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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 9-13 and 22-37) in the reply filed on April 9th, 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The inventions associated with Groups I (claims 1-8) and III (claims 14-21) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process of finishing a stone slap and apparatus for forming a slab, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 9th, 2026. The Examiner notes claims 1-8 and 14-21 have been cancelled.
The Examiner is withdrawing the requirement for an election of Species A and B, as indicated in the requirement for restriction mailed February 10th, 2026. Though Applicant has not responded with a species election, this issue is considered moot, as the requirement for a species election has been withdrawn. Since Applicant has responded to those requirements for election which have been maintained, Applicant’s election filed April 9th, 2026, is considered fully-responsive.
Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 34 be found allowable, claim 35 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 26 and 36 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.
Claim 26 recites the phrase “the first finished portion is at least one of a gloss finish, a matte finish, or a textured finish, and the second finished portion is one of the gloss finish, the matte finish, or the textured finish different from the first finished portion”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the second finished portion can simultaneously be one of the gloss finish, the matte finish, or the textured finish (i.e., one of the finishes of the first finish portion), and yet, such finish be different than the first finished portion. The claim essentially recites the second finished portion as being the same, and different, compared to the first finished portion. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as directed to a second finished portion which is different from the first finished portion.
Claim 36 recites the phrase “differs from the second measured roughness by at least about 1 Rz”, which renders the claim indefinite. Conventionally within the art, roughness values (such as maximum height roughness Rz) include units (such as, for example, microns). The value “1 Rz” is, essentially, unitless (i.e., scientifically, indicating a roughness of 1 Rz is analogous to saying a length of 4, or a temperature of 67). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as specifying a first measured roughness which is different from a second measured roughness.
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.
Claims 9-13, 22-28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grzeskowiak, II, et al (US2016/0221215A1), hereinafter Grzeskowiak, II.
With regards to claim 9, Grzeskowiak, II, discloses a synthetic molded slab formed from two particulate mineral mixes (i.e., a processed slab formed from at least one particulate mineral mix) depicted as including a slab width, a slab length that extends perpendicular to the slab width and is greater than the slab width, and a slab thickness that extends perpendicular to the slab width and the slab length, the slab thickness less than a slab width (Grzeskowiak, II: abstract; para. [0022]-[0024]; Fig. 1; claim 1). Grzeskowiak, II, further depicts the synthetic molded slab as having a major top surface defined by the slab length and a slab width, the slab length comprising a first vein 52 having a first finished surface (i.e., a first finished portion having a first surface finish) and a second vein 51 having a finished surface (i.e., a second finished portion depicted as less than an entirety of the major top surface, and having a second surface finish different from the first surface finish) (Grzeskowiak, II: para. [0023]; Fig. 1). The first and second surfaces finishes are different in that they are formed of different mineral mixes (i.e., the surfaces are made of materials with different compositions), or alternatively, since they are at different locations of the slab and have different boundaries (Grzeskowiak, II: para. [0023]-[0024]; Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 10, Figure 1 of Grzeskowiak, II, depicts a second vein 52 meeting present claim 9 (i.e., a first finished portion according to present claim 9) as extending contiguously about one-half of the major top surface (Grzeskowiak, II: Fig. 1). An annotated version of Figure 1 of Grzeskowiak, II, is provided below (the double-headed arrow denoting the first finished portion contiguously extending across about one-half of the major top surface according to the claims).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
With regards to claim 11, Figure 1 of Grzeskowiak, II, depicts a second vein 52 meeting present claim 9 (i.e., a first finished portion according to present claim 9) which distinguishes the first finished portion from the second finished portion by a substantially straight boundary line (Grzeskowiak, II: Fig. 1). Note that the claim does not require the entire boundary to be straight – the claim only requires the existence of a substantially straight boundary line which acts to distinguish the first and second finished portions from one another. An annotated version of Figure 1 of Grzeskowiak, II, is provided below (the circle denoting the claimed substantially straight boundary line).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: oval]
With regards to claim 12, the first surface finish is visually distinguishable from the second surface, as depicted by Grzeskowiak, II (Grzeskowiak, II: Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 13, the slab width is, for example, about 4.5 ft wide, and the slab length is, for example, about 10 ft long, each of these values being within the respective claimed ranges of a slab width of at least 2 ft and a slab length of at least 6 ft (Grzeskowiak, II: para. [0023]).
With regards to claim 22, the first finished portion is distinguished from the second finished portion by a boundary line extending substantially lengthwise parallel to a slab length (see the annotated Figure 1 of Grzeskowiak, II as applied to claim 11 above) (Grzeskowiak, II: Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 23, the first finished portion is distinguished from the second finished portion by a boundary line extending substantially widthwise parallel with the slab width (Grzeskowiak, II: Fig. 1). An annotated version of Figure 1 of Grzeskowiak, II, is provided on the following page (the circle denoting the claimed substantially straight boundary line).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: oval]
With regards to claim 24, the first finished portion (in an alternative view) is distinguished form the second finished portion by a boundary line extending in a non-90 degree angle to the slab length and slab width (Grzeskowiak, II: Fig. 1). An annotated version of Figure 1 of Grzeskowiak, II, is provided below (the circle denoting the claimed boundary line).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: oval]
With regards to claim 25, the first finished portion and the second finished portion are depicted as substantially unequal in surface area (Grzeskowiak, II: Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 26, the synthetic molded slab of Grzeskowiak, II, has a stone texture (i.e., both the first and second finished portions have a textured finish) (Grzeskowiak, II: para. [0003]). The first and second textured finishes are different, in that they are different in composition (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 27, the synthetic molded slab of Grzeskowiak, II, has multiple veins 52 (i.e., one of which is a first finished portion, and another constituting a third finished portion, the third finished portion occupying less than an entirety of the major top surface, and having a different surface finish from the second surface finish, in that it is in a different location and made of a different composition) (Grzeskowiak, II: Fig. 1).
With regards to claim 28, Grzeskowiak, II, depicts each of the first, second, and third finished portions as contiguously extending across a region of the major top surface, the region constituting one-third of the major top surface (Grzeskowiak, II: Figure 1). An annotated version of Figure 1 of Grzeskowiak, II, is provided below (the disclosed region is located between the two vertical lines).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
With regards to claim 31, Grzeskowiak, II, discloses a synthetic molded slab formed from two particulate mineral mixes (i.e., a processed slab comprising a slab composition including at least one mineral mix) depicted as including a slab width, a slab length that extends perpendicular to the slab width (Grzeskowiak, II: abstract; para. [0022]-[0024]; Fig. 1; claim 1). The slab width is for example, about 4.5 ft wide, and the slab length is, for example, about 10 ft long, each of which are within the respective claimed ranges of a slab width of at least 2 ft and a slab length of at least 6 ft (Grzeskowiak, II: para. [0023]). Grzeskowiak, II, further depicts the synthetic molded slab as having a first vein 52 having a first finished surface (i.e., a first finished portion visible on the top major surface) and a second, adjacent vein 51 having a finished surface (i.e., a second finished portion visible on the top major surface and adjacent the first finished portion) (Grzeskowiak, II: para. [0023]; Fig. 1).
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.
Claims 29-30 and 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grzeskowiak, II, as applied to claims 9 and 31 above, and in further view of Schrunk (US2013/0338817A1).
With regards to claim 29, Grzeskowiak, II, discloses a processed slab as applied to claim 9 above (see above discussion). Grzeskowiak, II, does not appear to disclose a first finished portion as having a measured glare from a light source and the second finished portion having a second measured glare from the light source, the first measured glare being less than the second measured glare.
Schrunk is directed to a method and apparatus for producing light-responsive surfaces on opaque materials such as concrete-blocks for countertops or walls, the method including steps of creating ridge angles via cuts in different areas, resulting in areas with different levels of light reflection relative to a specific measurement position (i.e., differences in measured glare) (Schrunk: abstract; para. [0002], [0007]-[0008], [0076], and [0093]-[0095]). The light-responsive surfaces of Schrunk may include, for example, an area which is perceived as dark due to no illumination towards a viewer (or source), and an area which is perceived as illuminated towards a viewer (or source) (Schrunk: para. [0093]-[0095]). In particular, the creation of surfaces with different relative brightnesses due to differences in illumination angle allow for the formation of a lustrous overall surface, particularly when viewed from afar (i.e., the difference in glare enhances viewing the object itself, or any designs, from a distance) (Schrunk: para. [0006]). Grzeskowiak, II, and Schrunk are analogous art in that they are directed to synthetic stone slabs for countertops having customized surface appearances. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the process slab of Grzeskowiak, II, such that its first finished portion has a first measured glare less than a second measured glare of the second finished portion, in order to enhance the visual contrast between the first finished portion from the second portion, and in particular, to enhance visibility of the formed pattern from afar (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 30, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have formed the first and second finished portions in a checkerboard pattern, since such patterns are well-known in the art, and further, to produce a decorative motif (Schrunk: para. [0004]).
With regards to claim 32, Grzeskowiak, II, discloses a processed slab as applied to claim 31 above (see above discussion). It would have been obvious to have optimized the reflectance of the first and second finished portions (i.e., as best understood, measured peak reflectances) in order to achieve a desired visual contrast and visibility from afar to the process slab of Grzeskowiak, II (see above discussion). In particular, a person of ordinary skill would have optimized towards a first finished portion and a second finished portion having different reflectances, in order to provide enhanced visual contrast (i.e., a difference in RSpec, as best understood from Schrunk, is result-effective in that it affects a difference in visual contrast) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 33, it is noted that the present specification does not define the claimed reflected image quality, nor does it indicate how reflected image quality is measured. Furthermore, reflected image quality values depend on the image reflected during measurement and lighting conditions (i.e., an image without fine details and at higher light intensities can give higher values for reflected image quality, while an image with fine details and lower light intensities can give higher values for reflected image quality). It is submitted that, depending on the selected image and lightness (which may be different for each of the first and second finished portions), the claimed reflected image quality difference can be met arbitrarily.
With regards to claim 34, Schrunk expressly teaches adjusting the level of light reflection (i.e., gloss) based on the desired appearance, pattern, and light source position (Schrunk: para. [0008]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the gloss values of the first and second finished portions, in order to achieve an optimal appearance with respect to a given pattern and light source position (Schrunk: para. [0008]). A person of ordinary skill would have been particularly directed to different light reflection quantities (i.e., different gloss values) for the first and second finished portions, in order to provide enhanced visual contrast (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 35, Schrunk expressly teaches adjusting the level of light reflection (i.e., gloss) based on the desired appearance, pattern, and light source position (Schrunk: para. [0008]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized the gloss values of the first and second finished portions, in order to achieve an optimal appearance with respect to a given pattern and light source position (Schrunk: para. [0008]). A person of ordinary skill would have been particularly directed to different light reflection quantities (i.e., different gloss values) for the first and second finished portions, in order to provide enhanced visual contrast (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 36, Schrunk expressly teaches adjusting the level of light reflection based on the desired appearance, pattern, and light source position, and as best understood from Schrunk, the degree of light reflection is adjusted via ridge height / groove depth (i.e., effectively, roughness Rz) (Schrunk: para. [0003] and [0008]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the first finished portion to have a first roughness, and the second finished portion to have a second, different roughness, in order to ensure a difference of light reflection, thereby allowing for the creation of a stone slab having the desired visual appearance (Schrunk: para. [0003] and [0008]).
With regards to claim 37, Grzeskowiak, II, discloses a synthetic molded slab depicted as including a slab width, a slab length that extends perpendicular to the slab width (Grzeskowiak, II: abstract; para. [0022]-[0024]; Fig. 1; claim 1). The slab width is for example, about 4.5 ft wide, and the slab length is, for example, about 10 ft long, each of which are within the respective claimed ranges of a slab width of at least 2 ft and a slab length of at least 6 ft (Grzeskowiak, II: para. [0023]). Grzeskowiak, II, further depicts the synthetic molded slab as having a first vein 52 having a first finished surface and a second, adjacent vein 51 having a finished surface (i.e., at least two surface finishes) (Grzeskowiak, II: para. [0023]; Fig. 1). As best understood, since all materials have a surface texture, then technically, the finished surfaces of Grzeskowiak, II, may both be considered textured finishes.
Grzeskowiak, II, is unclear as to the presence of a gloss finish or a matte finish.
Schrunk is directed to a method and apparatus for producing light-responsive surfaces on opaque materials such as concrete-blocks for countertops or walls, the method including steps of creating ridge angles via cuts in different areas, resulting in areas with different levels of light reflection relative to a specific measurement position (i.e., differences in measured glare) (Schrunk: abstract; para. [0002], [0007]-[0008], [0076], and [0093]-[0095]). The light-responsive surfaces of Schrunk may include, for example, an area which is perceived as dark due to no illumination towards a viewer (or source), and an area which is perceived as illuminated towards a viewer (or source) (Schrunk: para. [0093]-[0095]). In particular, the creation of surfaces with different relative brightnesses due to differences in illumination angle allow for the formation of a lustrous overall surface, particularly when viewed from afar (i.e., the difference in glare enhances viewing the object itself, or any designs, from a distance) (Schrunk: para. [0006]). To this end, Schrunk discloses its material as including regions which are “lustrous or shiny” (i.e., a gloss finish, as best understood from the present specification). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have selected a shiny or lustrous finish for one of the finishes of Grzeskowiak, II, in order to improve the view of the synthetic molded slab, or any of its designs, from a distance, via application of enhanced visual contrast (see above discussion).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN WEYDEMEYER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights