DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the amendment filed on 7/21/2026. Currently, claims 1-2 and 5-20 are pending. Claims 2-3 have been cancelled. No claims have been withdrawn. New claims 19-20 have been added.
Terminal Disclaimer
The Terminal Disclaimer filed on 7/21/2026 has been approved. See Terminal Disclaimer Approval filed no 7/21/20026.
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 1-2 and 5-20 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.
Claim 1, the claim recites “[a] covering element” (line 1), which requires one covering element. The claim goes on to recite “two or more covering elements” (line 5) and “two covering elements” (see amended portion). Does applicant intend for each of the recited covering elements to include the previously recited covering element of line 1? Does applicant intend for the two covering elements (amended portion) to include the previously recited covering element of line 1 and one of the two or more covering elements? The covering elements lack clear antecedent basis. Applicant is requested to amend the claim to provide proper antecedent basis for the various covering elements recited in the claim. See also claim 15.
Claim 20, “their recesses and protrusion” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. The term, “their” is possessive. The covering elements are inanimate objects that are incapable of ownership. This rejection can be overcome by explicitly reciting the claim element represented by “their” and avoid reciting such pronouns.
The remaining claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency upon a rejected base claim.
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, 5-7, 9-11 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanning (US 20150258716) in view of Laurence et al. (US 20020160680) (‘Laurence’), in view of Maesen (US 20150056416) and further in view of Dohring et al. (US 20140329064) (‘Dohring’) and further in view of Martensson (US 20040221537).
Claim 1, Hanning teaches a covering element comprising:
a carrier plate 110 comprising mineral particles bonded together by a material ([0021]; [0052]; Fig. 1);
complementary recesses and protrusions formed, respectively, on opposing lateral edges of the carrier plate [0059], such that, in an assembled condition of two or more covering elements, the complementary recesses and protrusions are configured to engage with complementary protrusions and recesses, respectively, of another of the two or more covering elements (“in order to allow panels to be connected to each other” [0059]); and
a decor layer (“decor” 130; [0045]; Fig. 1) that comprises a polymer [0045] and is on a front side of the carrier plate (front side of 110; Fig. 1);
wherein the decor layer comprises a printed foil [0045], wherein the printed foil is based on a polymer [0045];
wherein the decor layer comprises a polymer-containing transparent top layer ([0037] and [0038]) that contains acrylic (it is understood that the top layer comprising acrylic is transparent ([0037] and [0038]).
Hanning does not teach the carrier plate comprising a polymeric adhesion agent, the decor layer printed foil being based on polyvinyl chloride, and wherein the recesses and protrusions are arranged solely in the carrier plate, and wherein, in the assembled condition of two covering elements, the recesses and protrusions provide a mechanical locking preventing shifting apart of the covering elements in a direction perpendicular to joined edges and parallel to an underside of the joined covering elements.
However, Laurence teaches a covering element comprising a carrier plate 34 comprising at least mineral particles pressed together to a plate by a polymeric adhesion agent [0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the carrier plate comprising at least mineral particles pressed together to a plate by a polymeric adhesion agent, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known, readily available materials to further enhance the structural integrity of the carrier plate.
Maesen teaches a covering element comprising a decor layer comprising a printed foil, wherein the printed foil is based on polyvinyl chloride (“printed PVC foil” [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the printed foil of Hanning by using a printed foil based on polyvinyl chloride, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known material to obtain increased durability, water resistance, design versatility and cost-effectiveness compared to foils based on other materials, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Dohring teaches a covering element comprising recesses 49’’’ (including interchangeable reference character 49’; Figs. 4-5) and protrusions 47’’’ (including interchangeable reference character 47’) being arranged solely in a carrier plate 41’’’ (including interchangeable reference character 41’; Figs. 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hanning’s covering element such that the recesses and protrusions are arranged solely in the carrier plate, with the reasonable expectations of success of permitting improved structural integrity and stability of interlocked panels by distributing weight and stress evenly across joints between adjacent covering elements.
Martensson teaches a covering element being arranged in a carrier plate (“said coupling parts as well as said mechanical locking elements being integral with said core material”; claim 31), wherein, in an assembled condition of two covering elements, the recesses and protrusions provide a mechanical locking preventing shifting apart of the covering elements in a direction perpendicular to joined edges and parallel to an underside of the joined covering elements (claim 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the covering element such that in the assembled condition of two covering elements, the recesses and protrusions provide a mechanical locking preventing shifting apart of the covering elements in a direction perpendicular to joined edges and parallel to an underside of the joined covering elements, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known configuration of coupling parts of covering elements to further prevent unintended shifting of the covering elements.
Claim 5, Hanning further teaches wherein the polymer-containing transparent top layer has a structured surface (Hanning [0014]-[0018], as well as throughout the specification; Maesen [0048]; Dohring [0008]).
Claim 6, as modified above, the combination of Hanning, Laurence, Maesen and Dohring teaches all the limitations of claim 5, and further teaches an impression provided by the printed foil and pronounced by the structured surface (Maesen [0048]; Dohring [0008]).
Claim 7, as modified above, the combination of Hanning, Laurence, Maesen, Dohring and Martensson teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the top layer comprises corundum particles (Maesen [0065]; Dohring [0007]).
Claim 9, Hanning further teaches wherein the transparent top layer containing acrylic is UV-hardened or electron beam hardened (irradiation or radiation [0041] via ultraviolet or electron beams [0048]).
Claim 10, as modified above, the combination of Hanning, Laurence, Maesen, Dohring and Martensson teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above, and further teaches wherein carrier plate is a multi-layered board (Laurence carrier plate 34 can be formed by two or more thinner layers 38, 40; [0056]; Figs. 1 and 3).
Claim 11, Hanning further teaches wherein the printed foil is a digitally printed foil (“digital printing” [0045]-[0046]).
Claim 19, Hanning further teaches wherein the carrier plate is single-layered (it is understood that layer 110 is a single layer; [0068]).
Claim 20, Hanning, Laurence, Maesen and Dohring and Martensson teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Hanning further teaches a floor covering comprising a plurality of covering elements according to claim 1 joined together by their recesses and protrusion formed at the lateral edges (Hanning floor formed by joining the covering elements together with tongue and groove; [0059]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanning in view of Laurence, Maesen and Dohring and further in view of Martensson as above and further in view of Clausi et al. (US 20120276348) (‘Clausi’).
Claim 2, Hanning, Laurence, Maesen, Dohring and Martensson teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Hanning does not teach an insulating layer on a rear side of the carrier plate, the insulating layer being an elastomer layer, a foamed polymer layer, a foamed elastomer layer, or a product comprising cork. However, Clausi teaches a covering element comprising an insulating layer 7 on a rear side of a carrier plate 12, the insulating layer being an elastomer layer ([0054]; Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the covering element of Hanning by incorporating an insulating layer on a rear side of the carrier plate, the insulating layer being an elastomer layer, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to reduce heat transfer, and provide increased structural durability and flexibility to the covering element.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanning in view of Laurence, Maesen, Dohring and Martensson as above and further in view of Baert et al. (US 20150368912) (‘Baert’).
Claims 2, Hanning, Laurence, Maesen, Dohring and Martensson teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Hanning does not teach an insulating layer on a rear side of the carrier plate, the insulating layer being an elastomer layer, a foamed polymer layer, a foamed elastomer layer, or a product comprising cork, a foamed polymer layer or a product comprising cork. However, Baert teaches a covering element comprising an insulating layer (“bottom layer” [0033]; claim 11) on a rear side of a carrier plate (central layer 10), the insulating layer being an elastomer layer ([0033]; claim 11), a foamed polymer layer ([0033]; claim 11) or a product comprising cork ([0033]; claim 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the covering element of Hanning by incorporating an insulating layer on a rear side of the carrier plate, the insulating layer being an elastomer layer, a foamed polymer layer, or a product comprising cork, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to further compensate for any unevenness on an underlying substrate surface (Baert [0033]).
Claim 12, Hanning, Laurence, Maesen, Dohring and Martensson teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Hanning does not teach an insulating layer on a rear side of the carrier plate, wherein the insulating layer also functions as a barrier layer against penetration of moisture from an underside of the covering element. However, Baert teaches a covering element comprising an insulating layer (“bottom layer” [0033]; claim 11) on a rear side of the carrier plate (central layer 10), wherein the insulating layer also functions as a barrier layer against penetration of moisture from an underside of the covering element (it is understood that the insulating layer can be selected from a material that is suitable to function as a barrier layer against penetration of moisture from an underside of the covering element; [0033]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the covering element by incorporating an insulating layer on a rear side of the carrier plate, wherein the insulating layer also functions as a barrier layer against penetration of moisture from an underside of the covering element, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to protect the covering element from water damage (Baert [0007], [0018]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanning in view of Laurence, Maesen, Dohring and Martensson as above and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 4428775) (‘Johnson’).
Claim 8, Hanning, Laurence, Maesen, Dohring and Martensson teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Hanning does not teach wherein the carrier plate has a thickness between 2 and 15 millimeters. However, Johnson teaches a carrier plate comprising a mineral material, and formed as a flat mineral carrier plate having a thickness between 2 and 15 mm (0.25 inches to 0.30 inches, corresponding to 6.35 mm to 7.62 mm and falls within applicant’s claimed range and thus meets the claim; col. 7, lines 61-62 and col. 9, lines 9-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the thickness of the carrier plate being between 2 and 15 mm, with the reasonable expectation of success of providing a carrier plate that is sufficiently strong and durable with a suitable thickness for creating a covering element, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanning in view of Laurence, Maesen, Dohring and Martensson as above and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20080305312) (‘Kim’).
Claim 12, Hanning, Laurence, Maesen, Dohring and Martensson teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Hanning does not teach an insulating layer on a rear side of the carrier plate, wherein the insulating layer also functions as a barrier layer against penetration of moisture from an underside of the covering element. However, Kim teaches a covering element comprising an insulating layer 70 on a rear side of the carrier plate [0041], wherein the insulating layer also functions as a barrier layer against penetration of moisture from an underside of the covering element (it is understood that the insulating layer can be selected from a material that is suitable to function as a barrier layer against penetration of moisture from an underside of the covering element; [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the covering element by incorporating an insulating layer on a rear side of the carrier plate, wherein the insulating layer also functions as a barrier layer against penetration of moisture from an underside of the covering element, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to protect the covering element from water damage (Baert [0007], [0018]).
Claim 13, Hanning, Laurence, Maesen, Dohring and Martensson teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Hanning does not teach wherein the polymer containing transparent top layer contains a plurality of layers stacked on top of each other. Kim teaches a covering element comprising a polymer containing transparent top layer containing a plurality of layers stacked on top of each other ([0053]-[0054]; Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the covering element of Hanning by forming the polymer containing transparent top layer containing a plurality of layers stacked on top of each other, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known materials and techniques to provide improved protection from underlying moisture, improving UV protection and further enhancing the durability of the covering element.
Claim 14, as modified above, the combination of Hanning, Laurence, Maesen, Dohring, Martensson and Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 13, and further teaches wherein the plurality of layers comprise at least one layer of a UV-hardening lacquer (Kim [0054]).
Claim(s) 15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanning (US 20150258716) in view of Laurence et al. (US 20020160680) (‘Laurence’), in view of Maesen (US 20150056416) in view of Kim et al. (US 20080305312) (‘Kim’), in view of in view of Dohring et al. (US 20140329064) (‘Dohring’) in view of Johnson et al. (US 4428775) (‘Johnson’) and further in view of Martensson (US 20040221537).
Claim 15, Hanning teaches a covering element comprising:
a carrier plate 110 comprising mineral particles bonded together by a material ([0021]; [0052]; Fig. 1);
complementary recesses and protrusions formed, respectively, on opposing lateral edges of the carrier plate [0059], such that, in an assembled condition of two or more covering elements, the complementary recesses and protrusions are configured to engage with complementary protrusions and recesses, respectively, of another of the two or more covering elements (“in order to allow panels to be connected to each other” [0059]); and
a decor layer (“decor” 130; [0045]; Fig. 1) that comprises a polymer [0045] and is on a front side of the carrier plate (front side of 110; Fig. 1);
wherein the decor layer comprises a printed foil [0045], wherein the printed foil is based on a polymer [0045];
wherein the decor layer comprises a polymer-containing transparent top layer (it is understood that the top layer comprising acrylic is transparent ([0037] and [0038])
Hanning does not teach the carrier plate comprising a polymeric adhesion agent, the decor layer printed foil being based on polyvinyl chloride, the transparent top layer containing a plurality of layers stacked on top of each other and comprising at least one layer of a UV-hardening acrylic lacquer, wherein the recesses and protrusions are arranged solely in the carrier plate; and wherein the carrier plate has a thickness between 2 and 15 millimeters, and wherein, in the assembled condition of two covering elements, the recesses and protrusions provide a mechanical locking preventing shifting apart of the covering elements in a direction perpendicular to joined edges and parallel to an underside of the joined covering elements.
However, Laurence teaches a covering element comprising a carrier plate 34 comprising at least mineral particles pressed together to a plate by a polymeric adhesion agent [0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the carrier plate comprising at least mineral particles pressed together to a plate by a polymeric adhesion agent, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known, readily available materials to further enhance the structural integrity of the carrier plate.
Maesen teaches a covering element comprising a decor layer comprising a printed foil based on polyvinyl chloride (“printed PVC foil” [0048]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the printed foil of Hanning by using a printed foil based on polyvinyl chloride, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known material to obtain increased durability, water resistance, design versatility and cost-effectiveness compared to foils based on other materials, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Kim teaches a covering element comprising a polymer containing transparent top layer containing a plurality of layers stacked on top of each other ([0053]-[0054]; Fig. 3) and comprising at least one layer of a UV-hardening acrylic lacquer [0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the covering element of Hanning by forming the polymer containing transparent top layer containing a plurality of layers stacked on top of each other and comprising at least one layer of a UV-hardening acrylic lacquer with the reasonable expectation of success of using known materials and techniques to provide improved protection from underlying moisture, improving UV protection and further enhancing the durability of the covering element.
Dohring teaches a covering element comprising recesses 49’’’ (including interchangeable reference character 49’; Figs. 4-5) and protrusions 47’’’ (including interchangeable reference character 47’) being arranged solely in a carrier plate 41’’’ (including interchangeable reference character 41’; Figs. 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Hanning’s covering element such that the recesses and protrusions are arranged solely in the carrier plate, with the reasonable expectations of success of permitting improved structural integrity and stability of interlocked panels by distributing weight and stress evenly across joints between adjacent covering elements.
Johnson teaches a carrier plate comprising a mineral material, and formed as a flat mineral carrier plate having a thickness between 2 and 15 mm (0.25 inches to 0.30 inches, corresponding to 6.35 mm to 7.62 mm and falls within applicant’s claimed range and thus meets the claim; col. 7, lines 61-62 and col. 9, lines 9-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try forming the thickness of the carrier plate being between 2 and 15 mm, with the reasonable expectation of success of providing a carrier plate that is sufficiently strong and durable with a suitable thickness for creating a covering element, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Martensson teaches a covering element being arranged in a carrier plate (“said coupling parts as well as said mechanical locking elements being integral with said core material”; claim 31), wherein, in an assembled condition of two covering elements, the recesses and protrusions provide a mechanical locking preventing shifting apart of the covering elements in a direction perpendicular to joined edges and parallel to an underside of the joined covering elements (claim 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the covering element such that in the assembled condition of two covering elements, the recesses and protrusions provide a mechanical locking preventing shifting apart of the covering elements in a direction perpendicular to joined edges and parallel to an underside of the joined covering elements, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known configuration of coupling parts of covering elements to further prevent unintended shifting of the covering elements.
Claim 17, Hanning further teaches wherein the polymer-containing transparent top layer has a structured surface (Hanning [0014]-[0018], as well as throughout the specification; Maesen [0048]; Dohring [0008]).
Claim 18, as modified above, the combination of Hanning, Laurence, Maesen, Kim, Dohring, Johnson and Martensson teaches all the limitations of claim 17, and further teaches an impression provided by the printed foil and pronounced by the structured surface (Maesen [0048]; Dohring [0008]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanning in view of Laurence, Maesen, Kim, Dohring, Johnson and Martensson as above and further in view of Clausi et al. (US 20120276348) (‘Clausi’) or alternatively Baert et al. (US 20150368912) (‘Baert’).
Claims 16, Hanning, Laurence, Maesen, Dohring and Martensson teach all the limitations of claim 15 as above. Hanning does not teach an insulating layer on a rear side of the carrier plate, the insulating layer being an elastomer layer, a foamed polymer layer, a foamed elastomer layer, or a product comprising cork, a foamed polymer layer or a product comprising cork. However, Baert teaches a covering element comprising an insulating layer (“bottom layer” [0033]; claim 11) on a rear side of a carrier plate (central layer 10), the insulating layer being an elastomer layer ([0033]; claim 11), a foamed polymer layer ([0033]; claim 11) or a product comprising cork ([0033]; claim 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the covering element of Hanning by incorporating an insulating layer on a rear side of the carrier plate, the insulating layer being an elastomer layer, a foamed polymer layer, or a product comprising cork, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to further compensate for any unevenness on an underlying substrate surface (Baert [0033]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 5-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that it would not have been obvious to combine the elements or features of multiple references to arrive at the claimed invention, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
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 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