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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 11-12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Cottier (US Pat, 8,209,927 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Cottier discloses a floor tile comprising:
a main body which is arranged to be flat (Fig. 5, fiber cement sheet 400, 500), the main body comprising, at at least two opposite edges, a tongue-and-groove joint which is configured to be interlockable and which is integrally joined to the main body (Fig. 5, tongue 55, groove 47), wherein the main body is fired (Col. 6, lines 1-4: “The product produced is preferably pre-cured (for about 12 hours) to establish the formulation to set and then cured by air-cure (approximately 28 days) or more preferably, by autoclaving (about 12 hours)”).
Regarding claim 2, Cottier discloses wherein the main body is fired at a temperature of at least 100 °C (Autoclaves are known in the art to exceed temperatures of 100 °C).
Regarding claim 3, Cottier discloses wherein, to provide that the tongue-and-groove joint is interlockable, the tongue-and-groove joint is further configured to be form-fittingly interlinkable (Tongue-and-groove fasteners are known in the art to be form-fitting with one another).
Regarding claim 5, Cottier discloses wherein the main body further comprises mineral constituents, wherein, a proportion of the mineral constituents in the main body is at least 50 wt.% (Col. 5, lines 12-22: “The aggregate is preferably ground silica sand but can also be, and is not limited to, amorphous silica, silica fume, diatomaceous earth, rice hull ash, blast furnace slag, granulated slag, steel slag, mineral oxides, mineral hydroxides, clays, magnasite or dolomite, metal oxides and hydroxides, polymeric beads, or mixtures thereof. The quantity of the aggregate in the formulation is preferably between about 10 to 70 wt % based on the total dry ingredients, more preferably about 20 to 50 wt % based on the total dry ingredients, and most preferably about 30-45 wt % based on the total dry ingredients”).
Regarding claim 6, Cottier discloses wherein the main body comprises a fibrous material when fired (Col. 4, lines 4, lines 43-49: “The preferred embodiments of the present invention describe a fiber-reinforced cement formulation comprising a cementitious matrix and various components distributed throughout the matrix. The fiber-reinforced cement formulation of the present invention comprises a hydraulic binder, aggregates, reinforcing cellulose fibers, low density modifiers, and other additives”. Cellulose is an organic fibrous material).
Regarding claim 7, Cottier discloses wherein the fibrous material comprises organic fibres (See id).
Regarding claim 8, Cottier discloses wherein the fibrous material is cellulose (See id).
Regarding claim 9, Cottier discloses wherein the floor tile comprises 2 wt.% to 20 wt.% of the fibrous material when fired (Col. 5, lines 38-40: “The reinforcing cellulose fibers may be present in a concentration of 9.5 to 12 wt % based on the weight of the dry formulation”).
Regarding claim 11, Cottier discloses wherein the main body comprises 10 wt.% to 90 wt.% of a quartz when fired (Col 9, table 1. Silica aggregate listed as 39.75%).
Regarding claim 12, Cottier discloses wherein the main body comprises 2 wt.% to 40 wt.% of calcium aluminosilicate when fired (Claim 6: “The fiber cement sheet of claim 1, further comprising an aggregate distributed throughout the matrix, wherein the aggregate is selected from the group consisting of ground silica, amorphous silica, silica fume, diatomaceous earth, rice hull ash, blast furnace slag, granulated slag, steel slag, mineral oxides, mineral hydroxides, clays, magnasite, dolomite, metal oxides, metal hydroxides, polymeric beads, and the like and mixtures thereof”. Claim 7: “The fiber cement sheet of claim 6, wherein the aggregate is present in an amount in the range of from about 30 to about 45% by weight”)
Regarding claim 17, Cottier discloses wherein the main body further comprises a decorative layer which is arranged on the main body (Col. 4, lines 38-42: “It may be appreciated that the final flooring may not be limited to tile, but may include, for example, carpet, stone, masonry, vinyl, wood, laminate, or any other suitable floor finishing material. Such flooring materials may be attached using adhesive, staples, nails, tacks, etc.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottier (US Pat, 8,209,927 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Cottier discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the main body does not comprise a plastic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a main body that is devoid of plastic as polymers could possibly melt during the firing phase, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 13, Cottier discloses wherein the main body comprises a fibrous material (Col. 4, lines 43-49: “The preferred embodiments of the present invention describe a fiber-reinforced cement formulation comprising a cementitious matrix and various components distributed throughout the matrix. The fiber-reinforced cement formulation of the present invention comprises a hydraulic binder, aggregates, reinforcing cellulose fibers, low density modifiers, and other additives”. Cellulose is an organic fibrous material), a quartz sand (Col 9, table 1. Silica aggregate listed as 39.75%), and calcium aluminosilicate (Claim 6: “The fiber cement sheet of claim 1, further comprising an aggregate distributed throughout the matrix, wherein the aggregate is selected from the group consisting of ground silica, amorphous silica, silica fume, diatomaceous earth, rice hull ash, blast furnace slag, granulated slag, steel slag, mineral oxides, mineral hydroxides, clays, magnasite, dolomite, metal oxides, metal hydroxides, polymeric beads, and the like and mixtures thereof”. Claim 7: “The fiber cement sheet of claim 6, wherein the aggregate is present in an amount in the range of from about 30 to about 45% by weight”), when fired.
However, Cottier fails to disclose wherein the main body comprises 6 wt.% to 10 wt.% of a fibrous material, 64 wt.% to 72 wt.% of a quartz sand, and 2 wt.% to 40 wt.% of calcium aluminosilicate, when fired. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the prescribed ratios of materials for optimal strength of stability of the autoclaved body, 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.
Claim(s) 14-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottier (US Pat, 8,209,927 B2) in view of Clement (US Pat. 12,467,265 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Cottier discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Clement, wherein the main body further comprises tobermorite (Col. 14, 8-11: “wherein these fillers and/or fibers preferably consist of synthetic material and/or glass and/or crystalline calcium silicate (including hydrate) and/or xonolite and/or tobermorite”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor tile of Cottier to include tobermorite as taught by Clement for its resistance to deformation and warping in high-humidity environments.
Regarding claim 15, Cottier discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Clement, wherein the main body is a tobermorite (Col. 14, 8-11: “wherein these fillers and/or fibers preferably consist of synthetic material and/or glass and/or crystalline calcium silicate (including hydrate) and/or xonolite and/or tobermorite”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor tile of Cottier to include tobermorite as taught by Clement for its resistance to deformation and warping in high-humidity environments.
Regarding claim 18, Cottier discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Clement, wherein the decorative layer is printed on the main body (Col. 3, lines 20-23: “Board according to paragraph 22, characterized in that the pattern is a print directly provided on the board, for example, realized by means of a digital printer, for example, inkjet printer”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor tile of Cottier to include printing means as taught by Clement as inkjet printing is a commonly used means for printing a decorative layer for aesthetic purposes.
Regarding claim 19, Cottier discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Clement, wherein the main body further comprises a lacquer layer which is arranged on the decorative layer (Col. 6, lines 43-48: “In the case of façade boards, for which cement-based boards are often used, the cement-based substrate of the board is coated at the rear and upper sides with a lacquer or paint which is not 100% water-impervious, and there is natural ventilation, such that no issue will occur”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor tile of Cottier to include lacquer as taught by Clement to protect the tile against wear.
Regarding claim 20, Cottier discloses a process for producing the floor tile as recited in claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1), the process comprising:
firing the main body (See rejection of claim 1 for autoclaving process).
However, Cottier fails to disclose as taught by Clement, milling the tongue-and-groove joint which is configured to be interlockable into the main body (Col. 14, lines 39-42: “Further, hereby it is preferred that the tongue structure and/or groove structure and/or hook-shaped elements and/or seat are manufactured by means of a milling treatment and thus comprise milled surfaces”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor tile of Cottier to include the milling step as taught by Clement as it is a commonly used means for forming floor tiles.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottier (US Pat, 8,209,927 B2) in view of Devos (US Pub. US 2026/0071442 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Cottier discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Devos, wherein the main body is at least one of chamfered and pressed at all edges (Fig. 1, the edge is chamfered around the tile).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor tile of Cottier to include the chamfer of Devos in order to reduce the risk of splitting and delamination at the edges of the panel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
