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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because, at line 5, “second edges” should be --second edges of the panel—for consistency with line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
1) Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
2) The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the panel third or fourth edge upper edge first lower lip upper surface “continuous with” the panel first or second edge upper edge second lower lip upper surface must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claim 19. While Figs. 6 -7 clearly show the claimed configuration to cooperate between the lip surfaces, especially as shown by one lip planar surface fully contacting horizontally and cooperatively the other lip planar surface when the panels are assembled, none of the drawings show the first lower lip upper surface of a panel “continuous” with the second lower lip portion upper surface of the same panel. Figs. 6-7 cannot show this because any relationship between the lips of a single panel cannot be shown in one figure that shows the end locking system and the other shows the long side locking system. And as to Fig. 5B, while at least the figure shows 139 and a 119 lead lines pointing to some structure in the respective panel edge regions, the drawing is much too unclear to distinguish the lower lip portions, and in any case, the claim is drawn to the upper surface of the panel first lower lip portion being continuous with the upper surface of the panel second lower lip portion, and numerals 139and 119 point to different panels.
3) The upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion “contiguous with each other such as to extend continuously” along the third or fourth edge and the first or second edge must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claim 24 because Figs. 6 only shows the relationship between the first upper and lower lips, Fig. 7 only shows the relationship between the second lower and upper lips, and fig. 5B is too unclear to show almost any relationship between the lip upper surfaces, much less one in which they are “contiguous with each other such as to extend continuously along the third or fourth edge and the first or second edge”.
4) The lower surface of the first upper lip portion and a lower surface of the second upper lip portion “contiguous with each other such as to extend continuously” along the other of the third or fourth edge and the other of the first or second edge must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from claim 25. No new matter should be entered.
5) Figs. 12-13 are objected to because the structure shown is identical to the structure shown in prior art figures 1-3. The panels of Figs. 12-13 should apparently look different at least because the prior art panel does not have any lip portions.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 19-32 and 39 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 19 recites an upper edge portion of one of the third or fourth edge comprises a first lower lip portion configured to cooperate with a first upper lip portion of an upper edge portion of the other of the third or fourth edge of an adjacent panel when the edges are in locking position, an upper edge portion of one of the first or second edge comprises a second lower lip portion configured to cooperate with a second upper lip portion of an upper edge portion of the other of the first or second edge of an adjacent panel when the edges are in locking position, and an upper surface of the first lower lip portion configured to cooperate with the first upper lip portion, wherein an upper surface of the second lower lip portion is configured to cooperate with the second upper lip portion, which is confusing. Why does the limitation reciting the cooperation between the lip portions happen when the edges are in locking position, but the cooperation between the first lower lip upper surface and first upper lip is not recites as being when the edges are in locking position? The same applies to the recitation of the second lower lip upper surface cooperating with the second upper lip.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 19 and 26-31 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Schulte (10,214,916).
19. Schulte discloses a set of similar or essentially identical building panels, comprising:
a first mechanical locking system (9 and the projection above 9 on panel 2, Fig. 2) at respective parallel and opposite third and fourth edges (13,14) being long edges of the panel, the first mechanical locking system configured to cooperate for horizontal and vertical locking between two adjacent building panels, and
a second locking system (9 and the projection above 9 on panel 2, Fig. 1 or 7) at respective parallel and opposite first and second edges, configured to cooperate for horizontal and vertical locking of two adjacent building panels
wherein an upper edge portion of one of the third edge or fourth edge, comprises a first lower lip portion LL1 configured to cooperate with a first upper lip portion UL1 of an upper edge portion of the other of the third and fourth edge of an adjacent panel when said third and fourth edges are assembled in locking position (Fig. 2 shows such first upper and lower lips represented by upper and lower projections located at the upper edge), wherein an upper edge portion of one of the first or the second edge comprises a second lower lip LL2 portion configured to cooperate which a second upper lip UL2 of an upper edge portion of the other of the first and second edge of an adjacent panel when said first and second edges are assembled in locking position (Fig. 7 shows such first upper and lower lips represented by upper and lower projections located at the upper edge),
wherein an upper (top) surface of the first lower lip portion is configured to cooperate (cooperate horizontally, planarly, and fully) with the first upper lip portion (the top surface cooperates horizontally, planarly, and fully with the planar face of the first upper lip portion that faces and contacts the top surface), and is at least partially planar, Figs. 1-17,
wherein an upper (top) surface of the second lower lip portion is configured to cooperate with the second upper lip portion (the bottom surface thereof) and is at least partially planar, Figs. 1-17,
wherein the upper (top) surface of the first lower lip portion is continuous, as broadly recited, with the upper (top) surface of the second lower lip portion at least because they form a generally continuous right angle, Figs. 1-17.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figs. 1-2, (Schulte)
26. Schulte teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching a lower surface of the first upper lip portion is configured to bear on the upper surface of the first lower lip portion when adjacent panels are assembled in locking position by means of the first locking system (see annotated figs. 1-2).
27. Schulte teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching a lower surface of the second upper lip portion is configured to bear on the upper surface of the second lower lip portion when adjacent panels are assembled in locking position by means of the second locking system (see annotated figs. 1-2).
28. Schulte teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching the first and second locking systems each comprise a locking tongue and a tongue groove (the tongue and groove located blow the lips, annotated figs. 1-2), wherein said lip portions are disposed between a respective of said locking tongue or tongue groove and the front surface of the panel.
29. Schulte discloses the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching wherein said upper edge portion of the first edge and third edge, each comprises a vertically extending edge portion extending from the front surface followed by a contiguous bend inwards towards a centre of the panel (as shown in Figs. 1-2, there is vertical portions 5 and 17, then below that an angled relief portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to also include such structure on the second and fourth edges for addition relief and easier assembly.
30. Schulte discloses the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching wherein said upper edge portion of the first edge and third edge each comprises a vertically extending edge portion extending from the front surface followed by a contiguous bend outwards away from the centre of the panel (as shown in Figs. 1-2, there is vertical portions 5 and 17, then below that an angled relief portion).
31. Schulte discloses the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching at least one pocket is formed between the first edge of a panel and the second edge of an adjacent panel when the panels are configured in assembled position, said pocket configured to receive a sealant (as shown in Fig. 2, there is vertical portion 17, then below that an angled relief portion forming a pocket).
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 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.
Claims 20-25 and 33-39 – are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte (10,214,916) in view of Schäfers (11,608,646).
20. Schulte teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching the upper surface of the first lower lip portion is a planar horizontal surface, and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion is a planar horizontal surface (while the drawings cannot be used to teach dimensions, at least figs. 1-2 show a generally planar horizontal surface in a side view (and because the contacting surfaces are clearly shown at the same height (as is typical for a floor panel locking edge lip/tongue, etc.), the surfaces correspondingly need to be the same continuous horizontal plane), Fig. 17 shows the panels generally planar and horizontally oriented in a top view, Fig. 3 clearly shows the first lower lip upper surface (the surface to the right of numeral 5) as a planar surface (each panel shows such surface as a line parallel to border side 5), and the written description as a whole indicates that the mating lips form fully planar mating surfaces for “vertical and horizontal locking”. Should Applicant disagree that the Schulte horizontal surface is planar, first and second Schafers lip (LL1 and LL2) surfaces (the surfaces that meet at 67/68, fig. 7), lie in common plane 66. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Schulte horizontal surface to be planar for tight locking.
PNG
media_image2.png
217
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figs. 6-7 (Schaefers)
21. Schulte teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching the upper surface of the first lower lip portion is continuous in the same plane with the upper surface of the second lower lip portion (Figs. 1-3 and 17). Should Applicant disagree that the Schulte lip surfaces are continuous in the same plane, Schafers teaches an upper surface (the surface where 67 and 68 come together) of a first lower lip LL1 are continuous in the same plane 66 with an upper surface (the surface where 67 and 68 come together) of a second lower lip portion LL2, Fig. 7, as 66 is a “plane” and the surfaces are fully in the plane. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the Schulte lip surfaces to be in the same plane for tight locking.
22. Schulte teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion define a common, continuous plane (Figs. 1-3 and 17). Should Applicant disagree that the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion define a common, continuous plane,
Schafers teaches a first lower lip portion LL1 and upper surface (the surface where 68 and 67 meet in fig. 7) of a second lower lip LL2 define a common, continuous plane 66. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion define a common, continuous plane for tight locking.
23. Schulte teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion define a continuous datum plane (Figs. 1-3 and 17). 23. Should Applicant disagree that the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion define a continuous datum plane, Schafers teaches an upper surface of a first lower lip portion LL1 and an upper surface of a second lower lip portion LL2 define a continuous datum plane 66. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion to define a continuous datum plane for positive locking.
24. Schulte teaches the set according to claim 19, Schulte further teaching the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion are contiguous with each other such as to extend continuously along the third or fourth edge and the first or second edge, Figs. 1-3 and 17. Should Applicant disagree that Schulte teaches the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion are contiguous with each other such as to extend continuously along the third or fourth edge and the first or second edge, Schafer teaches an upper surface of a first lower lip portion LL1 and an upper surface of a second lower lip portion LL2 are contiguous with each other such as to extend continuously along the third or fourth edge and the first or second edge in that the Schafer lip portions are formed contiguous with each other to thereby continuously define plane 66. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion to be contiguous with each other such as to extend continuously along the third or fourth edge and the first or second edge for locking strength.
25. Schulte teaches the set according to claim 24, Schulte further teaching a lower surface of the first upper lip portion and a lower surface of the second upper lip portion are contiguous with each other such as to extend continuously along the other of the third or fourth edge and the other of the first or second edge, figs. 1-3, 17 and description of the lip relationship given in claim 19). Should Applicant disagree that Schulte teaches a lower surface of the first upper lip portion and a lower surface of the second upper lip portion are contiguous with each other such as to extend continuously along the other of the third or fourth edge and the other of the first or second edge, Schafer teaches a lower surface of a first upper lip portion LL1 and a lower surface of a second upper lip portion LL2 are contiguous with each other such as to extend continuously along the other of the third or fourth edge and the other of the first or second edge in that the Schafer lip portions are formed contiguous with each other to thereby continuously define plane 66. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the lower surface of the first upper lip portion and a lower surface of the second upper lip portion are contiguous with each other such as to extend continuously along the other of the third or fourth edge and the other of the first or second edge for locking strength.
33. Schulte discloses a set of similar or essentially identical building panels, comprising:
a first mechanical locking system (9 and the projection above 9 on panel 2, Fig. 2) at respective parallel and opposite third and fourth edges (13,14) being long edges of the panel, the first mechanical locking system configured to cooperate for horizontal and vertical locking between two adjacent building panels, and
a second locking system (9 and the projection above 9 on panel 2, Fig. 1 or 7) at respective parallel and opposite first and second edges, configured to cooperate for horizontal and vertical locking of two adjacent building panels
wherein an upper edge portion of one of the third edge or fourth edge, comprises a first lower lip portion configured to cooperate with a first upper lip portion of an upper edge portion of the other of the third and fourth edge of an adjacent panel when said third and fourth edges are assembled in locking position (Fig. 2 shows such first upper and lower lips represented by upper and lower projections located at the upper edge),
wherein an upper edge portion of one of the first or the second edge comprises a second lower lip portion configured to cooperate which a second upper lip portion of an upper edge portion of the other of the first and second edge of an adjacent panel when said first and second edges are assembled in locking position (Fig. 7 shows such first upper and lower lips represented by upper and lower projections located at the upper edge),
wherein an upper surface of the first lower lip portion is configured to cooperate with the first upper lip portion and is at least partially planar, wherein an upper surface of the second lower lip portion is configured to cooperate with the second upper lip portion and is at least partially planar, Figs. 1-2.
Schulte teaches a first lower lip upper surface ll1us and a second lower lip upper surface ll2us defining a continuous plane when the panel edges are locked (figs. 1-2 show the panels locked and a continuous plane defined, as both are show as being the same distance from the panel top surface, and Schulte also teaches that it is old in the art for panels to “have continuous grooves on a longitudinal side and on an end side, and on the respectively opposite longitudinal side or end side continuous tongues”, col. 1, lines 24-27).
Should Applicant disagree that Sculte teaches the first lower lip upper surface ll1us and a second lower lip upper surface ll2us defining a continuous plane when the panel edges are locked, Schaefers, fig. 7, teaches a first lower lip LL1 upper surface defining a continuous plane 66 when the panel edges are locked, col. 10, lines 15-46. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define such a plane when the panel edges are locked so that “surfaces of both pairs of edges…are in sealing contact”, col. 10, lines 42-45.
34. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 33, Schulte further teaching the upper surface of the first lower lip portion is a planar horizontal surface, and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion is a planar horizontal surface, figs. 1-2.
35-36. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 33, Schulte further teaching the upper surface of the first lower lip portion and the upper surface of the second lower lip portion define a continuous datum plane (Schulte teaches the upper surfaces define a continuous datum plane as shown in the drawings and Schulte in view of Schäfers teaching the Schulte upper surfaces on Schafers datum plane 66).
37. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 33, Schulte further teaching a lower surface of the first upper lip portion is configured to bear on the upper surface of the first lower lip portion when adjacent panels are assembled in locking position by means of the first locking system, and a lower surface of the second upper lip portion is configured to bear on the upper surface of the second lower lip portion when adjacent panels are assembled in locking position by means of the second locking system because as shown in figs. 1-3, such that a bearing relationship is present due to the direct contact of the adjacent surfaces.
38. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 33, Schulte further teaching a lower surface of the first upper lip portion (the surface planarly and fully contacting the first lower lip upper surface, figs. 1-3) and a lower surface of the second upper lip portion (the surface that contacts planarly, horizontally, and fully, the second lower lip planar upper surface, figs. 1-3) are continuous with each other at least because they form a generally continuous right angle (the lips are generally orthogonal relative to each other and substantially unbroken at the corners figs. 1-3).
39. Schulte in view of Schäfers teaches the set according to claim 33, Schulte further teaching the lower surface of the first lower lip portion is planar and horizontal, Figs. 1-17, Schafers additionally teaching the lip is horizontal.
Claim 32 – is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte in view of Schafers and in further view of Hannig (8,375,672)
32. The references do not expressly disclose the pocket extends vertically below the first and second lower lip portions. Hannig, Fig. 4, teaches a pocket 19 extends vertically below a lip portion (the portion directly above 19 is essentially a lip). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pocket to extend vertically below (instead of above) the first and second lower lip portions to allow more panel edge surface contact area while still providing a space for sealant.
In addition, this limitation appears to be a matter of design choice, as the pocket is disclosed as being either below, above, or both above and below the lip portions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Drawings
“guidelines require only that the "applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented”, paragraph 77 making “the subject matter clear”
Paragraph 77 refers to the written specification, not to the drawings, the guidelines requiring Applicant furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of, in this case, what structure is represented by the first and second lower lip upper surfaces of the panel being continuous. Fig. 6 shows the first lower lip, Fig. 7 shows the second lower lip, but neither drawing shows the lips continuous at least because this requires a drawing showing the lips together.
“The first and second lower lip portions 119, 139 may form a continuous right- angle with each other.”
While it is understood that the first lower lip portion can form a right angle with the second lower lip portion as disclosed in the written specification in that they can be oriented orthogonally to each other, no definition or drawing is provided explaining what is meant by a “continuous” right angle, and in any case, the claim does not recite just the lips continuous, the claim recites the lip upper surfaces being continuous. No first and second lower lip upper surfaces are apparently shown at all, much less the surfaces being “continuous”.
“The first and second lower lip portions 139, 119 are also illustrated in Figs. 5A and 5B. Together, the description and the figures make clear what is meant by "continuous.”"
While at least Fig. 5B shows 139 and a 119 lead lines pointing to some structure in the respective panel edge regions, the drawing is much too unclear to distinguish the lower lip portions, and in any case, while Fig. 5B (as opposed to figs. 6-7) at least apparently shows both lower lips, it does not show the relationship between them being continuous. Finally, while the written specification does disclose that the lip portions may form a “continuous right angle with each other”, it is not understood what it is about the right angle formed by the first and second lower lips that makes it continuous. In any case, the claim does not recite the lower lip portions form a continuous right angle, the claim recites the upper surface of the first lower lip portion is continuous with the upper surface of the second lower lip portion.
“an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood the claimed subject matter of Claims 24 and 25” because of “the description of the first and second lower lip portions 139, 119, and of the first and second upper lip portions 149, 129”,
The above rationale applies to the claimed subject matter of claims 24 and 25.
The 112 rejections
“the specification describes and the figures show upper surfaces of the first and second lower lip portions 119, 139 which are continuous with each other. In one example, "[t]he first and second lower and upper lip portions may form the shape of a continuous rectangle [which] may extend along a circumference of the panel as shown in FIG. 5A." Published Application, paragraph [0077].
The rejection is withdrawn because while the specification discloses the first and second lower and upper lip portions form a continuous right angle as indicated, and the claim recites the upper surface of the first lower lip is continuous with the upper surface of the second lower lip, it is understood how the upper surfaces of the lips might also form a right angle continuous at least in that there is no break in the form of, for example a gap, between the right angle legs/lip surfaces.
103 rejection
“Schulte's drawings are not indicated as being to-scale’
Applicants argument is taken, Examiner has indicated how the claimed subject matter is taught at least by the Schulte drawings, and Schaefers also teaches the claimed subject matter.
“In Schäfers, the sealing action is directly related to the curved shape of the groove bottom 28 (and its rounded transitions). The core material is designed to swell when exposed to moisture to create the seal, unlike prior systems which included a separate seal”
In response to applicant's argument that (see above), 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). Schafers is used solely for the teaching indicated in the rejection, the continuous plane, not sealing.
“To the extent an ordinarily skilled artisan sought to somehow modify Schulte in view of Schäfers "so that 'surfaces of both pairs of edges are in sealing contact" as proposed (which Applicant disputes), the artisan would have provided Schäfers' convexly curved sealing groove…”
In response to applicant's argument that (see above), 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). Schafers is used solely for the teaching indicated in the rejection, the continuous plane, not sealing.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (sealing contact) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Sealing contact is not an issue for Schulte. Schulte has contacting planar surfaces.
“New Claim 39 recites "wherein a lower surface of the first lower lip portion is planar and horizontal."”
As indicated in this rejection, the Schulte lower surface of the first lower lip portion is planar and horizontal. The Schulte surfaces are clearly not “slanted” as argued in any of the drawings and a slant is not taught in the written disclosure. Applicant’s indication of where such structure/purpose is found in the written specification would be helpful.
Finally, while fully comprehending the relationship between the claimed upper surfaces is difficult because the drawings are incomplete, to promote compact prosecution, Applicant is encouraged to indicate why the common continuous plane, etc. language does not read on any of the below cited but not relied on references. Applicant’s first and second lower lip upper surfaces defining a common, continuous plane is no different than the structure that exists when a common wooden tongue and groove floor panel is assembled and locked as indicated below.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boo (10,017,948) teaches it is exceedingly old in the art for a first “lip” upper surface to be on a common continuous plane with a second “lip” upper surface when the panel edges are locked, col. 8, lines 31-65, fig. 6A and 7B.
Oldorff (8,919,063) teaches it is exceedingly old in the art for a first lip 9 upper surface (the upper surface of 9, Fig. 1) to be on a common continuous plane with a second lip (the lip shown labeled as 20 in fig. 2) upper surface (the surface exposed in fig. 2) when the panel edges are locked, col. 8, lines 31-65, fig. 6A and 7B.
Karwisch (1,602,267) teaches it is exceedingly old in the art for an upper surface (the surface of lip 5 shown in fig. 4) of a first lower lip portion 5 and the upper surface (the surface of 7 shown in of the second lower lip portion define a common, continuous plane, Figs. 1-4.
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 DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached on 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL J KENNY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights