/have been examined in this action.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 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 1, the invention is directed to “a non-interlock flooring system” but the claims are written to require intermediate method steps which crosses multiple statutory classes render the claims indefinite. The product, as written, requires method steps to occur in order to form the finished product of the flooring system. Specifically, the wood grain pattern being claimed required an intermediate single wood panel which is not actually being claimed and further requires that single wood panel to be longitudinally cut. To claim the wood grain pattern as is, the claim must also recite the intermediate product and the method of forming the flooring system. Therefore, it is unclear if the claim is directed to the final product of the flooring system or the method of forming the flooring system. The claim further recites the method of laying the flooring system and bending the flooring system. Applicants should attempt to claim the product without the requirements of the intermediate wood panel and the process of machining the wood panel.
Regarding claim 1, lines 7-8 and lines 20-22, the claim recites the wood panel being “securely attached to an upper surface of the base sheet layer” and later recites “an intermediate layer disposed between the base sheet layer and the surface slat layer” which renders the claim indefinite. How is the wood panel securely attached to the upper surface of the base sheet layer if an intermediate layer is disposed between the base sheet and the wood panel?
Regarding claims 2-4 and 7-11, the claims are dependent on claim 1 and are rejected therewith.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 7-11 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
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights