DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-19 as originally filed are pending and have been considered 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.
Claim(s) 6, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, at line 4, the recitation “the tiles” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 16 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In particular, the limitation “wherein one or more edges of each of the plurality tiles include an interlocking feature for securing the tile to an adjacent one of the plurality of tiles” would overcome the prior art rejection since no prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches this configuration and such a modification to include the configuration would require modifying the modifier reference and would require impermissible hindsight or piecemeal reconstruction to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Claim 17 depends from claim 16, and is therefore rejected as well.
Claim 18 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. In particular, the limitation “wherein one or more edges of each of the plurality tiles include an interlocking feature for securing the tile to an adjacent one of the plurality of tiles” would overcome the prior art rejection since no prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches this configuration and such a modification to include the configuration would require modifying the modifier reference and would require impermissible hindsight or piecemeal reconstruction to arrive at the claimed subject matter. Claim 19 depends from claim 18, and is therefore objected to as well.
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 of this title, 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) 1-7 and 14, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 2154883 Y) in view of Bassi (US 11285699 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a resilient planar tile (magnetic floor; title) capable of use within a backing mat of an incremental sheet forming (ISF) system having a planar, ferrous metallic rigid plate (the examiner notes that an incremental sheet forming (ISF) system having a planar, ferrous metallic rigid plate is not being positively claimed), the resilient tile comprising: a. a first material layer (3) having a planar, upper compressible and resilient material surface (upper surface of 3; it is understood that the surface is of a compressible and resilient material; para 10-11) and a lower planar surface (lower surface of 3); b. a second material layer (4) having planar, upper and lower surfaces (figure 2), the lower surface being magnetic (para 10); wherein the lower magnetic layer of the second material layer is releasably secured to the rigid plate of the ISF system (it is understood that the magnetic lower surface of the second material layer is capable of being releasably secured to the rigid plate of the ISF system).
Wang does not specifically disclose and c. a third layer for adhering the lower planar surface of the first layer to the upper planar surface of second layer.
Bassi discloses a surface covering (abstract) including and c. a third layer (7) for adhering the lower planar surface of the first layer to the upper planar surface of second layer (figure 1)
Therefore, from the teaching of Bassi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the floor assembly of Wang to include a third layer for adhering the lower planar surface of the first layer to the upper planar surface of second layer, as taught by Bassi, in order to provide an optimal bond between the adjacent layers to facilitate assembly and prevent unintended detachment.
Regarding claim 2, Wang does not specifically disclose the lower surface of the second layer material comprises a magnetic sheet material.
Bassi discloses a surface covering (abstract) wherein the lower surface of the second layer material comprises a magnetic sheet material (6; col. 4, line 65).
Therefore, from the teaching of Bassi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the floor assembly of Wang such that the lower surface of the second layer material comprises a magnetic sheet material, as taught by Bassi, in order to provide a uniform magnetic surface that would provide a more predictable and consistent magnetic attraction to facilitate assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Wang does not specifically disclose the upper surface of the first material layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polyurethane, neoprene, and rubber.
Bassi discloses a surface covering (abstract) wherein the upper surface of the first material layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polyurethane, neoprene, and rubber (col. 11, line 35).
Therefore, from the teaching of Bassi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the floor assembly of Wang such that the upper surface of the first material layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polyurethane, neoprene, and rubber, as taught by Bassi, in order to provide a resilient material, for improved toughness and strength characteristics, for prolonged usage.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches edges of the tile form a polygonal shape (figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the polygonal shape is a hexagon with equal edge dimensions (figure 2).
Regarding claim 6, Wang teaches said resulting resilient tile is configured and dimensioned in the shape of a planar hexagonal polygon having edges of equal length (figure 2), and wherein the magnetic surface layer has a magnetic strength (it is understood that the magnetic surface would have a magnetic strength) such that the tile remains secured to the flat rigid plate without slippage (it is understood that the tile is capable of remaining secured to the flat rigid plate without slippage).
With regards to the limitation that the product is used “when the machine tool is in operation yet the tile is removable from the flat plate when the ISF system in not in operation”, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Wang teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Wang as modified does not specifically disclose a plurality of planar tiles each in accordance with the planar tile of claim 4, wherein: the plurality of tiles are of the same size and configuration; and the plurality of tiles are arranged together in a packed configuration and configured to be releasably secured to the rigid plate of the ISF system.
Bassi discloses a surface covering (abstract) including a plurality of planar tiles (2a) wherein: the plurality of tiles are of the same size and configuration (figure 8); and the plurality of tiles are arranged together in a packed configuration (figure 8) and configured to be releasably secured to the rigid plate of the ISF system (it is understood that the magnetic surface of the tile would allow them to be releasably secured to the rigid plate of the ISF system).
Therefore, from the teaching of Bassi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the floor assembly of Wang such that the plurality of tiles are of the same size and configuration; and the plurality of tiles are arranged together in a packed configuration and configured to be releasably secured to the rigid plate of the ISF system, as taught by Bassi, in order to provide an assemblage of tiles across a greater surface area depending on the intended use and size of the application.
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches the polygonal shape is a hexagon with equal edge dimensions (figure 2).
Claim(s) 8, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 2154883 Y) in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2012136013 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches a resilient planar tile (magnetic floor; title) capable of use for a backing mat of an incremental sheet forming (ISF) system having a planar, ferrous metallic rigid plate (the examiner notes that an incremental sheet forming (ISF) system having a planar, ferrous metallic rigid plate is not being positively claimed), the resilient tile comprising: a. a first material layer (3) having a planar, upper compressible and resilient material surface (upper surface of 3; it is understood that the surface is of a compressible and resilient material; para 10-11) and a lower planar surface (lower surface of 3); b. a second material layer (4) having planar, upper and lower surfaces (figure 2), the lower surface being magnetic (para 10).
Wang does not specifically disclose a third planar stiffening material layer having upper and lower surfaces, the stiffening material layer positioned between the lower surface of the first material layer and the upper surface of the second material layer; d. a fourth layer for permanently adhering the lower planar surface of the first material layer to the upper surface of the stiffening material layer.
Zhang et al. teaches a tile (abstract) including a third planar stiffening material layer (502) having upper and lower surfaces (figure 5), the stiffening material layer positioned between the lower surface of the first material layer and the upper surface of the second material layer (in the combination, it is understood that the stiffening material layer of Zhang et al. would be positioned between the lower surface of the first material layer and the upper surface of the second material layer of Wang); d. a fourth layer (501) for permanently adhering the lower planar surface of the first material layer to the upper surface of the stiffening material layer (figure 5).
Therefore, from the teaching of Zhang et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the floor assembly of Wang to include a third planar stiffening material layer having upper and lower surfaces, the stiffening material layer positioned between the lower surface of the first material layer and the upper surface of the second material layer; d. a fourth layer for permanently adhering the lower planar surface of the first material layer to the upper surface of the stiffening material layer, as taught by Zhang et al., in order to provide an optimal bond between the adjacent layers to facilitate assembly and prevent unintended detachment.
In addition, Wang as modified does not specifically disclose e. a fifth layer for permanently adhering the lower surface of the stiffening layer to the upper surface of the second material layer. However, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the apparatus to have a duplicate layer for permanently adhering the lower surface of the stiffening layer to the upper surface of the second material layer, since such a modification would have only involved a mere duplication of a component. Absent any persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed duplicate part is significant, a duplicate part is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include second a layer for permanently adhering the lower surface of the stiffening layer to the upper surface of the second material layer, in order to provide an optimal bond between the adjacent layers to facilitate assembly and prevent unintended detachment between layers.
Claim(s) 9-13 and 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 2154883 Y) in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2012136013 A1) and further in view of Bassi (US 11285699 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Wang does not specifically disclose the lower surface of the second layer material comprises a magnetic sheet material.
Bassi discloses a surface covering (abstract) wherein the lower surface of the second layer material comprises a magnetic sheet material (6; col. 4, line 65).
Therefore, from the teaching of Bassi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the floor assembly of Wang such that the lower surface of the second layer material comprises a magnetic sheet material, as taught by Bassi, in order to provide a uniform magnetic surface that would provide a more predictable and consistent magnetic attraction to facilitate assembly.
Regarding claim 10, Wang does not specifically disclose the upper surface of the first material layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polyurethane, neoprene, and rubber.
Bassi discloses a surface covering (abstract) wherein the upper surface of the first material layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polyurethane, neoprene, and rubber (col. 11, line 35).
Therefore, from the teaching of Bassi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the floor assembly of Wang such that the upper surface of the first material layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of polyurethane, neoprene, and rubber, as taught by Bassi, in order to provide a resilient material, for improved toughness and strength characteristics, for prolonged usage.
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches edges of the tile form a polygonal shape (figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches the polygonal shape is a hexagon with equal edge dimensions (figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Wang as modified does not specifically disclose a plurality of planar tiles each in accordance with the planar tile of claim 4, wherein: the plurality of tiles are of the same size and configuration; and the plurality of tiles are arranged together in a packed configuration and configured to be releasably secured to the rigid plate of the ISF system.
Bassi discloses a surface covering (abstract) including a plurality of planar tiles (2a) wherein: the plurality of tiles are of the same size and configuration (figure 8); and the plurality of tiles are arranged together in a packed configuration (figure 8) and configured to be releasably secured to the rigid plate of the ISF system (it is understood that the magnetic surface of the tile would allow them to be releasably secured to the rigid plate of the ISF system).
Therefore, from the teaching of Bassi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the floor assembly of Wang such that the plurality of tiles are of the same size and configuration; and the plurality of tiles are arranged together in a packed configuration and configured to be releasably secured to the rigid plate of the ISF system, as taught by Bassi, in order to provide an assemblage of tiles across a greater surface area depending on the intended use and size of the application.
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches the polygonal shape is a hexagon with equal edge dimensions (figure 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to tiled backings in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights