DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 8/23/2024. Currently, claims 1-21 are pending and are under consideration.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 3/6/2026 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/23/2024 and 1/10/2025 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figures 1-14, the poor line quality renders part or all of the drawing illegible when reproduced. 37 CFR 1.84(l) (m) and (p)(1). 37 CFR 1.84(l) recites, “[a]ll drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines, however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.” Applicant is requested to submit replacement sheets with cleaner, crisper and darker black lines on a white background.
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.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“a plurality of rib extrusions” (claim 11; note that applicant’s specification and drawings refer to “rib protrusions”, but not “rib extrusions”; are the rib extrusions referring to the rib protrusions?)
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites, “is disclosed” (line 1). This objection can be overcome by deleting “is disclosed”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections and Claim Rejections Under 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 1-21 are objected to or 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.
Several claims are reproduced below with the examiner’s comments regarding claim objections and 112 rejections in bold italics. Appropriate correction is required.
1. A modular floor tile comprising:
a top surface comprising intersecting upper rib members defining a plurality of apertures;
a plurality of lower rib members connecting the upper rib members and traversing the plurality of apertures, each of the lower rib members (“each of the lower rib members” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited plurality of lower rib members; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the plurality of lower rib members” or equivalent) comprising a first end and a second end; and
one or more rib protrusions extending from the lower rib members (“one or more rib protrusions extending from the lower rib members” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as it is unclear as to whether the claim requires one or more rib protrusions to extend from the plurality of lower rib members or to extend from each of the plurality of lower rib members; in other words, does applicant intend for the claim to require each of the plurality of lower rib members to have one or more rib protrusions extending therefrom, or does applicant intend for the claim to require one or more rib protrusions for the plurality of lower rib members as a whole?) through the aperture (“the aperture” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites a plurality of apertures; which aperture of the plurality of apertures is the limitation referring to in the claim?) toward the top surface;
wherein the one or more rib protrusions extends above the top surface;
wherein each of the plurality of lower rib members connects to the upper rib member (“the upper rib member” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites a plurality of upper rib members; which rib member of the plurality of rib member is the limitation referring to in the claim?) at each end of the lower rib member (“each end of the lower rib member” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited first and second ends of the lower rib members?), is attached only to the upper rib members (“the upper rib members” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites a plurality of upper rib members; which rib members of the plurality of rib member is the limitation referring to in the claim?) and is not configured to contact a flooring surface below the modular floor tile.
2. The modular tile of claim 1 (“The modular tile” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited modular floor tile and thus the limitation lacks antecedent basis; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “The modular floor tile”; this limitation is repeated in claims 3-10 and the same objection applies, but is not repeated for brevity), wherein each aperture (“each aperture” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites a plurality of apertures; this rejection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the plurality of apertures” or equivalent) comprising one lower rib member of the plurality of rib members (“the plurality of rib members” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim recites upper rib members and a plurality of lower rib members; which of the upper and lower rib members is the limitation referring to in the claim? For examination purposes, the limitation was treated as referring to the plurality of lower rib members).
3. The modular tile of claim 1, wherein the rib protrusion (“the rib protrusion” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; the claims previously recite “one or more rib protrusions”; as such, this rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the one or more rib protrusions each”) comprises a rectangular blade.
4. The modular tile of claim 3, wherein the rectangular blade is collinear with the lower rib member (“the lower rib member” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; the claims previously recite “a plurality of lower rib members”; does applicant intend for the claim to require the rectangular blade to be collinear with each of the plurality of lower rib members?).
5. The modular tile of claim 3, wherein a gap is formed between each end of the rectangular blade (“each end of the rectangular blade” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the rectangular blade is not previously defined as having any ends, in particular; this rejection can be overcome by previously in the claim defining the rectangular blade as having two ends) and the upper rib members.
6. The modular tile of claim 1, wherein the rib protrusion comprises one or more posts (“the rib protrusion” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; the claims previously recite “one or more rib protrusions”; as such, this rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the one or more rib protrusions each”).
