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 .
This non final action is being mailed as upon further consideration, the Applicants arguments regarding the restriction of 12/1/25 are persuasive.
Election/Restrictions
The restriction of 12/1/25 is withdrawn. Claims 1-32 are examined below.
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) 1-17, 19-32 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 claims 1, 6, 12, 13, 25, 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, the rigidity of the assembly inherently greater than that of the slab alone, the opposing side edges of the slab are parallel with those of the support panel (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 2, an embodiment is shown with the slab extending beyond the support (fig. 3b: see 22a beyond upper portion of 23a).
Regarding claims 3, 15, Penaloza in view of Cook discloses 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 4, 14, porcelain is disclosed [0008] by Penaloza.
Regarding claim 5 and 30, Penaloza discloses the basic claim structure of the instant application but does not disclose specific dimensions of vibration 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 to use the dimensions such as specified in these claims for such applications where more or less vibrations are expected such as high traffic areas.
Regarding claim 7, PVC is not disclosed. The Examiner takes official notice that PVC is used for support layers. 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 such a material in order to increase weather proofing and reduce costs.
Regarding claim 16, the thickness of the support panel (23b) is greater than the slab.
Regarding claim 8, 9, 16, 17, 26, 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 10, the use of epoxy is disclosed [0105], but not two part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use two part epoxy as this is a standard product sold in stores and mixed before use. This would be obvious in order to preserve the material until use.
Regarding claim 11, the support is larger than the slab.
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, 27, 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, 24 and 28, 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.
Regarding claim 29, interlocking panels are disclosed [0018].
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Penaloza discloses a flat top and flat bottom for the upper surface and the bottom surface (see figs. 4, 8, 9) which are coplanar with each other (parallel along a same plane).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 8/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the restriction of 12/1/25 which has been addressed above. Being in the same search class does not mean the inventions are the same and regardless of the search difficulty, an invention of different structure is a different invention. The Applicant argues the Penaloza reference as not having adhesive above the panel 23b. The Applicant should note that the claim merely recites an adhesive between the two components, slab and foam, which is where the adhesive is located. The slab is secured to the foam indirectly by use of adhesive. If the adhesive had no use, it would not be included and the entire structure would not be stable. The Applicant argues the use of Penaloza as being contoured. However, the examination is in regards to the actual product of Penaloza and not the function of laying in a shower. The Applicant should also look to figs 1a-4 for different configurations.
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