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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-12 and 25-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/21/26 in that the groups are found in the same subclasses. However, the Applicant should note that even though they are proper for a same subclass, they contain different materials and structure.
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) 13-17 and 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0325530 to Penaloza in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2021/0219789 to Cook.
Regarding claim 13, Penaloza discloses a slab support having porcelain (fig. 4: 21b; [0106]) having opposing sides (fig. 4: see left and right sides of array of tiles 21b) with upper (top) surface and lower (underside) surface and a support panel (23b) of foam [0106], which is more shock resistant than porcelain and provides a fracture toughness greater than the lone porcelain slab, and an adhesive (bonded and grouted [0106], adhesive [0005]) together, the adhesive being under the slab and above the support panel. However, Penaloza discloses a group of slabs (21b) and not a single slab with linear sides. Cook discloses a single slab tile of porcelain (fig. 11A: 549; [0077]) with linear sides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penaloza by using a single slab such as disclosed by Cook instead of a group of smaller slabs as a means to speed installation.
Regarding claim 14, porcelain is disclosed [0008] by Penaloza.
Regarding claim 15, Penaloza in view of Cook disclose the lower surface of the support slab (foam 23b) as being greater than the bottom surface of the slab (see fig. 4: 23b is greater than area taken by group of slabs 21b. As modified above to be 549 of Cook).
Regarding claim 16, the thickness of the support panel (23b) is greater than the slab.
Regarding claim 17, Penaloza in view of Cook 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 Penaloza to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as a mere design choice for applications which may require a stronger structure to have larger dimensions and where a weaker structure is acceptable, to have smaller dimensions.
Regarding claim 19, Penaloza in view of Cook disclose the two opposing linear slab sides of Penaloza in view of Cook, are separated by a smaller distance than the linear sides of the support panel (the slab has a smaller dimension than the support panel as seen in fig. 4 of Penaloza, the slab perimeter is smaller than the support panel 23b perimeter, as modified with Cook).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected for reasons cited in the rejection of claim 19. Additionally, the linear edges of the support panel extend beyond those of the slab when adhered (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 21, the opposing side edges of the slab are parallel with those of the support panel (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 22, Penaloza in view of Cook discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific adhesive 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 Penaloza to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims as a mere design choice where the amount of adhesive would be more or less depending upon the intended use of the structure to provide either a stronger or weaker bond where required.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Penaloza in view of Cook discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific strengths of tensile strength or fracture resistance. 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 Penaloza in view of Cook to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims such as applications where higher strength is required or lesser strength is expected to be needed such as more or less usage.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0325530 to Penaloza in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2021/0219789 to Cook further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. US 2014/0342147 to Hilgenbrink.
Regarding claim 18, a primer is not disclosed between bottom of slab and adhesive. Hilgenbrink discloses the use of a flooring (title) and primer located on the bottom of a tile [0009] and adhesive on a substrate [0009]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Penaloza by using a primer as disclosed by Hilgenbrink in order to create a stronger bond.
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