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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, the embodiment of Fig. 3a, in the reply filed on 08/05/2026 is acknowledged.
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 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11-21 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.
Claims 3-4 recite the limitation "its upper side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the distal end of the tongue" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the respective guiding surfaces" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the top and bottom of the lower lip" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the same shape" in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the bottom surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the sideward tongue" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the bottom surface" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15-17 recite the limitation "the sideward tongue" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the bottom side of the sideward tongue" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the sideward tongue" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the top of the blocking lip" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "said distal section length" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “wherein the blocking lip comprises a top having a downwardly chamfered edge transitioning to an inside flank of the blocking lip towards the second edge,” raising antecedent issues. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14, 18 rejected under 35 USC 112 as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pervan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0133353.
Regarding claim 1, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein the first edge (4b) comprises a first mechanical coupling part (10) comprising a lateral tongue (10), the lateral tongue being connected to the first edge via a recessed connection section (14), the connection section being formed by a blocking recess that extends from the bottom of the tile in a direction of the top of the tile (14; see Figs. 1), wherein the lateral tongue comprises a distally downward sloping bottom side (at 12), and wherein the second edge (4a) includes a second mechanical coupling part (9), configured to cooperate with the first mechanical coupling part of another of such tiles so as to couple two of such tiles together (Fig. 1a, generally), the second mechanical coupling part comprising a lower lip (6) and an upper lip (9a) defining a recess (9), said recess configured for accommodating the lateral tongue of a second of the tiles so that two of such tiles, when coupled, are locked together in a vertical direction (Figs. 1, generally), wherein the lower lip extends beyond a distal end of the upper lip and comprises a blocking lip (8) at its distal end (see Figs. 1), wherein the blocking lip is configured to be accommodated in the blocking recess of the second of the tiles so that the two of such tiles (see Figs. 1), when coupled, are locked together in a horizontal direction, and wherein the lower lip is configured to elastically bend downwards (Fig. 1c) and/or the upper lip is configured to elastically bend upwards upon coupling the two of such tiles so as to be able to push the lateral tongue, with the blocking lip against the distally downward sloping bottom side of the lateral tongue, into the recess defined by the upper lip and the lower lip when returning fully or partially to its relaxed state (Fig. 1a), wherein the upper lip and the lower lip together define a passage (space of 9 horizontally behind 8) which, without elastic deformation of the upper and/or lower lip, blocks insertion of the lateral tongue into the recess when the top of the two of such tiles are parallel (see Figures). The phrases “configured to cooperate with the first mechanical coupling part,” “configured for accommodating the lateral tongue,” “configured to be accommodated in the locking recess,” and “configured to elastically bend” are statements of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein said distally downward sloping bottom side transitions into a bottom side of the lateral tongue that is substantially parallel to the top of the tile (see Figs. 1) or slopes distally upwardly.
Regarding claim 3, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein the blocking lip, at its upper side, comprises a guiding surface (11) sloping downwards towards the recess formed by the upper lip and the lower lip (see Figs. 1), this guiding surface being configured to cooperate with the distally downward sloping bottom side of the tongue so as to guide the lateral tongue, upon coupling two of such tiles together, into the recess formed by the upper lip and the lower lip (see Fig. 1a). The phrase “configured to cooperate with the distally downward sloping bottom side of the tongue so as to guide the lateral tongue, upon coupling two of such tiles together, into the recess formed by the upper lip and the lower lip” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein the lateral tongue comprises, at its upper side, a guiding surface sloping downward towards the distal end of the tongue (34), and wherein the upper lip includes, at its lower side, a guiding surface sloping upwards towards the distal end of the upper lip (33), which is configured to cooperate with the guiding surface at the upper side of the tongue so that, upon coupling two of such tiles, the lateral tongue is guided into the recess formed by the upper lip and the lower lip. The phrase “configured to cooperate with the guiding surface at the upper side of the tongue so that, upon coupling two of such tiles, the lateral tongue is guided into the recess formed by the upper lip and the lower lip” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein the lateral tongue comprises a chamfer at its distal end (at 34), such that when the bottom side of the lateral tongue of a first tile of the two of such tiles rests on the lower lip of the second tile of the two of such tiles and the chamfer at the distal end of the lateral tongue of the first tile rests against the top lip of the second tile, part of the chamfer of the lateral tongue extends beneath the top lip and past where the chamfer rests against the top lip (see Fig. 1a, generally).
Regarding claim 6, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein the respective guiding surfaces (34, 33) at the upper side of the lateral tongue and the lower side of the upper lip are configured to cooperate when the lower lip pushes the lateral tongue into the recess defined by the upper lip and the lower lip (see Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 7, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein a slope of the top (as shown in Fig. 1b) and bottom (as shown in Fig. 1c) of the lower lip is substantially equal to a slope of the bottom of the lateral tongue (as shown in Figs. 1; substantially horizontal slope).
Regarding claim 9, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein the third edge has a third mechanical coupling part (10; Figs. 2) which has substantially the same shape as the first mechanical coupling part, and wherein the fourth edge has a fourth mechanical coupling part (9; Figs. 2) which has substantially the same shape as the second mechanical coupling part.
Regarding claim 17, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein the sideward tongue comprises a head side (outermost vertical side) which extends substantially perpendicular to the top of the tile, said head side being received beneath the upper lip when the sideward tongue is received in the recess (see Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 18, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein the recess is defined by a depth, which depth represents the horizontal distance between the distal end of the upper lip and a most inward point of the recess with respect to the second edge, and wherein the head side is positioned at a horizontal depth with respect to the distal end of the upper lip of at most half of the depth of the recess (see Fig. 1a).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pervan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0133353 in view of Michel, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0097959.
Regarding claim 8, Pervan discloses a flooring panel, but does not disclose wherein the upper lip comprises a beveled or chamfered distal top end, wherein when the first and second coupling parts of the tiles are coupled, said beveled or chamfered distal top end forming a gully with the chamfered or beveled top of the lateral tongue. Michel teaches a beveled edge at a top of panel edges (see Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the panel finished edges with such a bevel for a desired aesthetic appearance.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pervan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0133353 in view of Schneider, U.S. Patent 6,385,936.
Regarding claim 10, Pervan discloses a flooring panel, but does not disclose wherein the recess defined by the upper and the lower lip extends obliquely downwards into the tile, such that a top surface of the lower lip extends continuously downwards into the tile over a greater part of a distance from the blocking lip to a lowest point of said recess. Schneider teaches an oblique shaped recess (26) having a lower lip slope to a lowest point at the interior recess edge (see Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the panel recess edge in such a manner for a tighter lock between panel edges upon snapping into place of the lower lip flexible part (Figs. 1; paragraph 59), and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 11, Pervan discloses a flooring panel, but does not disclose wherein the recess defined by the upper and the lower lip extends obliquely downwards into the tile, such that the bottom surface of the upper lip extends continuously downwards into the tile over at least 75% of its length. Schneider teaches an obliquely downwardly extending recess (26; see Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the panel recess edge in such a manner for a tighter lock between panel edges upon snapping into place of the lower lip flexible part, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. It would also have been obvious to produce the top lip with an inwardly downwardly sloped surface extending over its entire length for ease of assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Pervan discloses a flooring panel, but does not disclose specifically wherein a bottom side of the sideward tongue comprising a bevel part, said bevel part extending obliquely downwards away from the first edge, said bevel part extending over a distance of between 50% and 100% of the top surface of the lower lip, and with an angle matching the top surface of the lower lip. Schneider teaches a bottom surface of the lateral tongue having a bevel part extending between 50% and 100% the length of the lower lip upper surface (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the panel lateral tongue with such a shape for ease of assembly, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Claim(s) 13-16, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pervan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0133353.
Regarding claim 13, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein the bottom surface of the upper lip comprises a first section (see Fig. 1a, angled section of the top lip adjacent to the VP) and a second section (shown at 33 in Fig. 1b), the first section positioned more distally from the second edge than the second section (see Fig. 1a), wherein the first section and second section extend obliquely downwards into the tile (see Fig. 1a), but does not disclose wherein the second section is oriented steeper than the first section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the panel with the second section having a steeper slope than the first section depending on the method of production of the panel, as the same results will be produced, and since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 14, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein the second section ends in a most inward point of the recess with respect to the second edge (see Figs. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein the sideward tongue comprises a distal section with a matching profile to a most inward section of the recess (see Figs. 1, both components comprise a substantially vertical surface).
Regarding claim 16, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein when the sideward tongue is received in the recess when the two of such tiles are coupled (as shown in Fig. 1a), but does not specifically disclose the recess defines an unoccupied volume that is at most 10% of an occupied volume of the recess defined by the upper and lower lip. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the coupling edges in such a manner for a secure fit between adjacent panels, and 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
Regarding claim 19, Pervan discloses a floor panel wherein the blocking lip comprises a top (uppermost surface of 8) having an edge transitioning to an inside flank (at 11) of the blocking lip towards the second edge, and wherein when the head side rests against a distal side of the upper lip (Fig. 1a) and the bottom side of the sideward tongue rests on the lower lip without elastically deforming said lower lip nor said upper lip (as shown in Fig. 1a), but does not disclose the blocking lip top having a downwardly chamfered edge, the bottom side of the sideward tongue only rests on said chamfered edge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce the clocking lip with an inwardly downwardly directed slope for ease of assembly, and 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
Regarding claim 20, Pervan discloses a flooring panel wherein the sideward tongue comprises a top (at 34), wherein a distal section of said top of the sideward tongue (portion along 34) is positioned beneath the upper lip when the sideward tongue is received in the recess (as shown in Fig. 1a), said distal section extending along a horizontal axis oriented away from the first edge over a distal section length (see Figs. 1, generally), wherein the top of the blocking lip extends along the horizontal axis oriented away from the second edge over a blocking lip length (as shown in Figs. 1), but does not specifically disclose which distal section length is smaller than the blocking lip length. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce top of the tongue with a shorter horizontal length than the horizontal length of the blocking lip for a simplified assembly process, and 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
Regarding claim 21, Pervan, as modified, discloses a flooring panel wherein the blocking lip comprises a top having a downwardly chamfered edge transitioning to an inside flank of the blocking lip towards the second edge, said chamfered edge extending along a horizontal axis oriented away from the second edge over a chamfer length (see Fig. 1a), and wherein said distal section length is smaller than the chamfer length (see Fig. 1a, generally), as best understood in light of the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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 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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights