Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/112,049

GROOVED DECORATIVE ARTICLE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 14, 2025
Examiner
KATCHEVES, BASIL S
Art Unit
3633
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Shaw Industries Group Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
895 granted / 1239 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1271
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
§112
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1239 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 Claims 1and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims recite LVT and LVP and should recite what these materials are, such as Luxury Vinyl Tile at least once. Appropriate correction is required. Drawings 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 groove with increasing width of claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. Claim 17 is 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 17 recites a decorative article having grooves and also recites an additional decorative article which is free of grooves. This is not clear since the claim recites an additional article which should be similar to the article, and the article is defined as having grooves. It appears as though the additional article is not a decorative article since it lacks the structure of the first decorative article. The claim will be examined as best understood. 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. Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. US 2021/0254345 to Douglass. Regarding claims 1, Douglass discloses a sheet (fig. 2A: 245) on a surface (fig. 5C) having a full thickness, a first surface (fig. 2A: side where 250 points) and a second surface (side where 245 points) opposite the first side, a first region (fig. 2A: area where 210 is above) defining a plurality of grooves [0027] which extend along a first axis, the grooves allowing conformity (fig. 5C: see bend around tread), the grooves have a second axis transverse to the first axis and contains full thickness areas between grooves. Regarding LVT (luxury vinyl tile), this is not disclosed but LVP (luxury vinyl plank) is disclosed (abstract). These are functional equivalents of each other. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Douglass by using LVT as this is functionally the same as LVP. This would have been an obvious design choice based on whichever would be easier and more economical to use. Regarding dimensions of the sheet, Douglass discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Douglass to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as a design choice based upon the particular application where larger or smaller stair coverings are needed. Regarding claim 3, the sheet is flat (fig. 5D). Regarding claim 4, a non-woven pattern is disclosed (as no disclosure of a woven pattern is present). Regarding claim 7, Douglass discloses a sheet (fig. 2A: 245) having a full thickness, a first surface (fig. 2A: side where 250 points) and a second surface (side where 245 points) opposite the first side, a first region (fig. 2A: area where 210 is above) defining a plurality of grooves [0027] which extend along a first axis, the grooves allowing conformity (fig. 5C: see bend around tread), the grooves have a second axis transverse to the first axis and contains full thickness areas between grooves and the use of LVP (abstract). Regarding dimensions of the sheet, Douglass discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions. Applicant fails to show criticality for specifically claimed dimensions, therefore it would have been an obvious design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Douglass to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as a design choice based upon the particular application where larger or smaller stair coverings are needed. Regarding claim 8, a second region (fig. 5D: area to right of 1090) on the second side is free of grooves. Regarding claim 9, a third region (fig. 5D: underside, area left of 1090) is on the second side and free of grooves, the first region (area where 1090) points is between the second and third regions along the second axis (length dimension). Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 1. Additionally, the article is bent [0028] around a stair nose of a stair tread (fig. 5C), the first region covering the stair nose (more detailed in fig. 5B: 1006 covering nose). Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 1. Additionally, the first surface is curved along the first region of the sheet (fig. 5C see grooved portion curved over stair nose) and is adhered [0029] between installation surface (stair) and second surface (underside). Regarding claim 14, the adhesive is at the grooves [0028]. Regarding claim 16, a portion of the article is on the riser [0013]. Regarding claim 17, as best understood, claim 17 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 1. Additionally, an article without grooves is adjacent to the article with grooves (fig. 2A: see layer 250 without grooves adjacent to layer 245, which has grooves). Regarding claim 18, the decorative article is used by applying the decorative article to an installation surface (stair fig. 5C) and bending [0028] over the nose. Regarding claim 19, heat is not used for bending, as heat is not disclosed by Douglass. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. US 2021/0254345 to Douglass in view of U.S. Patent No. 1,716,224 to Friderichsen. Regarding claim 2, the grooves (12) are not rectangular. Friderichsen discloses a sheet with rectangular grooves (12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Douglass by using such a shape in order to better grip the underlying surface. Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. US 2021/0254345 to Douglass in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,060,947 to Naka. Regarding claim 15, Douglass does not disclose a groove with increasing width from top side toward bottom side (such as a dovetail). Naka discloses the use of a dovetail groove (fig. 6B: 62b). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Douglass by using such a shape in order to provide a larger grip on the stair. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 10 is allowed. The prior art of record does not disclose a decorative article comprising a sheet having a full thickness, a first surface, and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein across at least a first region of the sheet, the second surface of the sheet defines a plurality of grooves, each groove of the plurality of grooves extending along a first axis the plurality of grooves are configured to permit the first region of the sheet to conform to an application surface each groove of the plurality of grooves has, along a second axis that is transverse to the first axis, an operative width of at least 1 mm across which a depth of the groove is no less than 1/3 of the full thickness of the sheet; and the sheet comprises, between adjacent grooves of the plurality of grooves respective areas defined by the full thickness of the sheet, said full thickness being at least 0.5 mm along the second axis wherein the sheet further comprises a second region across which the second surface of the sheet is free of any groove wherein the sheet further comprises a third region across which the second surface of the sheet is free of any groove, wherein the first region is positioned between the second and third regions along the second axis, the sheet further comprises at least one side region across which the second surface of the sheet defines a second plurality of grooves, each groove of the second plurality of grooves extending along an axis transverse to the first axis. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Basil Katcheves whose telephone number is (571)272-6846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00 am to 6:30pm EST. 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 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. /BASIL S KATCHEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 14, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Apr 14, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 14, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601187
FLOOR PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595701
A MANUFACTURING METHOD OF AN INTELLIGENT ANTI-TERRORISM PROTECTIVE DOOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595652
PRECURSORS FOR STABILIZED IMPALING CLIPS, STABILIZED IMPALING CLIPS FORMED THEREFROM, AND METHOD OF MOUNTING AN ACOUSTIC PANEL ONTO A STRUCTURAL COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577786
INSULATED DECORATIVE PANEL FOR A WALL TREATMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12565034
MAT AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+17.9%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1239 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month