11. A modular flooring system, comprising:
at least two adjacent flooring components positioned adjacent one another, each flooring component comprising:
a top surface comprising a plurality of upper rib members defining a plurality of apertures;
a plurality of lower rib members connecting the upper rib members (“the upper rib members” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited plurality of upper rib members; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “the plurality of upper rib members”) and intersecting the apertures (“the apertures” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited plurality of apertures; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “the plurality of apertures”), at least one of the plurality of lower rib members forming a downward trending curvilinear shape within the aperture (“the aperture” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites a plurality of apertures; which aperture of the plurality of apertures is the limitation referring to in the claim?);
a plurality of rib extrusions extending from the plurality of lower rib members through the apertures (“the apertures” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited plurality of apertures; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “the plurality of apertures”) toward the top surface;
a gap formed between each rib extrusion (“each rib extrusion” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited plurality of rib extrusions; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the plurality of rib extrusions” or “each rib extrusion of the plurality of rib extrusions” or equivalent) and the plurality of upper rib members;
wherein the rib extrusion (“the rib extrusion” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited plurality of rib extrusions; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “each of the plurality of rib extrusions” or “each rib extrusion of the plurality of rib extrusions” or equivalent) extends to a height above the top surface; and
a locking system disposed between the at least two adjacent floor tiles (“the at least two adjacent floor tiles” is rejected under 112b for lacking antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites, “at least two adjacent flooring components”, but not two adjacent floor tiles; does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the two adjacent flooring components?).
12. The system of claim 11 (“The system” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited modular flooring system and thus the limitation lacks antecedent basis; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “The modular flooring system”; this limitation is repeated in claims 13-15 and the same objection applies, but is not repeated for brevity), wherein each of the plurality of rib extrusions comprises a rectangular blade.
16. A method of improving the traction of a synthetic floor tile (“improving the traction of a synthetic floor tile” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite because “the traction” lacks antecedent basis and “improving” lacks a point of reference; note that a traction is not previously defined in the claim and that there is not inherently only one traction of the synthetic floor tile, as such, this rejection can be overcome by deleting “the”; further note that the limitation lacks a point of reference because it is unclear what the comparison is for the claimed improvement; if the tile has 100% traction, for example, how would it be possible to improve? This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “A method of providing traction on a synthetic floor tile” or equivalent), comprising:
providing one or more synthetic floor tiles having an upper surface and a plurality of apertures formed therein; and
providing a rib protrusion that extends above the upper surface through the aperture (“the aperture” is rejected under 112b for being indefinite as the limitation lacks antecedent basis; note that the claim previously recites a plurality of apertures; which aperture of the plurality of apertures is the limitation referring to in the claim?) to provide traction;
wherein the one or more synthetic floor tiles comprises a plurality of lower rib members forming a downward trending curvilinear shape within the aperture, and wherein the rib protrusion extend from the plurality of lower rib members (“the rib protrusion extend from the plurality of lower rib members” is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo; this objection can be overcome by reciting, “the rib protrusion extends from the plurality of lower rib members” or equivalent).
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section is rejected by virtue of dependency upon a rejected base 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)(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) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baek et al. (US 20210310258) (‘Baek’).
Claims 1-21, Baek provides a modular floor tile as claimed in claims 1-10, a modular flooring system as claimed in claims 11-15, and a method of improving the traction of a synthetic floor tile as claimed in claims 16-21. The claims of Baek are substantially similar to those of the instant application, and the drawings are identical to those of the application. All of the claimed features of the instant application are mapped out in the drawings of Baek and/or are disclosed in the specification and/or claims of Baek. Thus, Baek encompasses the scope of and anticipates the claims of the instant application (Baek Figs. 1-14).
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11, 14-16 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son (US 8403592).
Claim 1, Son provides a modular floor tile 10 comprising:
a top surface (top surface of 10) comprising intersecting upper rib members (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, horizontally extending main members of 10 constitute upper rib members, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4c) defining a plurality of apertures 12;
a plurality of lower rib members (80 or alternatively 80 and 20; Figs. 1-4c) connecting the upper rib members and traversing the plurality of apertures (Figs. 1-4c), each of the lower rib members comprising a first end and a second end (first end of 80 and second end of 80); and
one or more rib protrusions (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, elements 30, and/or 40, and/or 100 constitute a rib protrusion, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4c) extending from the lower rib members through the aperture toward the top surface (the one or more rib protrusions 30 and/or 100 are integrally connected to the lower rib members; 100 directly extends from the lower rib members; 30 extends from 80 through 20; 40 extends from 80 through 10 and 20; Figs. 1-4c);
wherein the one or more rib protrusions extends above the top surface (30 and/or 40 and/or 100 extend above the top surface; Figs. 1-4);
wherein each of the plurality of lower rib members connects to the upper rib member at each end of the lower rib member (Figs. 1-4c), is attached only to the upper rib members (via 20) and is not configured to contact a flooring surface below the modular floor tile (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the plurality of lower rib members are not configured to contact a flooring surface below the one or more floor tiles because the plurality of lower rib members contact the ground, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 6, lines 14-20).
Claim 2, Son further provides wherein each aperture comprising one lower rib member of the plurality of rib members (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each aperture 12 comprises one lower rib member 80, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4c).
Claim 6, Son further provides wherein the rib protrusion comprises one or more posts (there are more than one 30, more than one 40 or more than one 100; Fig. 1 and 4a-4c).
Claim 7, Son further provides wherein the one or more posts comprise three posts (there are at least three posts 30, or 40, or 100; Fig. 1; note that the claim is a comprising claim and since Son teaches at least three posts, Son meets the claim).
Claim 8, Son further provides wherein the three posts extend the same height above the top surface (each of the posts 30 extend the same height above the top surface; each of the posts 40 extend the same height above the top surface, and each of the posts 100 extend the same height above the top surface; Figs. 1-4c).
Claim 9, Son further provides wherein two outer posts of the three posts extend a greater height above the top surface than a center post of the three posts (outer posts 40 extend to a greater height above the top surface than center post 100; Fig. 2).
Claim 11, Son provides a modular flooring system, comprising:
at least two adjacent flooring components 10 positioned adjacent one another (col. 5, lines 33-37), each flooring component comprising:
a top surface (top surface of 10) comprising a plurality of upper rib members (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, horizontally extending main members of 10 constitute upper rib members, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4c) defining a plurality of apertures 12;
a plurality of lower rib members (80 or alternatively 80 and 20) connecting the upper rib members and intersecting the apertures (Figs. 1-4c), at least one of the plurality of lower rib members forming a downward trending curvilinear shape within the aperture (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the lower rib members 80a or 80b in Fig. 3a are shaped such that a downward trending curvilinear shape is formed within the apertures, as exceedingly broadly claimed; see annotated Fig. 3a of Son shown below in Examiner’s Notes);
a plurality of rib extrusions (30 and/or 40 and/or 100) extending from the plurality of lower rib members through the apertures toward the top surface (Figs. 1-4c);
a gap formed between each rib extrusion and the plurality of upper rib members (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the gap between 30/40/100 and horizontally extending main members of 10 constitute a gap, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4c);
wherein the rib extrusion extends to a height above the top surface (30/40/100 each extend to a height above the top surface; Fig. 4c); and
a locking system (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, elements 60 and 70 define a locking system, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 5, lines 54-58; Fig. 1) disposed between the at least two adjacent floor tiles (between the at least two adjacent flooring components 10; col. 5, lines 54-58).
Claim 14, Son further provides wherein each of the plurality of rib extrusions comprises one or more posts (there are more than one 30, more than one 40 or more than one 100; Fig. 1 and 4a-4c).
Claim 15, Son further provides wherein each of the plurality of rib extrusions comprises three posts (there are at least three posts 30, or 40, or 100; Fig. 1; note that the claim is a comprising claim and since Son teaches at least three posts, Son meets the claim).
Claim 16, Son provides a method of improving the traction of a synthetic floor tile, comprising:
providing one or more synthetic floor tiles (10; (col. 5, lines 33-37) having an upper surface (upper surface of 10) and a plurality of apertures 12 formed therein (Figs. 1-4c); and
providing a rib protrusion (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, elements 30, and/or 40, and/or 100 constitute a rib protrusion, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-4c) that extends above the upper surface through the aperture to provide traction (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the rib protrusion extends above the upper surface through the aperture to provide traction; Figs. 1-4c);
wherein the one or more synthetic floor tiles comprises a plurality of lower rib members (80 or alternatively 80 and 20) forming a downward trending curvilinear shape within the aperture (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the lower rib members 80a or 80b in Fig. 3a are shaped such that a downward trending curvilinear shape is formed within the apertures, as exceedingly broadly claimed; see annotated Fig. 3a of Son shown below in Examiner’s Notes), and wherein the rib protrusion extend from the plurality of lower rib members (Figs. 1-4c).
Claim 19, Son further provides wherein the rib protrusion comprises a plurality of posts (there are more than one element 30, more than one element 40 or more than one element 100; Fig. 1 and 4a-4c).
Claim 20, Son further provides wherein the plurality of lower rib members is not configured to contact a flooring surface below the flooring component (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the plurality of lower rib members are not configured to contact a flooring surface below the flooring component because the plurality of lower rib members instead contact the ground; col. 6, lines 14-20).
Claim 21, Son further provides wherein the plurality of lower rib members is not configured to contact a flooring surface below the one or more synthetic floor tiles (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the plurality of lower rib members are not configured to contact a flooring surface below the one or more synthetic floor tiles because the plurality of lower rib members contact the ground; col. 6, lines 14-20).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 10, 12-13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son (US 8403592).
Claim 3, Son teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Son does not specifically show in the embodiment of Figs. 1-4c, wherein each of the plurality of rib extrusions comprises a rectangular blade. However, Son teaches, in the embodiment of Fig. 32, wherein each of the plurality of rib extrusions 760 comprises a rectangular blade (760 is rectangular; Fig. 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the plurality of rib extrusions such that each of the plurality of rib extrusions comprises a rectangular blade, with the reasonable expectation of success of increasing the support area, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim 5, as modified above, Son teaches all the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches wherein a gap 614 is formed between the rectangular blade and the upper surface (gap between 610 and 720; Figs. 27 and 30).
Claim 10, Son teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Although Son further teaches the rectangular plates extending above the top surface (760 extends above 610; Fig. 32), Son does not specifically teach each of the rectangular blades extending between 0.005 and 0.02 inches above the top surface. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form each of the rectangular blades extending between 0.005 and 0.02 inches above the top surface, with the reasonable expectation of success of optimizing the distance the rectangular blades extend upwardly to prevent the plate from sliding, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim 12, Son teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as above. Son does not specifically show in the embodiment of Figs. 1-4c, wherein each of the plurality of rib extrusions comprises a rectangular blade. However, Son teaches, in the embodiment of Fig. 32, wherein each of the plurality of rib extrusions 760 comprises a rectangular blade (760 is rectangular; Fig. 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the plurality of rib extrusions such that each of the plurality of rib extrusions comprises a rectangular blade, with the reasonable expectation of success of increasing the support area, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim 13, Son teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as above. Although Son further teaches the rectangular plates extending above the top surface (760 extends above 610; Fig. 32), Son does not specifically teach each of the rectangular blades extending between 0.005 and 0.02 inches above the top surface. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form each of the rectangular blades extending between 0.005 and 0.02 inches above the top surface, with the reasonable expectation of success of optimizing the distance the rectangular blades extend upwardly to prevent the plate from sliding, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim 17, Son teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as above. Son does not specifically show in the embodiment of Figs. 1-4c, wherein the rib protrusion comprises a rectangular blade. However, Son teaches, in the embodiments of Figs. 27, 30 and 32, wherein a rib protrusion (720; Figs. 27 and 30) or (760 in Fig. 32) comprises a rectangular blade (720 or 760 are rectangular; Figs. 27, 30 and 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the rib protrusion to comprise a rectangular blade, with the reasonable expectation of success of increasing the support area, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, specifically Son (US 8403592) teaches a rectangular blade (see rejection of claim 3 as above) and a lower rib member (see rejection of claim 1 as above, but does not teach the rectangular blade being collinear with the lower rib member. It would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill to redesign Son’s modular tile such that the rectangular blade is collinear with the lower rib member, without destroying the functionality of the modular tile.
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
332
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3a of Son (US 8403592)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights