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.
Claims 1-11 are 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, lines 8-9, it is unclear how the surface slat layer can have a “continuous” wood-grain surface. The surface slat layer has grooves formed therein, and it would appear that the layer would not be a “continuous” wood-grain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(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) 1, 4, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2005/0055899 A1 to Parelli et al.
Regarding claim 1, Parelli et al. disclose a non-interlock assembled flooring system, comprising: a base sheet layer (12), made of a flexible sheet, a lower surface of the base sheet layer being a laying surface; and a surface slat layer (layer of 11. Fig.4), disposed on the base sheet layer, the surface slat layer including a plurality of wood floor slats (11; Paragraph [0029]) arranged side-by-side in a widthwise direction, such that the wood floor slats are separated by the cut grooves serving as expansion joints (spaces between 11, Fig.4), and the surface slat layer has a continuous wood-grain surface formed by upper surfaces of the wood floor slats (formed from cypress and therefore has wood grain along the surface of the slats), wherein, by laying the non-interlock assembled flooring system on a floor with the laying surface of the base sheet layer facing the floor, the floor is covered by the wood floor slats which are not interlocked with each other (the wood slats are not interlocked when in use), and by bending the non-interlock assembled flooring system using at least one of the cut grooves as a fold line, the non-interlock assembled flooring system has a folded width for storage and transportation less than its original width before bending, and the non-interlock assembled flooring system is allowed to be laid on the floor in a bending manner to match the unevenness of the floor (the system of Parelli is capable of being bent and rolled as recited).
The recitation “the wood floor slats being formed by longitudinally cutting a plurality of cut grooves parallel to each other on a single wood panel securely attached to an upper surface of the base sheet layer” renders a product by process limitation, therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the wood panel is made of solid wood (formed from cypress; Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 7, The recitation “wherein in the surface slat layer, the cut grooves are formed simultaneously in a single cutting process with a plurality of cutting tools arranged in parallel to improve the parallelism between the wood floor slats” renders a product by process limitation, therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Regarding claim 8, wherein in the surface slat layer, the cut grooves are V-shaped grooves (angled portions of the cut, Fig.4).
Regarding claim 9, wherein in the surface slat layer, the cut grooves are vertical linear grooves (vertical portion of the grooves, Fig.4).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,871,686 B2 to Eshpar.
Regarding claim 1, Eshpar discloses a non-interlock assembled flooring system (10), comprising: a base sheet layer (18), made of a flexible sheet, a lower surface of the base sheet layer being a laying surface (capable of being laying surface); and a surface slat layer (12), disposed on the base sheet layer, the surface slat layer including a plurality of wood floor slats (Page 2, lines 14-17) arranged side-by-side in a widthwise direction, such that the wood floor slats are separated by the cut grooves (grooves between 12) serving as expansion joints, and the surface slat layer has a continuous wood-grain surface (beams formed by wood will contain wood grain) formed by upper surfaces of the wood floor slats, wherein, by laying the non-interlock assembled flooring system on a floor with the laying surface of the base sheet layer facing the floor, the floor is covered by the wood floor slats which are not interlocked with each other (Fig.1), and by bending the non-interlock assembled flooring system using at least one of the cut grooves as a fold line, the non-interlock assembled flooring system has a folded width for storage and transportation less than its original width before bending, and the non-interlock assembled flooring system is allowed to be laid on the floor in a bending manner to match the unevenness of the floor (Fig.2).
The recitation “the wood floor slats being formed by longitudinally cutting a plurality of cut grooves parallel to each other on a single wood panel securely attached to an upper surface of the base sheet layer” renders a product by process limitation, therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the flexible sheet is a metal sheet (Column 3, lines 10-13).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the wood panel is made of solid wood or recycled wood (if the beam is formed from wood, it is either solid wood or recycled wood).
Regarding claim 7, The recitation “wherein in the surface slat layer, the cut grooves are formed simultaneously in a single cutting process with a plurality of cutting tools arranged in parallel to improve the parallelism between the wood floor slats” renders a product by process limitation, therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Regarding claim 8, wherein in the surface slat layer, the cut grooves are V-shaped grooves (Fig.1).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2005/0016088 A1 to Pursall et al.
Regarding claim 1, Pursall et al. disclose a non-interlock assembled flooring system, comprising: a base sheet layer (2), made of a flexible sheet (rubber), a lower surface of the base sheet layer being a laying surface; and a surface slat layer (4), disposed on the base sheet layer, the surface slat layer including a plurality of wood floor slats (4) arranged side-by-side in a widthwise direction (Fig.1), the wood floor slats being formed by longitudinally cutting a plurality of cut grooves parallel to each other on a single wood panel securely attached to an upper surface of the base sheet layer (Paragraph [0013], step 1), such that the wood floor slats are separated by the cut grooves serving as expansion joints (grooves between wood blocks), and the surface slat layer has a continuous wood-grain surface (blocks formed by wood will have a continuous wood-grain surface) formed by upper surfaces of the wood floor slats, wherein, by laying the non-interlock assembled flooring system on a floor with the laying surface of the base sheet layer facing the floor, the floor is covered by the wood floor slats which are not interlocked with each other (the wood blocks are not interlocked), and by bending the non-interlock assembled flooring system using at least one of the cut grooves as a fold line, the non-interlock assembled flooring system has a folded width for storage and transportation less than its original width before bending, and the non-interlock assembled flooring system is allowed to be laid on the floor in a bending manner to match the unevenness of the floor (Paragraph [0013], steps 4 and 7) .
Although Pursall discloses the recitation “the wood floor slats being formed by longitudinally cutting a plurality of cut grooves parallel to each other on a single wood panel securely attached to an upper surface of the base sheet layer”, the limitation is still deemed a product by process limitation, therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the wood panel is made of solid wood or recycled wood (being formed from wood will either require a solid wood or a recycled wood).
Regarding claim 7, The recitation “wherein in the surface slat layer, the cut grooves are formed simultaneously in a single cutting process with a plurality of cutting tools arranged in parallel to improve the parallelism between the wood floor slats” renders a product by process limitation, therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Regarding claim 8, wherein in the surface slat layer, the cut grooves are V-shaped grooves (Paragraph [0013], step 3).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2007255083 A to Sugii (See translation).
Regarding claim 1, Sugii discloses a non-interlock assembled flooring system, comprising: a base sheet layer (1), made of a flexible sheet, a lower surface of the base sheet layer being a laying surface (Fig.1, 2); and a surface slat layer (top surface), disposed on the base sheet layer, the surface slat layer including a plurality of wood floor slats (4; Page 3, lines 1-2 and 16-17) arranged side-by-side in a widthwise direction, such that the wood floor slats are separated by the cut grooves (grooves between 4, Fig.3) serving as expansion joints, and the surface slat layer has a continuous wood-grain surface formed by upper surfaces of the wood floor slats (wood slats will have wood-grain on surface), wherein, by laying the non-interlock assembled flooring system on a floor with the laying surface of the base sheet layer facing the floor, the floor is covered by the wood floor slats which are not interlocked with each other (Fig.1 and 3), and by bending the non-interlock assembled flooring system using at least one of the cut grooves as a fold line, the non-interlock assembled flooring system has a folded width for storage and transportation less than its original width before bending, and the non-interlock assembled flooring system is allowed to be laid on the floor in a bending manner to match the unevenness of the floor (Fig.2).
The recitation “the wood floor slats being formed by longitudinally cutting a plurality of cut grooves parallel to each other on a single wood panel securely attached to an upper surface of the base sheet layer” renders a product by process limitation, therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the flexible sheet is a fabric sheet, a paper sheet, a plastic sheet, or a metal sheet (Page 3, lines 26-44).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the wood panel is made of solid wood or recycled wood (4; Page 3, lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 7, The recitation “wherein in the surface slat layer, the cut grooves are formed simultaneously in a single cutting process with a plurality of cutting tools arranged in parallel to improve the parallelism between the wood floor slats” renders a product by process limitation, therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Regarding claim 9, wherein in the surface slat layer, the cut grooves are vertical linear grooves (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the surface slat layer further includes a plurality of gap fillers (circular fillers in gaps between members 4, Fig.3) filling in the cut grooves, thereby forming an upper surface of the surface slat layer into a seamless surface.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2009/0107071 A1 to Starke.
Regarding claim 1, Starke discloses a non-interlock assembled flooring system, comprising: a base sheet layer (200), made of a flexible sheet, a lower surface of the base sheet layer being a laying surface (lower surface of Fig.3); and a surface slat layer (11B), disposed on the base sheet layer, the surface slat layer including a plurality of wood floor slats (11B) arranged side-by-side in a widthwise direction, such that the wood floor slats are separated by the cut grooves (grooves between 11B, Fig.2) serving as expansion joints, and the surface slat layer has a continuous wood-grain surface formed by upper surfaces of the wood floor slats (wood slats will have wood-grain on surface), wherein, by laying the non-interlock assembled flooring system on a floor with the laying surface of the base sheet layer facing the floor, the floor is covered by the wood floor slats which are not interlocked with each other (Fig.1 and 3), and by bending the non-interlock assembled flooring system using at least one of the cut grooves as a fold line, the non-interlock assembled flooring system has a folded width for storage and transportation less than its original width before bending, and the non-interlock assembled flooring system is allowed to be laid on the floor in a bending manner to match the unevenness of the floor (the layer is capable of bending and being rolled, depending on the shapes of the slats, which can be formed from any shape).
The recitation “the wood floor slats being formed by longitudinally cutting a plurality of cut grooves parallel to each other on a single wood panel securely attached to an upper surface of the base sheet layer” renders a product by process limitation, therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the flexible sheet is a plastic sheet (Page 3, lines 26-44).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the wood panel is made of solid wood or recycled wood (wood tiles will be made from solid wood or recycled wood).
Regarding claim 7, The recitation “wherein in the surface slat layer, the cut grooves are formed simultaneously in a single cutting process with a plurality of cutting tools arranged in parallel to improve the parallelism between the wood floor slats” renders a product by process limitation, therefore, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the same prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the surface slat layer further includes a plurality of gap fillers (60) filling in the cut grooves, thereby forming an upper surface of the surface slat layer into a seamless surface.
Regarding claim 11, further comprising a transparent coating layer (Paragraph [0045]) formed on the upper surfaces of the wood floor slats in a manner that the continuous wood-grain surface is visible through the transparent coating layer.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007255083 A to Sugii (See translation) in view of US 2016/0016377 A1 to Ford et al.
Regarding claim 3, Sugii discloses wherein the flexible sheet can be metal, rubber, woven fabric, continuous sheet-like members, continuous net-like members, etc.
Sugii does not specifically disclose wherein the flexible sheet has a mesh attached thereto.
Ford et al. discloses an underlayment having a continuous flexible sheet and a mesh secured thereto (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the flexible sheet of Sugii with an attached mesh as taught by Ford so to increase the strength and the tensile strength of the flexible sheet, thereby creating a more stable, stronger, more reliable flooring system.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007255083 A to Sugii (See translation) in view of US 2004/0022991 A1 to Higgins et al.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Sugii discloses maybe materials for the backing layer but does not specifically disclose further comprising an intermediate layer disposed between the base sheet layer and the surface slat layer, wherein the intermediate layer is made of recycled wood.
Higgins et al. disclose further comprising an intermediate layer (178) disposed between the base sheet layer (170) and the surface layer (112), wherein the intermediate layer is made of recycled wood (Paragraph [0080]; cork is a recycled material from a tree).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided an intermediate layer as taught by Higgins to the flooring system of Sugii so to provide cushioning and stability to the flooring system thereby making the flooring system more comfortable to walk on.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007255083 A to Sugii (See translation) in view of US 2009/0107071 to Starke.
Regarding claim 11, Sugii does not disclose further comprising a transparent coating layer formed on the upper surfaces of the wood floor slats in a manner that the continuous wood-grain surface is visible through the transparent coating layer.
Starke discloses providing a transparent coating layer (Paragraph [0045]) formed on the upper surfaces of the wood floor slats in a manner that the continuous wood-grain surface is visible through the transparent coating layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the flooring system of Sugii with a transparent coating as taught by Starke so to enable the wood grain of the slats to be seen while enhancing the coloring of the wood-grain and further to protect the wood slats from the elements.
Conclusion
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