DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on November 29, 2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 stand rejected as set forth below.
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 2-18 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.
Claims 2-18 recite “the set of building panels” in the first line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite “the set of panels” as established in claim 1 line 1 with the language “a set of panels,” and will be interpreted as such.
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 1-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vermeulen et al (“Vermeulen”) (US 8,701,368).
Regarding claim 1, Vermeulen discloses a set of panels (13, 17) comprising a first panel (13) and a second panel (17) and a locking device (fig 3a-f) for locking a first edge portion (14) of the first panel (13) to a second edge portion (18) of the second panel (17), wherein the locking device (fig 3a-f) comprises a horizontal locking device (24, 25 in fig 5b) (locking groove, see fig 5d annotated below) and a vertical locking device (1, 19), the vertical locking device (1, 19) comprising:
a separate tongue (1) arranged in an insertion groove (15) of said first edge portion (14), a longitudinal extension (fig 1a-f) of the separate tongue (1) extending along the first edge portion (14), wherein the separate tongue (1) comprises flexible members (4, 5, 7, 8) configured to face an inner portion (inner portion of 15) of the insertion groove (15) when the separate tongue (1) is arranged in the insertion groove (15), the flexible members (4, 5, 7, 8) being configured to displace (fig 2a-b) the separate tongue (1) outwards during locking or unlocking, and
a tongue groove (19) provided in, and extending along, said second edge portion (18),
wherein the locking device (fig 3a-f) is configured such that, in a vertically locked state (fig 3e) of the first (14) and second edge portions (18):
an abutment member (2) provided at a longitudinal end portion (fig 2a-b) of the separate tongue (1) cooperates with a stop surface (30) of the second edge portion (18),
a locking portion (3) of the separate tongue (1) cooperates with the tongue groove (19), and
the stop surface (30) is arranged closer than an outermost section (outermost section of 3) of the locking portion (3) to said inner portion (inner portion of 15) of the insertion groove (15), and
the locking portion (3) of the separate tongue (1) is longitudinally bent (3 bends with 4 in fig 2a-b),
wherein, during locking, the locking portion (3) is configured to be gradually inserted into the insertion groove (15) along the first edge portion (14) in a first stage (fig 3c), and in a second subsequent stage (fig 3e) the locking portion (3) is configured to be gradually inserted into the tongue groove (19) along the second edge portion (18).
Regarding claim 2, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein the locking device (fig 3a-f) is configured such that, in the vertically locked state (fig 3e), a horizontal distance (horizontal distance from inner portion of 15 to 30) from the inner portion (inner portion of 15) to the stop surface (30) is smaller than a horizontal distance (horizontal distance from inner portion of 15 to 3) from the inner portion (inner portion of 15) to the locking portion (3). (fig 3f)
Regarding claim 3, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein the locking device (fig 3a-f) is configured such that, in the vertically locked state (fig 3e), the stop surface (30) forms an angle (angle of 30 appears to be 0° with respect to L4) of 0°-10°, with respect to a vertical direction (L4). (fig 5d)
Regarding claim 4, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein the stop surface (30) is one of at least two stop surfaces (29, 30), and wherein two of the at least two stop surfaces (29, 30) are arranged on opposing sides of the tongue groove (19). (fig 5d)
Regarding claim 5, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein the stop surface (30) is arranged adjacent to the tongue groove (19) along the second edge portion (18). (fig 5d)
Regarding claim 6, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein the stop surface (30) is disposed at a same vertical level (surface of 30 and surface of tongue groove 19 meet at the same vertical level as seen in fig 5d) as a portion of the tongue groove (19).
Regarding claim 7, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein the locking device (fig 3a-f) is configured such that, in the vertically locked state (fig 3e), the stop surface (30) prevents a displacement (30 prevents displacement of 1) of the separate tongue (1) outwards from the insertion groove (15).
Regarding claim 8, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels according to claim 1, wherein the stop surface (30) is provided in a separate material (column 5 line 37-39 “A decorative laminate layer on the panel may be arranged by direct pressing, foils, digital pressing”) that is distinct from other portions (column 5 line 34-36 “a laminated panel having a core of wood-based material, but alternative materials are conceivable, for example a panel of wood, stone, ceramic, vinyl, WPC, LVT”) of the second edge portion (18).
Regarding claim 9, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein the abutment member (2) is one of at least two abutment members (multiple abutment member 2 elements in fig 1a-f), and wherein opposing longitudinal end portions (opposing longitudinal end portions of 1 in fig 1a-f) of the separate tongue (1) each comprise a respective one (abutment members 2 placed at longitudinal end portions of 1 in fig 1a-f) of the at least two abutment members (multiple abutment member 2 elements in fig 1a-f).
Regarding claim 10, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein the abutment member (2) is pretensioned (2 pretensioned in figs 2a-b) against the stop surface (30) in said vertically locked state (fig 3e).
Regarding claim 11, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein a longitudinal length (longitudinal length of 1 in fig 1a-f) of the separate tongue (1) exceeds a longitudinal length (longitudinal length of 19) of the tongue groove (19). (fig 8a-c has panels of varying size/length that would allow a longitudinal length of the separate tongue to exceed a longitudinal length of the tongue groove depending on the size/length of the panels)
Regarding claim 13, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein the locking portion (3) protrudes from (3 protrudes from 15 in fig 3f) the insertion groove (15) along at least 50% (3 in fig 1a, for example, goes along at least 50% of the longitudinal length of the separate tongue 1) of a longitudinal length (longitudinal length of 1 in figs 1a-f) of the separate tongue (1) in the vertically locked state (fig 3e).
Regarding claim 14, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein the first edge portion (14) of the first panel (13) and the second edge portion (18) of the second panel (17) are short edge portions (short edge portions 14 and 18 in figs 8a-c) which are shorter than long edge portions (long edge portions 14 and 18 in figs 8a-c) of the first (13) and second (17) panels.
Regarding claim 15, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein, during locking, the second edge portion (18) cooperates with the locking portion (3) for displacing (18 cooperates with 3 in fig 3c to displace 1 into 15) the separate tongue (1) into the insertion groove (15).
Regarding claim 16, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein the flexible members (4, 5, 7, 8) each extend from a respective base portion (base portion, see fig 1a annotated below) of the separate tongue (1), a flexible member (5) extending from a base portion (base portion, see fig 1a annotated below) arranged at the longitudinal end portion (fig 2a-b) extending from and being bendable around (5 bending 2 and 4 around longitudinal inner side of the base portion in fig 2a-b) a longitudinal inner side (longitudinal inner side of the base portion) of the base portion (base portion, see fig 1a annotated below).
Regarding claim 17, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein the horizontal locking device (24, 25 in fig 5b) (locking groove, see fig 5d annotated below) comprises a locking element (25) arranged on a strip (24) extending horizontally outwards (24 extends horizontally outwards) from a lower portion (lower portion of 14) of the first edge portion (14) and a locking groove (locking groove, see fig 5d annotated below) provided in the second edge portion (18), the locking element (25) and the locking groove (locking groove, see fig 5d annotated below) being configured to cooperate to provide a horizontally locked state (fig 3e) of the first (14) and the second edge (18) portions.
Regarding claim 18, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, wherein the first (14) and second edge (18) portions are configured to be vertically unlocked by a forced relative vertical displacement (14 and 18 moved by a vertical force to unlock in figs 3c-f) of the first (14) and second edge (18) portions away from each other (14 and 18 move away from each other in fig 3c-f) and/or by a repeated forced relative vertical displacement (the action of 14 and 18 being moved by a vertical force to unlock in figs 3c-f could be repeated) of the first (14) and second edge (18) portions away and towards each other (14 and 18 move away and toward each other in fig 3c-f).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
222
299
media_image1.png
Greyscale
fig 5d annotated
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
201
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
fig 1a annotated
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vermeulen et al (“Vermeulen”) (US 8,701,368) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pervan et al (“Pervan”) (US 2018/0119431).
Regarding claim 12, as understood by the examiner, Vermeulen discloses the set of panels (13, 17) according to claim 1, a longitudinal length (longitudinal length of 18) of the second edge portion (18); a longitudinal length (longitudinal length of 19) of the tongue groove (19).
Vermeulen does not disclose a longitudinal length of the second edge portion exceeds a longitudinal length of the tongue groove.
Pervan discloses a groove (35 in fig 2d) that does not span a longitudinal length.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the set of panels in Vermeulen with a groove that does not span a longitudinal length as disclosed in Pervan. Vermeulen discloses flexibility in the design of the tongue groove (column 6 line 63-64 “A large part of the profile of the second edge 18 is manufactured by a second milling device 22b”). In addition, as shown in Pervan fig 2d, it was known in the art to create a groove to allow for a piece to be inserted into the groove. This combination would ensure that the separate tongue of Vermeulen would not fall out of the tongue groove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY P HARRIS whose telephone number is (571) 270-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00am-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 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.
/ZACHARY P HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights