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 § 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 1-14 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.
“[The] front” in claim 1 lacks antecedent basis and is presumed to read “the front side”. Furthermore, “forming one whole” is indefinite, as it is not clear what structure is unitary. It is suggested the recitation in question be rephrased as to state that the folded panel has a front side portion defining the front side and extending continuously from one panel section to the other panel section (as to capture the concept behind forming one whole), the front side portion defining a curved transition section located between the one panel section and the other panel section, the curved transition section having thickness less than each of the respective thicknesses of the panel sections.
As claims 2-14 depend on claim 1, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claim 1, claims 2-14 are also held to be rejected.
Claim 2 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.
There are three issues of indefiniteness in claim 2. The recitation “the distance between the panel sections at the location of the transition section” lacks antecedent basis (due to there is not a single set distance). Next, “it” in “at a distance from it” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. A comparison involving the two indefinite recitations is therefore indefinite by default, but this issue is further compounded because it is not clear what “distance from it”. No attempt is made to apply prior art rejection to a claim having so many issues of indefiniteness.
Claim 4 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.
“[The] inner side of the transition section” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For prior art rejection, “the inner side” is taken to mean “an inner side”.
Claims 8-10 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.
First, similar panel is indefinite, and claim 8 is considered to require tongue-and-groove coupling structures.
Next, claims 9 and 10 lack sufficient antecedent basis. Each is presumed to depend from claim 8.
Finally, parallel with the recess lacks sufficient antecedent basis, because parallel requires at least a referent that can define a line/plane, and no claim recites such a reference line/plane, as the claims never defined a direction in which the recess extends. For prior art rejection below (and solely in view of compact prosecution), the claims are interpreted as if requiring what are described in the specification. This does not relieve Applicant from amending the claims to be definite.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to, as its clarity (especially in the context of dependent claims) can be improved by defining the front side to be opposite of the rear side and further defining the adhesive to define a portion of the rear side.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2003/0183989 A1 (“Fabbroni”).
Considering claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, and 14, Fabbroni discloses a composite ceramic tile comprising a unitary structure of two full-thickness portions joined by a thin curved section, wherein when bent at a right angle, a recess is defined by the full-thickness portions and the thin curved section, and wherein a resin 3 is placed into the recess. (Fabbroni ¶¶ 0027-0039; and Figs. 5, 8, and 11). The figures show that minimal separation between the two full-thickness portions of the tile exceeds thickness of the bent portion. The polyurethane resin 3 reads on the claimed adhesive as 1) it is a polymer and 2) it is readily affixed to the two full-thickness portions. Fabbroni further discloses that its bent composite ceramic tile can be used as covering of stairs. (Id. ¶ 0002). This also broadly reads on the claimed stair shell.
Fabbroni anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, and 14.
Considering claim 12, usage of a support during the manufacturing of the tile is shown in various figures of the reference. (Fabbroni Figs. 26 and 28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 of this title, 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 1, 3, 4, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over CN 105484456 A (referenced below using its machine translation, “CN ‘456”).
Considering claims 1, 3, 4, and 11, CN ‘456 discloses an architectural plate comprising a unitary structure of two full-thickness portions joined by a thin curved section 3-1, wherein when bent at a right angle, a recess is defined by the full-thickness portions and the thin curved section 3-1, and wherein an epoxy glue 3-2 is injected into the recess and cured. (CN ‘456 ¶¶ 6, 9, 26, 30, 40, 44, and 57; Fig. 3, reproduced infra). CN ‘456 expressly refers to the epoxy rubber block as a glue. (Id. ¶¶ 26, 30, and 57). CN ‘456 is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (curved panels used for building interiors).
PNG
media_image1.png
283
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The figures show that minimal separation between the two full-thickness portions of the tile exceeds thickness of the bent portion. Alternatively, this would be obvious as CN ‘456 discloses thin curved section 3-1 has maximal thickness of 1 mm, while the groove opening can be at most 1 mm or from 0.5 to 0.8 mm, wherein groove opening . (Id. ¶¶ 7 and 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. (See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379; MPEP § 2144.05). Furthermore, this limitation is implied by Fig. 3 of the reference, not to mention that the reference discloses larger opening for cases of large radius of curvature. (CN ‘456 Fig. 3 and ¶ 7).
CN ‘456 anticipates or renders obvious claims 1, 3, 4, and 11.
Considering claim 12, usage of a support (in the form of a convex mold) during the manufacturing of the architectural plate disclosed. (CN ‘456 ¶ 56).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 105484456 A (referenced below using its machine translation, “CN ‘456”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 3228775 A1 (“Decruy”).
Considering claims 5-7, CN ‘456 differs from the claimed invention, as it is silent re: layer construction of its panel. However, the limitations recited in each of claims 5-7 are known from Decruy, which is also directed to bent interior panels. Specifically, Decruy teaches a panel having an outer multilayered top layer 2 and a carrier 1 made of HDF or MDF, wherein the bent section of the panel comprises the top layer 2 and a small portion of the carrier 1. (Decruy ¶¶ 0015, 0021, and 0037-0040; and Fig. 1). Person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the layer configurations as taught in Decruy to construct the plate of CN ‘456, as Decruy is considered to have demonstrated that this configuration is known in the art for bent interior panels. This rationale for supporting a finding of obviousness, where one reference demonstrates that a particular material is suitable for a particular intended use, is considered appropriate under the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2016/0010338 A1 (“Steijvers”) in view of CN 105484456 A (referenced below using its machine translation, “CN ‘456”).
Considering claims 1, 3, 4, and 11-14, Steijvers discloses a folded stair covering for a stair tread, wherein stair covering has two portions rotatable relative to each other as to facilitate folding into a shape where the two portions are perpendicular. (Steijvers ¶¶ 0059-0062 and Figs. 1-5). Steijvers is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (foldable stair coverings). Steijvers differs from the claimed invention, as it is silent re: a) a curved transition at the folding region and b) the claimed relative dimensions.
However, these are known from the art of foldable interior panels, as taught in CN ‘456, which is as discussed in ¶¶ 22-25 above and not reiterated. It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have adopted the teachings from CN ‘456 to Steijvers, as CN ‘456 teaches an implementation of a foldable interior panel that is structurally stable and can be folded to small radius of curvature. (CN ‘456 ¶¶ 4-6).
Steijvers in view of CN ‘456 renders obvious claims 1, 3, 4, and 11-14.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steijvers in view of CN 105484456 A (referenced below using its machine translation, “CN ‘456”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2020/0346482 A1 (“Mendez”).
Considering claims 8 and 9, Steijvers differs from the claimed invention, as it does not disclose tongue and groove locking parts at respective minor surface ends of its stair covering (in cross-sectional view shown in Fig. 5 thereof). However, provision of such locking parts in a stair covering is taught in Mendez. (Mendez ¶ 0016 and Figs. 2 and 3). Person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have implemented the tongue and groove locking parts, as Mendez is considered to have demonstrated that this configuration is known in the art for stair coverings. This rationale for supporting a finding of obviousness, where one reference demonstrates that a particular material is suitable for a particular intended use, is considered appropriate under the guidelines set forth in MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steijvers in view of CN 105484456 A (referenced below using its machine translation, “CN ‘456”) and Mendez, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. 2013/0305635 A1 (“McCool”).
Considering claim 10, the combination of Steijvers and Mendez differs from the claimed invention, for being silent re: provision of tongue and groove locking located on end surfaces orthogonal to the ones taught in Mendez. However, McCool teaches that adjacent stair coverings can be joined in a width direction of the coverings (viz. direction orthogonal to the cross-section shown in Fig. 5 of Steijver and Fig. 2 of Mendez), wherein the joining can be effected via tongue and groove joints. (McCool ¶¶ 0042 and 0045; and Fig. 5). McCool teaches that the usage of such joining allows customization of a larger covering to be made from smaller pieces. (Id. ¶ 0045). It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have included tongue and groove locking located on end surfaces orthogonal to the ones taught in Mendez, for the reason taught in McCool.
Concluding Remarks
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. 2021/0381244 A1 is noted to be relevant as being directed to substantially similar subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights