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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
- Reference element “10” has been used to designate both “a first curved portion” and “a second curved portion”. Regarding the specification para. [0136], reference element 10 is a first curved portion and a in para. [0144] reference element 10 is a second curved portion 10.
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the specification, para. [0132], there is no clear description for figs. 25A-25D only fig. 25 which there is no fig. 25.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears in line 3 “the upperside” should be “an upperside”.
It appears in line 6, “the vertical direction on the underside” should be “a vertical direction on an underside”.
In regards to claim 7, it appears “characterized” should be “wherein” so the claim language is consistent with the other claims.
In regards to claim 12, “its” needs to be replaced with the feature that is being described so the claim is more clear.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Claim 5 & 6 introduces additional reference elements that aren’t mentioned in the previous dependent claim. Claim 5 has been examined as depending from claim 4 and claim 6 has been examined as depending from claim 1.
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 1-7, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schacht et al. (US 8286403).
In regards to claim 1, Schacht discloses a finishing profile for a floor covering, wherein the profile comprises:
A finishing strip, wherein said finishing strip comprises a substrate (as seen in fig. 20, reference element 7) and wherein said finishing strip comprises a top layer (as seen in fig. 20, reference element 12) on the upper side of said substrate 7 (as seen in fig. 20), which top layer 12 comprises at least a decorative layer (as seen in fig. 20);
A rail, wherein a main region (as seen in fig. 20, reference element 2) of said rail is connected to an attachment region (as seen in fig. 20, reference element 8) of said finishing strip, wherein said attachment region 8 extends in the vertical direction on the underside of said substrate 7 (as seen in fig. 20);
wherein said finishing strip comprises a first curved portion (as seen in fig. 20, near reference element 9), wherein said substrate 7 and said top layer 12 are uniformly curved (as seen in fig. 20).
In regards to claim 2, Schacht discloses the claimed invention, wherein said main region 2 comprises two upwardly directed legs (as seen in fig. 20, reference element 13), wherein said downwardly directed leg of said attachment region 8 is attached between said two upwardly directed legs 13 of said main region 2 (as seen in fig. 20).
In regards to claim 3, Schacht discloses the claimed invention, wherein said rail comprises at least one clamping region (as seen in fig. 20, reference element 14) that is in one piece with said main region 2 and extends in the horizontal direction along at least one edge of said main region 2 and wherein said clamping region 14 is configured for clamping a floor panel between said clamping region and said first curved portion (as seen in fig. 20, below reference element 9).
In regards to claim 4, Schacht discloses the claimed invention, wherein said finishing strip comprises a first flank region (as seen in fig. 20, near reference element 9), wherein said first flank region extends in the horizontal direction along a first edge (as seen in fig. 20, reference element 9, col. 15, lines 59-62) of said attachment region 8 up to said first curved portion (as seen in fig. 20).
In regards to claim 5, as best understood, Schacht discloses the claimed invention, wherein said finishing strip comprises a second flank region, wherein said second flank region extends in the horizontal direction along an opposite edge of said first edge of said attachment region 8 (as seen in fig. 20, col. 15, lines 59-62).
In regards to claim 6, as best understood, Schacht discloses the claimed invention, wherein said finishing strip comprises a second curved portion (as seen in fig. 20, below reference element 51), wherein said substrate 7 and said top layer 12 are uniformly curved and wherein said second curved portion is located at a distal end of said second flank region (as seen in fig. 20).
In regards to claim 7, Schacht discloses the claimed invention, characterized in that said finishing strip comprises at least one nose region (as seen in fig. 20, reference element 11), wherein the angle between a flat region on a decorative side of said finishing profile and an upper surface of said nose region is capable of being 45° or less and wherein said nose region 8 is in line with said second curved portion (as seen in fig. 20).
In regards to claim 16, Schacht discloses the claimed invention, wherein the combination of substrate and top layer are curved together (as seen in fig. 20).
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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schacht et al. (US 8286403).
In regards to claim 8, Schacht discloses the claimed invention, Schacht discloses a nose region 11 (as seen in fig. 20).
However, Schacht current embodiment (fig. 20) does not disclose a main region and said support region that are one piece and support the nose.
Schacht teaches of a main region (as seen in fig. 39, left portion of reference element 75) and a support region (as seen in fig. 39, right portion of reference element 75) that are one piece (as seen in fig. 39). Schacht also teaches that various combinations can be achieved with nose portion (col. 33, lines 9-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a different Schacht’s embodiment without sacrificing support of the attachment region 6 while the main region and support region support the nose region. The examiner is using support as defined as something that prevents it from falling, in this case Schacht’s support region (fig. 39) is pushing up against Schacht’s nose region 11 (fig. 20) and prevent it from sliding.
In regards to claim 9, Schacht discloses the claimed invention, Schacht discloses a connection area that is located between said main region and said support region (as seen in fig. 39, reference element 78).
However, Schacht does not disclose a thickness that is less than 15% of the maximum thickness of said support region and/or is less than 1.5mm.
Although Schacht does not disclose the exact range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of less than 15% of the maximum thickness of said support region and/or less than 1.5mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223. When one of ordinary skill would recognize the known effect attributed to a claimed parameter, then it is logical to conclude that changes to that parameter produce expected results. In this case, it is expected that having a thickness less than 1.5mm uses less material which lowers manufacturing cost, and ease of use to duplicate.
In regards to claim 10, Schacht discloses the claimed invention, wherein said second flank region comprises a recess, and in that said support region comprises at least one protruding portion (as seen in fig. 39, reference element 82) that is sunk in said recess of said second flank region (as seen in fig. 39).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schacht et al. (US 8286403).
In regards to claim 11, Schacht discloses the claimed invention, wherein Schacht discloses a notch and a supporting portion (as seen in fig. 9, reference element 13A), however Schacht does not teach that the notch is in the supporting region 75 but in the nose region 8. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the location of the notch and support portion, which would yield predictable results of a support region 75 with a notch and a nose region 8 having a support portion to enhance the rigidity of the overall finishing strip and resistance to slipping when a downward load is applied to the top layer.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schacht et al. (US 8286403) in view of Nelson (US 6230385).
In regards to claim 12, Schacht discloses the claimed invention, However, Schacht does not disclose an insert on its underside, wherein the insert is attached to the substrate and wherein the said insert comprises at least the attachment region of the finishing strip.
Nelson teaches of an insert (as seen fig. 2, reference element 9) on its underside (as seen in fig. 3) wherein the insert is attached to the substrate (as seen in fig. 3, reference element 9) and the insert comprises of at least the attachment region of the finishing strip (as seen in fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place an insert underneath the substrate to allow the use of different materials with stronger properties to better support the substrate, legs of the main region, stability and to better support the overall finishing strip.
In regards to claim 13, Schacht in view of Nelson discloses the claimed invention, Schacht discloses a thickness wherein a combination of a substrate and a top layer (as seen in fig. 9).
Although Schacht in view of Nelson does not disclose the exact range, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of at most 5.2 mm combining both the substrate and top layer since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223. When one of ordinary skill would recognize the known effect attributed to a claimed parameter, then it is logical to conclude that changes to that parameter produce expected results. In this case, it is expected that having a maximum thickness of 5.2 mm between the top layer and substrate would give plenty of room below the substrate to add the rail configuration and have the correct height for the flanges rest on the floor panel.
In regards to claim 14, Schacht in view of Nelson discloses the claimed invention, However, Schacht in view of Nelson does not disclose wherein the insert is adhered to the substrate by a polyurethane adhesive. Nelson teaches of using friction to keep the insert in place by having the legs at an angle less than 90 for better grip (as seen in fig. 8).
Schacht does teach of using using polyurethane glue (col. 11, lines 65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyurethane glue to adhere the insert to the substrate to increase the bond while still offering the insert flexibility and durability.
In regards to claim 15, Schacht in view of Nelson discloses the claimed invention, Schacht in view of Nelson discloses wherein the finishing strip comprises a first flank region B, wherein said first flank region extends in the horizontal direction along a first edge of said attachment region up to the first curved portion A (as previously mentioned in rejected claim 4),
wherein said finishing strip comprises a second flank region C, wherein said second flank region extends in the horizontal direction along an opposite edge of said first edge of said attachment region (as previously mentioned in rejected claim 5),
wherein the insert comprises a first flange part at a first edge adjacent to the attachment region (as seen in annotated fig. 2, reference element E) and a second flange part at a second edge adjacent to the attachment region (as seen in annotated fig. 2, reference element F), wherein the first flange part E is part of the first flank region (as seen in annotated fig. 2, reference element G) and wherein the second flange part is part of the second flank region (as seen in annotated fig. 2, reference element H). The examiner notes that definition of part of is a portion of something so the flanges of the insert is part of the first flank and second flank portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
464
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARRETT C PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7.30am-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.
/GARRETT CHRISTOPHER PATTERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
