DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 seems to contain all the features of claim 2 which claim 3 depends from without limiting claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 2-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grzeskowiak II (US Publication 20190283270).
As to claim 2, 3, and 14, Grzeskowiak discloses a synthetic molded slab. The processed slab is formed from a plurality of particulate mineral mixes used for living or working spaces (paragraph 2). The slab can comprise veins that run along the top surface of the of the slab (paragraph 23). The veins can be formed from different mineral mixes (paragraph 37). The first pattern (background region/first region) is represented by a first vein pattern 50 or a background of the slab can extend through the entire thickness (paragraph 23). The second pattern (vein region/second region) is represented by a second vein pattern that can be a widthwise pattern (paragraph 38). The widthwise veins may not extend though the full thickness of the slab (paragraph 38). As seen in figure 1. the slab has a top major surface and a bottom major surface.
This reference is silent to the specifics of the slab, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grzeskowiak and formed the slab as claimed, wherein the vein region is exposed at a recessed depth of the top major surface below the background surface plane, therefore having a second region average recessed depth less than the first region average thickness as Grzeskowiak disclose the ability to make the slab have a first and second vein that are formed of different mineral mixes and have different thicknesses as this overlaps in scope of the teachings of Grzeskowiak.
As to claim 4, Grzeskowiak discloses the second pattern (vein region) is represented by a second vein pattern that can be a widthwise pattern (paragraph 38). The widthwise veins may not extend though the full thickness of the slab (paragraph 38), while the first pattern extends through the entire thickness and therefore the second pattern will have a thickness less than the first pattern.
As to claim 5, Grzeskowiak discloses that the mineral mixes for the patterned veins are different and allows for multiple patterned veins. However, is silent to a second vein in the vein region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grzeskowiak and formed a 3rd vein having a thickness different from the first and second thickness to allow for different patterning of the slab for aesthetic purposes.
As to claim 6, Grzeskowiak is silent to the recessed depth being between .01 mm and 10mm below the background surface plane. Grzeskowiak discloses that the slab has a thickness of between 1 to 5 inches (paragraph 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grzeskowiak and formed the recessed depth to be between .01 and 10 mm as one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to adjust the depth of the veining pattern depending upon the desired aesthetic appearance trying to be achieved.
As to claims 7, 8, 17, 18 Greskowiak discloses the widthwise veins may not extend though the full thickness of the slab (paragraph 38). Further from the figures it shows that the veins can be exposed along an edge of the slab. For this claim the top surface of the slab can refer to the claimed bottom surface while the bottom surface can refer to the claimed top surface and therefore the veining is along the bottom major surface.
As to claims 9 and 19, Greskowiak discloses the widthwise veins may not extend though the full thickness of the slab (paragraph 38) but that allows for some of the veins to extend through the full thickness and therefore some of the veins can be exposed along the top surface.
As to claims 10-13, 15, Greskowiak discloses the widthwise veins may not extend though the full thickness of the slab (paragraph 38) but that allows for some of the veins to extend through the full thickness and therefore some of the veins can be exposed along the top surface. Grzeskowiak further discloses that the mineral mixes for the patterned veins are different and allows for multiple patterned veins. However, is silent to a second vein in the vein region. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grzeskowiak and formed a 3rd vein having a thickness different from the first and second thickness so as to have a second vein exposed at a first recessed depth and a third vein to be at a second recessed depth or the same average depth to allow for different patterning of the slab for aesthetic purposes.
As to claim 16, Greskowiak discloses the widthwise veins may not extend though the full thickness of the slab (paragraph 38) but that allows for some of the veins to extend through the full thickness and therefore some of the veins can be exposed along the top surface. Grzeskowiak further discloses that the mineral mixes for the patterned veins are different and allows for multiple patterned veins. However, is silent to a third region having a third average thickness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Grzeskowiak and formed a 4th vein (third region) having a thickness that is less than the first average thickness to allow for different patterning of the slab for aesthetic purposes.
Claim 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grzeskowiak II (US Publication 20190283270) in view of Sanchis Brines (US Publication 20180126673) and Yeong (KR 10-0771187 which has been machine translated).
As to claims 20 and 21, Grzeskowiak discloses a synthetic molded slab. The processed slab is formed from a plurality of particulate mineral mixes and includes a slab width that is at least 3 feet, a slab length that extends perpendicular to the slab width and that is at least 6 feet and a slab thickness that extends perpendicular to the slab width and length (paragraph 7). The slab can have a thickness of 1 to 5 inches (paragraph 25). The slab can comprise veins that run along the top surface of the of the slab (paragraph 23). The veins can be formed from different mineral mixes (paragraph 37). The first pattern is represented by a first vein pattern 50 or a background of the slab can extend through the entire thickness (paragraph 23). The second pattern is represented by a second vein pattern that can be a widthwise pattern (paragraph 38). The widthwise veins may not extend though the full thickness of the slab (paragraph 38). However this reference is silent to the second pattern exposed along the top major surface recessed from the first pattern plane.
Sanchis Brines discloses an artificial stone slab with veins, wherein the surface has grooves formed into the top surface to form a pattern and then filled, and then optionally polished to allow for a smooth or flat appearance.
Yeong discloses a slab that can have a rough or smooth surface for natural beauty or other reasons.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formed the grooves within Grzeskowiak and filled the grooves so that the filled veins protrude from the surface for aesthetic purposes as Yeong discloses a surface roughness can replicate the natural beaty of the stone and the polishing step is optional for Sanchis Brines. Having the grooves protrude can read on the first pattern as it would be at a plane that is above the second vein. These veins can extend through the entire length of the slab. Further in an alternative view the top surface of the surface would be considered to be the height of the slab where the grooves penetrate would be considered the second pattern location as its recessed from the first pattern.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785