DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-4 and 6-17 in the reply filed on 06/25/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/25/26.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
In re Claim 15, the language specifies “preferably the substrate comprises 10-50 wt.% of the thermoplastic material”. This language is indefinite because “preferably” does not definitively state that the range of 10-50 wt.% is being positively claimed. An appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 9-10, 12, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Nilsson (U.S. 20190211568).
In re Claims 1 and 17, Nilson teaches a set of building comprising similar or essentially identical building panels wherein each building panel (1,1’),comprises a first mechanical locking device(10,12,13,14) configured to horizontally and vertically lock a first edge(5a) of a building panel(1) to a second edge(5b) of an adjacent building panel(1’). While not shown, floors would have multiple panels in sequence connected along edges (5a,5b) to cover and entire floor. When three panels are joined together in sequence there is a second mechanical locking device (10,12,13,14) configured to horizontally and vertically lock a third edge of a building panel to a fourth edge of an adjacent building panel (1”). As the second mechanical locking device is just a repeat of the first mechanical locking device, they are the same type of locking device
Each of the mechanical locking devices comprises, at one of the first edge or second edge, and/or at one of the third edge or fourth edge, a locking strip (16) extending from a respective edge in a direction away from said respective edge,
The locking strips comprise, at their outermost portion, a locking element (12) extending in a direction perpendicular to the extension of the locking strip.
Each locking element is configured to cooperate with a locking groove (14)
arranged in the other of the first edge or second edge, and/or in the other of the third edge or fourth edge, such that adjacent building panels are locked in a horizontal direction in an assembled position,
The locking elements (12) comprise an impact surface (22) extending from an outer surface (20b) of the locking element (12) in a direction towards a back surface(bottom) of the building panel (1,1',1"), at an acute angle in relation to the horizontal plane.
Each locking groove(14) comprises an impact surface(21) extending from an inner surface of the locking groove in a direction towards the back surface (bottom) of the building panel, at an acute angle in relation to the horizontal plane, and is configured to cooperate with the impact surface (22) of the locking element(12) in an assembled position, when a force, acting, at least partially, in a vertical direction, is applied to at least one of the building panels.
The reference meets all the positively claimed limitations. Therefore, the first mechanical locking device and the second mechanical locking device are configured to be assembled together by means of a pivoting motion, or by a snapping assembly by an essentially horizontal displacement of the building panel being assembled to the adjacent building panel. (Figures 1-8; Paragraphs 0031-0032, 0041-0045,0049,0052)
PNG
media_image1.png
498
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 2-4, Nilson teaches that the impact surface of the locking elements and the locking grooves are parallel and at acute angles between 40 and 70 degrees. (Figures 1-8; Paragraphs 0041-0042)
In re Claims 9-10, Nilson teaches that the locking element (12) further comprises a locking surface (upper left side of 12) configured to cooperate with a locking surface (upper left side of 14) of the locking groove (14) in an assembled position. These locking surfaces are essentially parallel. (Figure 3)
In re Claim 12, Nilson teaches set of building panels wherein the mechanical locking device further comprises, at one of the first edge or second edge), and/or at one of the third edge or fourth edge an upper locking tongue (13) extending from respective edge in a direction away from said edge, and configured to be received in and cooperate with an upper tongue groove (10) arranged in the other of the first edge or second edge and in the other of the third edge or fourth edge. (Figures 1-8)
In re Claim 16, Nilson teaches that each building panel (1, 1', 1") comprises a single layered substrate (81), wherein the impact surface- (22) of the locking element (12) and the impact surface (21) of the locking groove (14) are arranged/extend into said substrate (81). (Figure 8)
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) 6-8, 11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson (U.S. 20190211568).
In re Claim 6, Nilson has been previously discussed but does not disclose that the building panel has a thickness of between 3 and 6 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have a building panel with thickness in this range, 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. Building panels with this thickness will be substantial enough to support a load without fracturing.
In re Claim 7, Nilson teaches that the impact surface of the locking elements and the locking grooves are parallel and at acute angles between 40 and 60 degrees. (Figures 1-8; Paragraphs 0041-0042)
Nilson does not disclose that the building panel has a thickness of between 3 and 4.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have a building panel with thickness in this range, 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. Building panels with this thickness will be substantial enough to support a load without fracturing.
In re Claim 8, Nilson teaches that the impact surface of the locking elements and the locking grooves are parallel and at acute angles between 40 and 70 degrees. (Figures 1-8; Paragraphs 0041-0042)
Nilson does not disclose that the building panel has a thickness of between 4.5 and 6 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have a building panel with thickness in this range, 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. Building panels with this thickness will be substantial enough to support a load without fracturing.
In re Claim 11, Nilson has been previously discussed but does not teach that the locking surface (of the locking element (12) is arranged at an acute angle of between 40* and 60*, in relation to the horizontal plane. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have a locking surface (of the locking element arranged at an acute angle in this range, 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 This angle allows for a secure fit between the locking element and the locking groove.
In Re Claims 13 and 14, Nilson has been previously discussed. As was stated Nilson teaches upper locking tongue (13) extending from a respective edge in a direction away from said edge and configured to be received in and cooperate with an upper tongue groove (10). Both the tongue and the groover taper in shape. Therefore, sections of the upper locking tongue (13) do appear to be at a greater height than sections of the groove (10).
However, should the applicant disagree with this, changes in thickness involve changes in size, shape, and proportion which have been held to involve only routine skill in art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 137; In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the height of the upper locking tongue to be at a higher height than the groove in order to keep the assemble panels snuggly fitting together and not working loose.
Nilson does not teach that the difference between the height of the upper locking tongue and the height of the upper tongue groove is in the range of 0.01 to 0.2 mm
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have a difference between the height of the upper locking tongue and the height of the upper tongue groove in this range, 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 This would assure a snug fit between the panels without completely hindering the connection.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson (U.S. 20190211568) in view of De Rick et al. (U.S. 20220341185).
In re Claim 15, Nilson has been previously discussed. Nilson teaches that each building panel (1, 1', 1") comprises a single layered substrate (81),but does not teach wherein at least a substrate of the building panel comprises a thermoplastic material. Regarding “preferably the substrate comprises 10-50 wt.% of the thermoplastic material”, as was stated above, this limitation is indefinite because it remains uncertain if the limitation has been positively claimed. Therefore this limitation is not afforded patentable weight and will be treated as optional.
De Trick teaches that flooring panels can have cores made from thermoplastic material. (Paragraph 0151).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use thermoplastic material in the substrate/core (81). Thermoplastic materials are durable and light weight and therefore can support repeated loads.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 15-19 of patent application Nilsson (U.S. 18/912910). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Both the Claims of Sink ‘785 and the Claims of the instant application are directed to a set of building panels comprising similar or essentially identical building panels wherein each building panel comprises a first mechanical locking device configured to horizontally and vertically lock a first edge of a building panel to a second edge of an adjacent building panel, and a second mechanical locking device configured to horizontally and vertically lock a third edge of a building panel to a fourth edge of an adjacent building panel, wherein each mechanical locking device comprises, at one of the first edge or second edge, and at one of the third edge or fourth edge, a locking strip extending from a respective edge in a direction away from said respective edge, wherein each locking strip comprises, at its outermost portion, a locking element extending in a direction perpendicular to the extension of the locking strip, wherein each locking element is configured to cooperate with a locking groove arranged in the other of the first edge or second edge, and in the other of the third edge or fourth edge, such that adjacent building panels are locked in a horizontal direction in an assembled position, wherein each locking element comprises an impact surface extending from an outer surface of the locking element in a direction towards a back surface of the building panel, at an acute angle in relation to a horizontal plane, wherein each locking groove comprises an impact surface extending from an inner surface of the locking groove in a direction towards the back surface of the building panel, at an acute angle in relation to the horizontal plane, and configured to cooperate with the impact surface of the locking element in an assembled position, when a force, acting, at least partially, in a vertical direction, is applied to at least one of the building panels, wherein the first mechanical locking device and the second mechanical locking device are configured to be assembled together by means of a pivoting motion, or by a snapping assembly by an essentially horizontal displacement of the building panel being assembled to the adjacent building panel. The impact surface of the locking elements and the locking grooves are parallel and at acute angles between 40 and 70 degrees. The building panels have a thickness. The locking element further comprises a locking surface configured to cooperate with a locking surface of the locking groove in which the locking element is arranged in an assembled position. The locking surface of the locking element and the locking surface of the locking groove are essentially parallel. The locking surface of the locking element is arranged at an acute angle (a) of between 40 and 60 degrees, in relation to the horizontal plane. The mechanical locking device further comprises, at one of the first edge or second edge), and/or at one of the third edge or fourth edge an upper locking tongue extending from respective edge in a direction away from said edge, and configured to be received in and cooperate with an upper tongue groove arranged in the other of the first edge or second edge and in the other of the third edge or fourth edge. A height of the upper locking tongue is greater than a height of the upper tongue groove in order to create a tight seal between the adjacent building panels. The difference between the height of the upper locking tongue and the height of the upper tongue groove is in the range of 0.01 to 0.2 mm. A substrate of the building panel comprises a thermoplastic material. Each building panel comprises a single layered substrate, wherein the impact surface of the locking element and the impact surface of the locking groove are arranged in said substrate.
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 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
/PAOLA AGUDELO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights