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
Claim 1 is objected to for a typographical error, where vinyl is spelled vinal.
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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues, regarding claim 1, the rejection based upon the lack of criticality of the dimensions claimed. The Applicant states that the burden does not shift to the Applicant to demonstrate criticality. The Applicant should note that the dimensions claimed, “width of at least 1 mm across” and “a depth of the groove is no less than 1/3 of the full thickness of the sheet”, and the full thickness of the sheet being 0.5 mm along a second axis. These dimensions are considered to be broad and lack criticality in that there is a large variation of dimensions that may be used. For example, “an operative width of at least 1 mm” may be 2 mm, 20mm, 200mm, etc. And a “depth of the groove is no less than 1/3 of the full thickness of the sheet” may mean that the depth may be anything over 1/3 (assuming to be 67 to 100 %) such as ½, 2/3, etc. These ranges are clearly broad and the claims infer that anything within these ranges may function satisfactorily. The dimensions are not critical because of the large variation allowed and they are open ended as there is no actual range.
Regarding the statement of being an obvious design choice, the structural limitations are disclosed by the references used and the combination of these limitations may be construed as being an obvious design choice since they are related and in the same art.
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
Prosecution Insights