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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,297,648. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the substantially overlap in scope and all the claimed limitations of the instant application can be transparently found in the patented claims.
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 1-9, 11-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ylikangas et al. US 2021/0087827 A1 (hereinafter ‘Ylikangas’) in view of Michel US 2013/0097959 A1 (hereinafter ‘Michel’).
In regard to claim 1, Ylikangas teaches a set of panels (see fig. 5A-5C) having front (15) and back (16) sides, comprising a mechanical locking device (fig. 7) at opposite first (11) and second (12) edge portions, configured for locking of similar panels in an assembled position by pivoting displacement (see fig. 3) of a plane with a second edge portion of a second panel in an engagement direction towards a first edge portion of an adjacent first panel (see fig. 5B),
wherein the first edge portion comprises a first locking element (11b) configured to cooperate for plane locking with a first locking groove at the second edge portion (as in fig. 7),
wherein the first edge portion has a first front edge portion (vertical portion between side 15 and plane Dp) adjacent the frontside of the first panel and a first sub edge portion (vertical portion stepping down from Dp) between the first front edge portion and a flexible tongue (11i -see [0049]) in an insertion groove (11k), the insertion groove being arranged between the backside and the first sub edge portion of the first panel (See fig. 7, insertion groove 11k is in the first panel),
wherein the second edge portion has a second front edge portion configured to be in contact with the first front edge portion in the assembled state of the panels (see fig. 7, planes above Dp), the second edge portion further having a second sub edge portion (stepping down from Dp in the second panel) configured to be positioned opposite the first sub edge portion, the second edge portion further having a protrusion (12e) arranged between the second sub edge portion and the backside, wherein the protrusion is configured to cooperate with the first sub edge portion during assembling of the opposite first and second edge portions (see fig. 7 and [0053]);
wherein the pivoting displacement includes relative displacement of the first and second floor panels from an unassembled state to the assembled state (as indicated in fig. 5B);
wherein the flexible tongue is configured to cooperate with the protrusion during assembling (see [0055]).
Ylikangas does not explicitly teach that a first distance between a first plane of the first front edge portion of the first panel and a second plane facing the first plane and in line with a front edge of the first sub edge portion is equal to or larger than a second distance between a third plane of the second front edge portion of the second panel and a fourth plane facing the third plane and in line with a front edge of the protrusion of the second edge portion. It is noted that this limitation amounts to the fact that the edge portion of the first panel meets or extends past the protrusion of the second panel in a direction of the second panel when the panels are assembled.
Michel teaches a panel assembly comprising first and second panels (1 and 1’) having first and second edge portions (12 and 1’2) respectively, wherein the second edge portion has a protrusion (1’3) arranged between an edge portion of the panel and the backside (see fig. 2).
Note that the protrusion of Michels protrudes beyond the edge portion of its panel, which means that when assembled, the edge portion of the first panel extends past the protrusion in a direction of the second panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the protrusion of Ylikangas protrude beyond the edge portion of the first panel, as taught by Michel, so as to protect the surface sides of the panels such that they do not come in contact with one another until the very last moment during the joining process (see Michel [0040]).
In regard to claims 2 and 4, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel does not explicitly teach the difference between distances (how much the protrusion extends).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to arrive at a value within the claimed range (0 to 0.5 mm) as a matter of routing experimentation (see MPEP 2144) and to provide a distance that does not interfere with the interlocking of the panels. In the instant case, distance differences will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such distance is critical.
In regard to claim 3, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches that the first distance is larger than the second distance (see Michel’s fig. 4 – Note that the protrusion extends towards the first panel past the panel’s top edge).
In regard to claim 5, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches that the flexible tongue is arranged to cooperate with a tongue groove on the second edge portion for locking the panels in the same plane. It is noted that the tongue groove on the second edge portion is not being positively claimed. Nevertheless, the combination teaches the groove (Ylikangas element 12j’) configured as claimed.
In regard to claims 6 and 7, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches the claimed invention wherein the first locking element is arranged on a locking strip (11a’) of the first edge portion that protrudes beyond the first sub edge portion (see Ylikangas fig. 7).
In regard to claim 8, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches the claimed function wherein the first sub edge portion has a flat surface toward the second edge portion (see surface on plane Dp) configured to cooperate with the protrusion at an angled position of the second panel. As suggested by figures 5A and 5B, the panels of Ylikangas are fully capable of performing the claim function as the panels are angled during assembly.
In regard to claim 9, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches the second floor panel is configured to be at an angle during a first step assembly of the panels (see [0053]), but is not specific regarding the value of the angle.
It is noted that as disclosed in [0053], the panel is at an angle before installation and it is capable of being at an angle within the claimed range. Nevertheless, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the instant application, to arrive at a value within the claimed angle (5 to 60 degrees) as a matter of routing experimentation (see MPEP 2144) and to provide a starting position that expedites installation. In the instant case, distance differences will not support patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such angle is critical.
In regard to claim 11, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches the claimed invention wherein the protrusion protrudes beyond the first sub edge portion in the assembled state. See above rejection for claim 1. Note that the protrusion in the combination would protrude beyond the first sub edge portion in the same manner that it does a distance ‘q’ in fig. 5 of Michel.
In regard to claim 12, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches the claimed invention wherein the second front edge portion protrudes beyond the first sub edge portion in the assembled state (see Ylikangas fig. 7 -note that the vertical line above Dp is way beyond the first sub edge portion towards the first panel).
In regard to claim 13, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches the claimed invention wherein the first sub edge portion protrudes beyond the first edge portion (clearly seen in fig. 7, on the step down from Dp).
In regard to claim 14, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches the claimed invention wherein the first plane of the first front edge portion is perpendicular to the front side of the first floor panel, and wherein the second plane is parallel to the first plane (see figs. 6-7).
In regard to claim 15, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches the claimed invention wherein the fourth plane at the front end of the protrusion is between the first plane and the second plane. See above rejection for claim 1. Note that the protrusion in the combination would protrude beyond the second plane in the same manner that it does a distance ‘q’ in fig. 5 of Michel.
In regard to claim 17, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches the claimed invention wherein in the unassembled state, the first and second front edges are parallel to one another. The edges of the panel of the combination are parallel, and stay parallel assembled or unassembled.
In regard to claim 18, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches the claimed invention wherein in the assembled state, the front side of the first and second panels are coplanar (see fig. 6, surfaces 15).
In regard to claim 19, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches the claimed invention wherein the first sub edge portion is arranged as a tongue between the first front edge portion and the insertion groove (seen in fig. 7 of Ylikangas).
In regard to claim 20, the combination of Ylikangas/Michel teaches the claimed invention wherein the third plane of the second front edge portion is perpendicular to the frontside of the second floor panel, and wherein the fourth plane is parallel to the third plane (seen in fig. 7 of Ylikangas).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 16 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 10, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the set of floor panels are recited in claim 1, wherein the sub edge portion is at an angle relative to the second plane, and wherein the angle is between 1 and 2 degrees. This limitation is shown in fig. 5B of applicant’s disclosure.
With respect to claim 16, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the set of floor panels are recited in claim 1, wherein the first and second distances are equal. That is, distance a and b as shown in fig. 1B of applicant, are the same. The majority of the prior art teaches a > b, in this regard, it is the Examiner’s view, based on a totality of the record, that it would not have been obvious to modify the relevant prior art to arrive at the claimed invention, as any modification of the prior art of record that would arrive at the claimed invention would require improper hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAOLA AGUDELO whose telephone number is (571)270-7986. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Brian E 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.
/PAOLA AGUDELO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights