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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the angle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE202016102034.
Regarding claim 1, DE202016102034 discloses a floor panel (Figs. 1-8) for forming a floor covering, wherein this floor panel (1) comprises a first pair of opposite edges (2, 3) as well as a second pair of opposite edges (4,5); wherein the floor panel is oblong rectangular (Fig. 3) and the first pair of opposite edges (2, 3) forms the long sides of the floor panel (Fig. 3), whereas the second pair of opposite edges (4, 5) forms the short sides of the floor panel (Fig. 3); wherein the first pair of opposite edges comprises coupling parts (6,7; Fig. 5), which allow that two of such floor panels can be mutually coupled to each other, and wherein these coupling parts (6,7) show the following characteristics: the coupling parts comprise a horizontal locking system (HL), which, in a coupled condition of two of such floor panels (1), effects a locking in a plane of the floor panels (1) and perpendicular to the respective edges (2,3); the coupling parts (6,7) also comprise a vertical locking system (VL), which, in a coupled condition of two of such floor panels (1), effects a locking transverse to the plane of the floor panels (1); the coupling parts (6, 7) are substantially made of a material of the floor panel (1) itself; and the coupling parts (6,7) are configured such that two of such panels can be coupled to each other at these edges by a turning movement (R); wherein the second pair of opposite edges (4, 5) also comprises coupling parts (8, 9) at both edges, which allow that two of such floor panels (1) mutually can be coupled to each other, and wherein these coupling parts (8, 9) show the following characteristics: the coupling parts (8, 9; Fig. 4) comprise a horizontal locking system, which, in a coupled condition of two of such floor panels (1), effects a locking in the plane of the floor panels and perpendicular to the respective edges; the coupling parts (8,9) also comprise a vertical locking system, which, in a coupled condition of two of such floor panels (1), effects a locking transverse to the plane of the floor panels (1); the coupling parts (8, 9) are substantially made of the material of the floor panel (1) itself; the coupling parts of the second pair of edges (4, 5) are formed at least of an upward-directed lower hook-shaped part (10), which is situated on one of said second pair of edges (4), as well as a downward-directed upper hook-shaped part (11), which is situated on an opposite one of said second pair of edges (5), wherein the lower hook-shaped part (10) consists of a lip (12) with an upward-directed locking element (13), which, proximally thereof, defines a female part (14) in the form of a recess, whereas the upper hook-shaped part (11) consists of a lip (15) with a downward-directed locking element (16) which forms a male part (17); the coupling parts (8, 9) of the second pair of edges (4, 5) are configured such that two of such floor panels (1) can be coupled to each other at their respective edges (4, 5) by a downward movement (M) of the one floor panel in respect to the other; the coupling parts of second pair of edges (4, 5) comprise locking parts, which, by contact surfaces define at least a first contact zone (CI) and a second contact zone (C2), which are situated at opposite sides of the male part (17) and female part (14); the locking parts comprise a first locking part (18) and a second locking part (19) at the respective opposite sides (26, 27) of the male part (17), as well as a third locking part (20) and a fourth locking part (21) at the respective opposite sides (28, 29) of the female part (14); in the coupled condition of two of such floor panels (1), the first and third locking parts (18, 20) define said first contact zone (CI), wherein they have contact surfaces (22, 24) which, in the coupled condition, define at least one inclined tangent line (T1); in the coupled condition of two of such floor panels (1), the second and fourth locking parts (19, 21) define said second contact zone (C2), wherein they have contact surfaces (23, 25), which, in the coupled condition, also define at least one inclined tangent line (T2); the aforementioned male part (17) has a distal side (27) and a proximal side (26), wherein the second locking part (19) is situated at the distal side (27) and the first locking part is situated at the proximal side (26); wherein the first and third locking parts (18 and 20) are at least part of the horizontal locking system; wherein the second and fourth locking parts (19, 21) are part of the vertical locking system; in respect to the plane of the floor panel (1), the tangent line (T1) which is defined by the first and third locking parts (18, 20) is steeper than the tangent line (T2) which is defined by the second and fourth locking parts (19, 21), or, the angle (AI) of the first-mentioned tangent line (T1) with the horizontal is larger than the angle (A2) of the second-mentioned tangent line (T2) with the horizontal; the center of the second contact zone (C2, Fig. 6) is situated higher than the center of the first contact zone (C1, Fig. 6). DE202016102034 discloses a difference between the two angles (A1, A2) but does not disclose the difference being at least 5 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two angels that were separated by 5 degrees as a matter of design choice 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. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having angles that resulted in a 5-degree separation.
Regarding claim 2, DE202016102034 discloses the coupling parts of the second pair of edges are made in one piece in MDF (Medium Density Fiberboard) or HDF (High Density Fiberboard) (Para [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, DE202016102034 discloses the floor panel comprises a substrate of MDF or HDF extending over an entire or almost entire surface thereof, wherein the aforementioned coupling parts are formed at the edges (English Translation Para [0024]).
Regarding claim 4, DE202016102034 discloses the floor panel comprises a decorative top layer (57).
Regarding claim 5, DE202016102034 discloses the top layer (57) consists of one or more print layers (Para [0071]).
Regarding claim 6, DE202016102034 discloses the tangent line (T1, Fig. 8) in the first contact zone forms an angle with the horizontal of at least 75 degrees (Para [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, DE202016102034 discloses the tangent line (T1, Fig. 8) in the first contact zone forms an angle with the horizontal of at least 85 degrees (Para [0020]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, DE202016102034 discloses the tangent line (T2, Fig. 8) in the second contact zone forms an angle with the horizontal but does not disclose the angle being less than 50 degrees or 30 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second contact zone forming an angle with the horizontal that is less than 50 or less than 30 degrees to provide the optimum connection between the panels, 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. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having dimensions and angles that optimize the connection between the panel members.
Regarding claim 10, DE202016102034 discloses the contact surfaces (23, 25) of the second and fourth locking parts (19, 21) are substantially flat (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, DE202016102034 discloses wherein in coupled condition, a space (approximate 33, Fig.9) is present behind the distal end of the lower hook-shaped part (10).
Regarding claim 12, DE202016102034 discloses wherein in coupled condition, a space (approximate 56) is present above the upward-directed locking element (13).
Regarding claim 13, DE202016102034 discloses the second contact zone (C2) is a local contact zone, defined as not extending over the entire height of the male part; the contact zone is situated with an upper end of the contact zone at a distance from an upper side of the floor panel and is situated with its lower end at a distance above the lower end of the male part; the second contact zone, seen in the height, is situated between ¼ and ¾ of the overall height of the male part measured between the lowermost point of the male part and the upper side of the floor panel (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 14, DE202016102034 discloses wherein the coupling parts (6, 7 and 8, 9) at the first pair (2, 3) and the second pair (4, 5) of opposite edges are configured such that in coupled condition a pretension exists, which forces the respective floor panels at the respective edges towards each other (Para [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, DE202016102034 discloses the male part (17), at a height lower than the second contact zone (C2), at least one contact surface (approximate 31) is provided, which, in the coupled condition, together with a contact surface (approximate 32) at the female part (14) of the then coupled floor panel, forms a support point (31/32 5) which limits the movement of the male part (17) in downward direction.
Regarding claim 16, DE202016102034 discloses wherein this support point (31/32) is situated at the “proximal half” of the male part, whereas at the distal half of the male part (17) no downward support point is present at a lower side of the male part (Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 17, DE202016102034 discloses a horizontal distance between the middle of the first contact zone (C1) and the middle of the second contact zone (C2) but does not disclose that the distance is at least 3 millimeters. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have had a distance between the two zone to be at least 3 millimeters to allow for a sufficient connection between the two members, 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. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having a distance that allows for a secure connection.
Regarding claim 18, DE202016102034 discloses the first and third locking parts (18, 20) are also part of the horizontal locking system (HL). The Examiner considers the first and third locking parts to at least be a part of the horizontal locking system indirectly.
Regarding claim 19, DE202016102034 discloses a floor panel (Figs. 1-8) for forming a floor covering, wherein this floor panel (1) comprises a first pair of opposite edges (2, 3) as well as a second pair of opposite edges (4,5); wherein the floor panel is oblong rectangular (Fig. 3) and the first pair of opposite edges (2, 3) forms the long sides of the floor panel (Fig. 3), whereas the second pair of opposite edges (4, 5) forms the short sides of the floor panel (Fig. 3); wherein the first pair of opposite edges comprises coupling parts (6,7; Fig. 5), which allow that two of such floor panels can be mutually coupled to each other, and wherein these coupling parts (6,7) show the following characteristics: the coupling parts comprise a horizontal locking system (HL), which, in a coupled condition of two of such floor panels (1), effects a locking in a plane of the floor panels (1) and perpendicular to the respective edges (2,3); the coupling parts (6,7) also comprise a vertical locking system (VL), which, in a coupled condition of two of such floor panels (1), effects a locking transverse to the plane of the floor panels (1); the coupling parts (6, 7) are substantially made of a material of the floor panel (1) itself; and the coupling parts (6,7) are configured such that two of such panels can be coupled to each other at these edges by a turning movement (R); wherein the second pair of opposite edges (4, 5) also comprises coupling parts (8, 9) at both edges, which allow that two of such floor panels (1) mutually can be coupled to each other, and wherein these coupling parts (8, 9) show the following characteristics: the coupling parts (8, 9; Fig. 4) comprise a horizontal locking system, which, in a coupled condition of two of such floor panels (1), effects a locking in the plane of the floor panels and perpendicular to the respective edges; the coupling parts (8,9) also comprise a vertical locking system, which, in a coupled condition of two of such floor panels (1), effects a locking transverse to the plane of the floor panels (1); the coupling parts (8, 9) are substantially made of the material of the floor panel (1) itself; the coupling parts of the second pair of edges (4, 5) are formed at least of an upward-directed lower hook-shaped part (10), which is situated on one of said second pair of edges (4), as well as a downward-directed upper hook-shaped part (11), which is situated on an opposite one of said second pair of edges (5), wherein the lower hook-shaped part (10) consists of a lip (12) with an upward-directed locking element (13), which, proximally thereof, defines a female part (14) in the form of a recess, whereas the upper hook-shaped part (11) consists of a lip (15) with a downward-directed locking element (16) which forms a male part (17); the coupling parts (8, 9) of the second pair of edges (4, 5) are configured such that two of such floor panels (1) can be coupled to each other at their respective edges (4, 5) by a downward movement (M) of the one floor panel in respect to the other; the coupling parts of second pair of edges (4, 5) comprise locking parts, which, by contact surfaces define at least a first contact zone (CI) and a second contact zone (C2), which are situated at opposite sides of the male part (17) and female part (14); the locking parts comprise a first locking part (18) and a second locking part (19) at the respective opposite sides (26, 27) of the male part (17), as well as a third locking part (20) and a fourth locking part (21) at the respective opposite sides (28, 29) of the female part (14); in the coupled condition of two of such floor panels (1), the first and third locking parts (18, 20) define said first contact zone (CI), wherein they have contact surfaces (22, 24) which, in the coupled condition, define at least one inclined tangent line (T1); in the coupled condition of two of such floor panels (1), the second and fourth locking parts (19, 21) define said second contact zone (C2), wherein they have contact surfaces (23, 25), which, in the coupled condition, also define at least one inclined tangent line (T2); the aforementioned male part (17) has a distal side (27) and a proximal side (26), wherein the second locking part (19) is situated at the distal side (27) and the first locking part is situated at the proximal side (26); wherein the first and third locking parts (18 and 20) are at least part of the horizontal locking system; wherein the second and fourth locking parts (19, 21) are part of the vertical locking system; in respect to the plane of the floor panel (1), the tangent line (T1) which is defined by the first and third locking parts (18, 20) is steeper than the tangent line (T2) which is defined by the second and fourth locking parts (19, 21), or, the angle (AI) of the first-mentioned tangent line (T1) with the horizontal is larger than the angle (A2) of the second-mentioned tangent line (T2) with the horizontal; the center of the second contact zone (C2, Fig. 6) is situated higher than the center of the first contact zone (C1, Fig. 6); wherein the floor panel comprises a decorative top layer (57); wherein the tangent line (T1, Fig. 8) in the first contact zone forms an angle with the horizontal of at least 75 degrees (Para [0020]); the coupling parts of the first (2,3) or second (4, 5) pair of opposite edges are realized such that the floor panels can be installed according to the fold-down principle (Para [0004]). DE202016102034 discloses a difference between the two angles (A1, A2) but does not disclose the difference being at least 5 degrees or does not disclose the tangent line in the second contact zone forming an angle with the horizontal of less than 50 degrees or wherein the horizontal distance between the middle of the first contact zone and the middle of the second contact zone being at least 3 millimeters.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two angels that were separated by 5 degrees as a matter of design choice 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. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having angles that resulted in a 5-degree separation. It would have also been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second contact zone forming an angle with the horizontal that is less than 50 or less than 30 degrees to provide the optimum connection between the panels, 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. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having dimensions and angles that optimize the connection between the panel members. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have had a distance between the two zone to be at least 3 millimeters to allow for a sufficient connection between the two members, 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. There would be no new or unpredictable results achieved from having a distance that allows for a secure connection.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No.10,648,182 and over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,136,765 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,024,899 and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12,312,817. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations and recitations have overlapping language.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J BUCKLE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3739. 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 at 5712726754. 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.
/JAMES J BUCKLE JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
