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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 19/104,025, filed 2/14/2025.
Claims 1-16 were amended and claim 17 added, and the abstract was amended in the preliminary amendment.
Claims 1-17 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/15/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 1, line 15, “trough” should be “through”; on page 3, line 18, “claim 1” should be changed to “the claims”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 1, “Floor” should be “A floor”; in claim 1, line 3, “wool;” should be “wool;” and; in claims 2-14, line 1, “Floor” should be “The floor”; in claim 4, line 2, “constraining” should be “constraining layer”; in claim 9, line 3, “plates having a” should be “plates each having the”; and in claim 15, line 2, “a floor” should be “the floor”. 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 9 and 11-12 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.
In claim 9, it is not clear how the individual plates interrelate with the metal sandwich structure rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. By changing “having a metal” to “each having the metal” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 9, line 6, “the sidewall” has no antecedent basis.
In claims 11 and 12, line 2, “the metal stripes” has no antecedent basis.
In claim 12, it is not clear if “a metal structure” in line 3 is referring to the structure of claim 1 or to an additional feature of the claim.
In claim 12, it is not clear if “at least one metal strip” in lines 3-4 is referring to the stripes of lines 2 or to an additional feature of the claim.
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.
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)(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, 7, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hipol(U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. 2023/0085623, E. F. D. 9/14/2021.
Hipol discloses a floor structure/acoustic damping elements of the floor structure(see abstract and Fig. 5) of a building(see abstract) comprising:
(i) a supporting element(2);
(ii) an insulating layer(12, see Figs. 4 and 5) made of mineral wool(see paras. [0035] and [0069]); and
(iii) a constraining layer(11, see Fig. 4) made of a metal sandwich structure comprising a first(14) and a second metal cover layer(16), whereby between the first(14) and the second cover layer(16) a core layer(15) having a corrugated structure is arranged(see Fig. 4), such that between the first cover layer(14) and the core layer(15) first channels(a plurality of the channels, see Fig. 4) and between the second cover layer(16) and the core layer(15) second channels(another plurality of the channels) are formed,
wherein said insulating layer(12) is arranged between said supporting element(2) and said constraining layer(11, see Figs. 4 and 5),
the metal is considered to provide at least some fire protection.
Regarding claim 7, Hipol discloses the floor structure according to claim 1 whereby the core layer(15), in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axes of the channels, has a sinusoidal cross-section(see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, Hipol discloses the floor structure according to claim 1, whereby in between the supporting element(2) and the insulating layer(12), at least one interlayer(9) is arranged, whereby the interlayer (30) is selected from a primer, a mortar(considered adhesive, see para. [0059]) and/or metal tiles.
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.
Claims 2-6, 8, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hipol.
Regarding claim 2, Hipol discloses the floor structure of claim 1 but lacks the specific use of the supporting element.
Applicant’s disclosure sets forth many used for the floor structure(see page 3, line 29 thru page 4, line 2).
Therefore, the specific use of the floor(thereby the supporting element) is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the design requirements of the user.
Regarding claim 3, Hipol discloses the floor structure of claim 1 but lacks the specific properties of the mineral wool.
Applicant’s disclosure sets forth many properties of the mineral wool(see page 6, line 1 thru page 7, line 18).
Therefore, the specific mineral wool and properties thereof is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the design requirements of the user.
Regarding claims 4 and 6, Hipol discloses the floor structure of claim 1 but lacks the specific thickness of the layers.
Applicant’s disclosure sets forth differing thicknesses of the layers(see page 8, line 25-28).
Therefore, the specific mineral wool and properties thereof is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the design requirements of the user.
Regarding claim 5, Hipol discloses the floor structure of claim 1 but lacks the specific material of the constraining layer.
Applicant’s disclosure sets forth that the structure can be made of aluminum or other metals(see page 8, line 17 thru page 9, line 8).
Therefore, the specific material used for the constraining layer is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the design requirements of the user.
Regarding claim 8, Hipol discloses the floor structure of claim 1 but lacks the specific number of channels.
Applicant’s disclosure sets forth a variety of number of channels(see page 7, lines 26-28).
Therefore, the specific number of channels is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the design requirements of the user.
Regarding claim 11, Hipol discloses the floor structure according to claim 1, whereby a coverage of the metal stripes(considered 15, as best understood) is a percentage of the total surface area of the insulating layer but lacks the specific percentage.
The specific coverage by the “metal strips”(15) is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the design requirements of the user.
Regarding claim 14, Hipol discloses the floor structure of claim 1 wherein on top of the constraining layer(11, see Figs. 4 and 5) at least one covering layer(3, see para. [0059]) is arranged but lacks the specific layer.
Applicant’s disclosure sets forth a covering layer which “allows for adapting the floor surface to specific needs(see page 12, line 5-11).
Therefore, the specific covering chosen is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the design requirements of the user.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hipol in view of Parkes(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2014/0020320; cited on PTO 892).
Hipo discloses the floor structure according to claim 1, but lacks the constraining layer is made of several individual plates having a metal sandwich structure, whereby the individual plates are connected to each other with a tongue and groove connection, whereby, the individual plates on each side comprise a groove within the sidewall in which an additional metal tongue is placed that extends into the groove of a neighboring plate.
Parkes discloses a floor structure having individual panels interconnected via grooves and a tongue(62, see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the layer of Hipol with an interconnection, such as disclosed by Parkes, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have allowed for a god interconnection between a large span of panels to provided desirable properties to the floor structure given the intended use of the floor and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 12, Hipol and Parkes disclose the floor structure according to claim 9, whereby the metal stripes(15, as best understood) are arranged such that neighboring individual plates having a metal sandwich structure(see structure of Hipol) are connected via at least one metal stripe(the tongue within the stripes interconnects the plates meeting the claim limitation as best understood).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art of record shows a floor structure having layers and metal strips, nor any motivation to do so.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. AUBREY whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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.
BETH A. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights