DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miclo (11,365,545) in view of Kell (9,885,187).
Claim 1. Miclo, fig. 2, teaches a set of building panels comprising a first panel 100 and a second panel 100a and a locking device for locking a first edge portion (the outer edge shown in fig. 2) of the first panel to a second edge portion (the outer edge shown in fig. 2) of the second panel to obtain an assembled state of the first and second panels, wherein a core of the panels comprises a polymer-based material, abstract, the locking device comprising:
a locking element 11 extending upwards from a lower strip provided in the first edge portion, and a locking groove 22 arranged in the second edge portion, the locking groove being open downwards, wherein the locking element and the locking groove are configured to cooperate for horizontal locking of the first and second edge portions, and
a cavity 13 arranged in the first edge portion and a displaceable protrusion 4a arranged in the second edge portion, the cavity being open horizontally outwards with respect to the first panel,
wherein the protrusion and the cavity are configured to cooperate for vertical locking of the first and second edge portions, wherein the protrusion extends at least partially upwards and is integrally formed with the second edge portion,
wherein, in the assembled state, the protrusion extends at least partially horizontally inwardly of a vertical plane PJ with respect to the second panel, said vertical plane extending between upper portions of the first and second edge portions.
Miclo does not teach upper portions of the first and second edge portions comprise a shelf portion and a lap portion, respectively, configured to cooperate with each other at overlapping cooperating surfaces, said cavity extending below the shelf portion, the overlapping cooperating surface of the shelf portion being provided in an upper section of the shelf portion, and the overlapping cooperating surface of the lap portion being provided in a lower section of the lap portion.
Kell teaches upper portions of first and second edge portions comprise a shelf portion and a lap portion, respectively, configured to cooperate with each other at overlapping cooperating surfaces, a cavity c extending below the shelf portion, the overlapping cooperating surface of the shelf portion being provided in an upper section us of the shelf portion, and the overlapping cooperating surface of the lap portion being provided in a lower section ls of the lap portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Miclo to include upper portions of the first and second edge portions comprise a shelf portion and a lap portion, respectively, configured to cooperate with each other at overlapping cooperating surfaces, said cavity extending below the shelf portion, the overlapping cooperating surface of the shelf portion being provided in an upper section of the shelf portion, and the overlapping cooperating surface of the lap portion being provided in a lower section of the lap portion for a more stable panel connection when a user walks on the panel, near the joint, col. 21, lines 28-66 and col. 26, lines 8-61.
PNG
media_image1.png
287
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 13a (Kell)
2. Miclo in view of Kell teaches the set of floor panels according to claim 1, Miclo further teaching the protrusion extends, in a direction along the second edge portion, outwards of an upper portion of a fourth edge portion of the second panel (as seen in fig. 2, the protrusion extends outwards (to the right) of an upper portion of a fourth edge portion (the edge defined by PJ) of the second panel.
3. Miclo in view of Kell teaches the set of floor panels according to claim 1, Miclo further teaching the protrusion locks against the cavity by pretension (pretension tending to keep the protrusion pointed outward).
4. Miclo in view of Kell teaches the set of floor panels according to claim 1, Miclo further teaching a protrusion tip being at a distance h from a second panel front side, said distance exceeding a quarter of a second panel thickness (t is “a” second panel thickness, namely the thickness of the panel at the panel edge, annotated fig. 2 clearly showing h is greater than a quarter of t). Should applicant disagree that fig. 2 shows h is greater than a quarter of t, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for h to be greater than a quarter of t for strength.
PNG
media_image2.png
179
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2 (Miclo)
5. Miclo in view of Kell teaches the set of floor panels according to claim 1, Kell further teaching upper portions of first and second edge portions comprise joining surfaces s1 and s2 which are inclined with respect to a normal of a main plane extending along a front side and/or a rear side of the first and/or second panel.
6. Miclo in view of Kell teaches the set of floor panels according to claim 1, Miclo further teaching the protrusion is displaceable into a recess 23 of the second edge portion, and wherein the protrusion contacts a base edge portion epb of the second edge portion along a contacting section sc in the assembled state.
7. Miclo in view of Kell teaches the set of floor panels according to claim 1, Miclo further teaching the protrusion is displaceable into a recess 23 of the second edge portion, said recess comprising a protuberant inner wall wi.
8. Miclo in view of Kell teaches the set of floor panels according to claim 1, Miclo further teaching the protrusion is thermoformed, col. 7, lines 50-58. In any case, the limitation “thermoformed” is a product by process limitation.
9. Miclo in view of Kell teaches the set of floor panels according to claim 1, Miclo further teaching the first and second edge portions are capable of being locked to each other by a relative essentially vertical displacement of the first and second panels against each other, fig. 6A.
10. Miclo in view of Kell teaches the set of floor panels according to claim 1, Miclo further teaching the first and second edge portions are capable of being unlocked from each other by angling the first and second panels relative to each other because of the relative resilience of the panels/locking device.
11. Miclo in view of Kell teaches the set of floor panels according to claim 1, Miclo further teaching a horizontal locking surface hsl of the locking element is inclined against a main plane extending along a front side and/or a rear side of the first panel by a locking angle less than 80 degrees (annotated fig. 2 clearly shows hsl inclined against a main plane extending along a front side and/or a rear side of the first panel by a locking angle less than 80 degrees). Should applicant disagree that annotated fig. 2 shows hsl inclined against a main plane extending along a front side and/or a rear side of the first panel by a locking angle less than 80 degrees, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for hsl to be inclined against a main plane extending along a front side and/or a rear side of the first panel by a locking angle less than 80 degrees for ease of assembly.
12. Miclo in view of Kell teaches the set of floor panels according to claim 1, Miclo further teaching the core panels comprises a plastic material. While Miclo teaches the protrusion is thermoformed, the core is not expressly taught as being thermoformed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the core to be thermoformed for resilience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-24 are allowed because:
Based on fig. 1, the length L of Miclo protrusion 4a, from its inner portion does exceed a horizontal distance D from the protrusion inner portion to a vertical plane extending along an uppermost portion of the second edge portion as claimed.
PNG
media_image3.png
137
160
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 (Miclo)
Based on fig. 6, the length of Pervan (2016/0326751) protrusion 33, from its inner portion also apparently exceeds a horizontal distance D from the protrusion inner portion to a vertical plane extending along an uppermost portion of the second edge portion. And in any case, there is no art of record expressly teaching the length of a displaceable protrusion, from its inner portion that does not exceed a horizontal distance from the protrusion inner portion to a vertical plane extending along an uppermost portion of a second edge portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights