DETAILED ACTION
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) 1, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannig et al. (WO 2010015516).
In re Claim 1, Hannig teaches a set of floor panels (10), wherein the joined floor panels are configures as rectangular plates with an upper surface (2) and a lower surface (7) parallel to it, designed/capable of being laid on the subfloor, complementary latching means shaped near the edges being joined to each other, vertical fixing assembly, horizontal fixing assembly, wherein the vertical fixing assembly, serving to lock the floor panels being joined in a direction (vertical) perpendicular to the upper surface of the panel, comprises joining parts made as a male joining part and a female joining part, which have a single vertically active concave (14) locking part and a single convex (21) locking part, where the concave locking part has an upper retaining protrusion (12) and a lower retaining protrusion(13), and the convex locking part has an upper retaining surface (22) and a lower retaining surface (23),
Hanning teaches that the latching projections (12,13) are completely received in pockets (22,23) which would seem to indicate that the upper retaining protrusion of the concave locking part in the locked state rests on the upper retaining surface of the convex locking part, and the lower retaining protrusion of the concave locking part rests on the lower retaining surface of the convex locking part. However, should the applicant dispute this the examiner maintains that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. This would allow for a tight fit.
The horizontal fixing assembly serving to lock the floor panels is joined in a direction (horizontal) parallel to the upper surface of the panel comprises a horizontally active inner side surface (10c) of the male joining part, wherein this inner side surface, in the locked state, rests against an inner retaining surface (9c) of a protruding engaging element (9) and comprises a horizontally active outer side surface of the male joining part, wherein this outer side surface, in the locked state, rests against an inner retaining side surface of the female joining part. However, should the applicant dispute this the examiner maintains that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. This would allow for a tight fit.
The male joining part of each floor panel has only a single sealing edge shaped at its outer side surface. The sealing edge can be considered the continuous edge of the male joining part that contacts the female joining part. However, should the applicant dispute this the examiner maintains that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. This would allow for a tight fit.
In the locked state, this sealing edge of the male joining part, when engaged with the female joining part of another floor panel, is pressed down into the upper retaining surface of the convex locking part with a fixed force which achieves a tight joint, even in case of certain imperfections in the linearity of the sealing edge or in the shape of the upper retaining surface of the convex locking part. The sealing edge is shaped by the inclined upper outer guiding surface of the male joining part. (Figures 1-4, annotated Figures, entire document)
PNG
media_image1.png
842
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 2, Hannig teaches that in that the sealing edge (16) is shaped on the upper retaining protrusion (12) of the concave locking part (14). (Figures 1-4, annotated Figures, entire document)
In re Claims 4 and 5, Hannig has been previously discussed but does not teach that the sealing edge has a rounding radius of less than 0.3 mm or has a rounding radius within the range from 0.1 to 0.2 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention made to have a rounding radius in these ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Limiting the sealing edge radius to this size assure for a tight fit in a narrow space.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/19/2026 with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view the amended claim language requiring a new ground(s) of rejection based on the Hannig reference.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is 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 ADAM G BARLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571) 272-6754. 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.
/ADAM G BARLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights