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 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.
Claim(s) 7, 10 is/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.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “0.5 to 5°”, and the claim also recites “1 to 3°” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “0.1 to 1 mm”, and the claim also recites “0.1 to 0.5 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over D’Luzansky (US Pat. 5,052,158).
Regarding claim 1, D’Luzansky discloses a flooring tile (Abstract, lines 1-4: “An improved modular and cushion forming interlocking floor covering which is light weight, easy to assemble, disassemble and to store is composed of a plurality of panels”), comprising:
a tile top (Fig. 8, upper covering 96);
a tile bottom (Fig. 8, lower covering 98);
a lateral border, comprising tenons alternating with mortises, the tenons and mortises provided to interlock with mortises and tenons, respectively, of a neighbouring flooring tile (Fig. 4, the edge of panel 12a comprises substantially concave and convex portions when viewed from above that mate with portions of an adjoining tile);
wherein each tenon has a front butting face and each mortise has a rear butting face; the front butting faces and the rear butting faces extending from the tile top to the tile bottom (Fig. 4, faces 40a, 42a);
each one the front butting faces and the rear butting faces having a top face portion adjacent the tile top and a bottom face portion adjacent the tile bottom, wherein the flooring tile comprises tenons or mortises, the bottom face portion of which is recessed with respect to the top face portion (Fig. 4, the sidewall comprising faces 40a, 42a is at least partially tapered from the top edge to the bottom edge).
Regarding claim 2, D’Luzansky discloses wherein 50% or more of the tenons or mortises have the bottom face portion recessed with respect to the top face portion (Fig. 4, each concave and convex portion comprises a tapered surface).
Regarding claim 3, D’Luzansky discloses wherein each one of the tenons has the bottom face portion recessed with respect to the top face portion. (See Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, D’Luzansky discloses wherein each one of the mortises has the bottom face portion recessed with respect to the top face portion (See Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, D’Luzansky discloses wherein the front butting faces and the rear butting faces are straight in the direction from the top face portion to the bottom face portion (Fig. 4, faces 40a, 42a are flat surfaces having a constant slope).
Regarding claim 6, D’Luzansky discloses wherein the front butting faces of the tenons having the bottom face portion recessed with respect to the top face portion or the rear butting faces of the mortises having the bottom face portion recessed with respect to the top face portion are angled to the surface normal of the flooring tile so as to form the recesses (Fig. 4, instances of the bottom face being recessed from the top surface exist as well as the opposite configuration).
Regarding claim 8, D’Luzansky discloses wherein the front butting faces of the tenons having the bottom face portion recessed with respect to the top face portion or the rear butting faces of the mortises having the bottom face portion recessed with respect to the top face portion have the recessed bottom face portion separated from the top face portion by a shoulder (Fig. 4, either the top or bottom edge will abut the top or bottom edge of an adjoining panel).
Regarding claim 9, D’Luzansky discloses wherein the lateral border of the flooring tile has a top border portion adjacent the tile top and a bottom border portion adjacent the tile bottom and wherein the entire bottom border portion is recessed with respect to the top border portion (Fig. 4, at least one of the bottom edges is recessed with respect to the top edge of a panel).
Regarding claim 11, D’Luzansky discloses wherein the tenons and mortises comprise dovetail tenons and mortises (Fig. 1, concave and convex projections are dovetail-shaped).
Regarding claim 12, D’Luzansky discloses at least three edges forming the lateral border (Fig. 1, more than three concave and convex projections form an edge of each panel).
Regarding claim 16, D’Luzansky discloses a floor covering, comprising a plurality of flooring tiles as claimed in claim 1 (See Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 10, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Luzansky (US Pat. 5,052,158).
Regarding claim 7, D’Luzansky discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the angle to the surface normal of the flooring tile lies in the range from 0.5 to 5°, preferably in the range from 1 to 3°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to designate the slope of the walls to be between 1 and 3° so as not to provide excessive adhesion between adjoining panels for easier disassembly, 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 233.
Regarding claim 10, D’Luzansky discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the recess has a depth amounting to 0.1 to 1 mm, preferably to 0.1 to 0.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to designate the recess depth to be between 0.1 and 0.5 mm so as not to provide excessive adhesion between adjoining panels for easier disassembly, 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 233.
Regarding claim 17, D’Luzansky discloses the claimed invention except for the floor covering being a heterogeneous PVC floor covering in accordance with EN ISO 10582:2017. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the flooring tile out of an ISO approved PVC material as it is commonly used for flooring due to its durability rating, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 18, D’Luzansky as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the floor covering belonging to use class 42 or higher, e.g., use class 43, in accordance with EN ISO 10874:2009. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a PVC of class 42 as it is rated for commercial spaces, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Luzansky (US Pat. 5,052,158) in view of Patki (US Pub. 2020/0199885 A1).
Regarding claim 13, D’Luzansky discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Patki, similarly drawn to a floor element for forming a floor covering, wherein the lateral border of the flooring tile is formed, at least in sections, by milling (Pg. 7, [0084], lines 12-21: “In fact, on a single floor element the upwardly facing surface for a first set can be manufactured by means of a specific processing different from the processing for manufacturing the downwardly facing surfaces of the other set. For example, on a first edge of one floor element two different milling processes may be used, wherein these milling processes can be conducted contemporarily and acting on different parallel lines in order to manufacture the hook shaped element and the chamfered edge”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flooring tile of D’Luzansky to be manufactured using the milling technique of Patki as it is a known method for mass production of flooring units.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Luzansky (US Pat. 5,052,158) in view of Szonyi (US Pub. 10,968,573 B2).
Regarding claim 14, D’Luzansky discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Szonyi, similarly drawn to a flooring element, wherein only the tenons or only the mortises have the bottom face portion recessed with respect to the top face portion (Fig. 5, only recesses 13 are contained within the concave portions).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flooring tile of D’Luzansky to contain the tenons and mortises configuration of Szonyi to better allow the tiles to be lifted directly upwards for removal.
Regarding claim 15, D’Luzansky discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Szonyi, similarly drawn to a flooring element, wherein only the tenons but all the tenons or only the mortises but all the mortises have the bottom face portion recessed with respect to the top face portion (Fig. 5, only recesses 13 are contained within the concave portions).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flooring tile of D’Luzansky to contain the tenons and mortises configuration of Szonyi to better allow the tiles to be lifted directly upwards for removal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights