Office Action 2: Notice of Allowance (2025-02-19)

CLAIMS:
AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS:

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:

LISTING OF CLAIMS:
1\. (Currently Amended) A set of panels comprising a first panel and a second panel,
wherein a first edge of the first panel and a second edge of the second panel are configured to be locked together and assembled by a vertical displacement of the second edge relative the first edge,wherein the first edge comprises a locking element configured to cooperate with a locking groove at the second edge for locking in a horizontal direction and in a vertical direction,
wherein the first edge comprises a tongue configured to cooperate with a tongue groove at the second edge for locking in the vertical direction,
wherein the tongue groove has an upper lip and a lower lip,
wherein an upper part of the first edge comprises a first guiding surface and a lower edge of the lower lip comprises a second guiding surface, which are configured to cooperate during the vertical displacement,
wherein an upper part of the locking element comprises a third guiding surface and a lower edge of the locking groove comprises a fourth guiding surface, which are configured to cooperate during the vertical displacement,

wherein a tip of the tongue comprises a fifth guiding surface and a tip of a lower lip of the tongue groove comprises a sixth guiding surface, which are configured to cooperate during the vertical displacement,
wherein a first locking surface of the locking element is configured to cooperate with a second locking surface of the locking groove for locking in the horizontal direction,
wherein the first locking surface comprises a first locking angle between the first locking surface and an upper surface of the first panel,
wherein the second locking surface comprises a second locking angle between the \[\[first\]\] second locking surface and an upper surface of the \[\[first\]\] second panel, and
wherein the first locking angle is larger than the second locking angle.

2\. (Currently Amended) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the third and the fourth guiding surfaces and the fifth and the sixth guiding surfaces, respectively, are configured to cooperate at the same time during the vertical displacement.

3\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first and the second guiding surfaces are configured to cooperate before the third and the fourth guiding surfaces are configured to cooperate during the vertical displacement.

4\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fifth and the sixth guiding surfaces are essentially parallel to each other.

5\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first guiding surface is positioned above the fifth guiding surface.

6\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the second guiding surface is positioned below the sixth guiding surface.

7\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein an upper lip of the tongue groove is configured to overlap the first guiding surface in a locked position of the first and the second edge.

8\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 7, wherein a lower surface of the upper lip is configured to cooperate with the first guiding surface for restraining penetration of moisture and/or dirt between the first and the second edge in the locked position.

9\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first guiding surface is a bevel or a rounding of an uppermost part of the first edge.

10\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first guiding surface is adjacent to the fifth guiding surface.

11\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein a locking strip protrudes from the first edge under the tongue, wherein the locking strip comprises the locking element.

12\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 11, wherein the first locking surface of the locking element is configured to cooperate with the second locking surface of the locking groove for locking in the vertical direction, wherein the first locking angle between the first locking surface and the upper surface of the first panel is within the range of about 45 degrees to about 85 degrees.

13\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tip of the tongue has a blunt shape, wherein each angle between adjacent surfaces at the tip of the tongue is more than 90 degrees.

14\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tip of the lower lip of the tongue groove has a blunt shape, wherein each angle between adjacent surfaces at the tip of the lip is more than 90 degrees.

15\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tongue comprises a locking surface at a lower side, wherein a second tongue angle between the fifth
guiding surface and the locking surface of the tongue is in the range of about 100 degrees to about 145 degrees.

16\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein the tongue groove comprises a locking surface at an upper side of the lower lip, wherein a first lip angle between the locking surface of the lower lip and the sixth guiding surface is in the range of about 100 degrees to about 145 degrees.

17\. (Previously Presented) The set of panels as claimed in claim 1, wherein a difference between the first locking angle and the second locking angle is about 1-2 degrees.

18\. (New) The set of panels as claimed in The set of panels as claimed in
wherein a locking strip protrudes from a lower groove below the tongue at the first edge,
wherein the locking strip comprises the locking element, and
wherein an entire extent of the locking strip from the lower groove to the locking element is horizontal.

OFFICE ACTION:
Reasons for Allowance
Upon further consideration of applicant’s arguments, the claims and prior art of record, the claims are deemed unobvious and allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion of the combination of a first panel having a first edge with a locking element and a tongue, a second panel having a second edge with a locking groove and a tongue groove, the tongue groove having upper and lower lips; first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth guiding surfaces, a first locking angle, a second locking angle having the structural limitations as recited in the claims and the inclusion of the limitations towards “the first locking angle is larger than the second locking angle”. Examiner believes that it will not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art of record to reach applicant’s claimed invention without impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS:
Favorable reconsideration of this application is respectfully requested in view of the foregoing amendments and the following remarks.
Claim Amendments and Status:
Claims 1 and 2 are amended for clarity.
New Claim 18 is added, with exemplary support in Fig. 2A.
No new matter is added.
Claims 1-18 are pending. Claim 1 is the only independent claim. It is respectfully submitted that all pending claims are in condition for allowance.
Claim Objections:
Claims 1 and 2 are amended to address the claim objections. Withdrawal thereof is respectfully requested.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim 1 is amended to clarify that the second locking surface comprises a second locking angle between the second locking surface and an upper surface of the second panel.
Withdrawal of the indefiniteness rejection is respectfully requested.
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Cappelle (US 9,528,278).
Th s rejection is respectfully traversed.
Claims 1 and 17:
Claim 1 recites, inter alia:
wherein a first locking surface of the locking element is configured to
cooperate with a second locking surface of the locking groove for locking
in the horizontal direction,
wherein the first locking surface comprises a first locking angle between
the first locking surface and an upper surface of the first panel,
wherein the second locking surface comprises a second locking angle
between the second locking surface and an upper surface of the second
panel, and
wherein the first locking angle is larger than the second locking angle.
Claim 17 further recites:
wherein a difference between the first locking angle and the second
locking angle is about 1-2 degrees.
Th ! application explains advantages associated with these features:
This may have the effect that a greater part of a pulling load is applied on
curved surface cooperating with fourth guiding surface 22, and that a
greater locking strength is obtained.
Published Application (US 2024/0263457),
Th ! Office Action recognizes that the above-noted subject matter is lacking from
Cappelle, but alleges that "it would have been an obvious engineering design to have the first
and second locking angles as claimed according to the required degree of locking in the vertical direction."
Office Action
,
page 5.
It is respectfully submitted that this conclusion is inconsistent with Cappelle's disclosure.
Cappelle is configured as follows, with reference to the figures reproduced below.
Cap
pelle,
Figs. 6-7.
Cappelle has two locking systems: "a first locking system arranged to lock in the plane of the panels and perpendicularly to the edges [i.e., horizontal locking], as well as form a second locking system, which effects a locking perpendicularly to the plane of the panels [i.e., vertical locking]."
Cappelle,
Abstract.
The first locking system is substantially formed of an upwardly directed
lower hook-shaped portion 18 situated at the edge 5, as well as of a
downwardly directed upper hook-shaped portion 19 which is situated
at the opposite edge 4, which hook-shaped portions can be engaged one
behind the other by said downward movement. The lower hook-shaped
portion 18 consists of a lip 20, which extends laterally from the lower edge of the panel l and which is provided with an upwardly directed
locking element 21 with a locking surface 22, whereas the upper hook- shaped portion 19 consists of a lip 23, which extends laterally from the
upper edge of the panel 1 and which is provided with a downwardly
directed locking element 24 with a locking surface 25.
The second locking system of the edges at the short sides is formed by
locking parts 26-27.
Cappelle,
column 14, lines 23-38 (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the locking surfaces 22 and 25 are part of the first locking system, which provides horizontal locking. This is why the locking surfaces 22 and 25 are vertical surfaces.
As noted above, the Office proposes that "it would have been an obvious engineering design to have the first and second locking angles as claimed according to the required degree of locking in the vertical direction."
Office Action
,
page 5.
There is no evidence in the record establishing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have been somehow motivated to provide vertical locking at the surfaces 22/25. This is because Cappelle already has a vertical locking mechanism, namely the second locking mechanism provided by the locking parts 26-27. By contrast, the first locking mechanism is merely a horizontal locking mechanism.
Even if the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been somehow motivated to provide vertical locking at the surfaces 22/25 as proposed (which Applicant disputes), the ordinarily skilled artisan would have rotated/inclined both surfaces 22/25. Rotating/inclining only one of
those surfaces (to increase the difference between the two angles) would not have provided vertical locking.
There is no evidence in the record establishing that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had any other motivation to modify the angles of the surfaces 22/25 in Cappelle such that the first locking angle is larger than the second locking angle, as claimed in Claim 1, let alone such that "a difference between the first locking angle and the second locking angle is about 1- 2 degrees," as claimed in Claim 17.
In contrast, as explained above, the present application explains that these features can provide significant advantages:
This may have the effect that a greater part of a pulling load is applied on
curved surface cooperating with fourth guiding surface 22, and that a
greater locking strength is obtained.
Published Application (US 2024/0263457),
Claims 1 and 17 are allowable at least for the foregoing reasons.
Claims 15 and 16:
Claims 15 and 16 are allowable at least for the following additional reasons.
Claim 15 recites that "a second tongue angle between the fifth guiding surface and the locking surface of the tongue is in the range of about 100 degrees to about 145 degrees."
Claim 16 recites that "a first lip angle between the locking surface of the lower lip and the sixth guiding surface is in the range of about 100 degrees to about 145 degrees."
The Office Action recognizes that these features are lacking from Cappelle, but alleges that they would have been obvious, as they are "one of a finite number of available angles" between the respective guiding and locking surfaces, and "[n]o new or unpredictable results would be obtained."
Office Action
,
pages 8 and 9.
Application respectfully submits that this is incorrect.
There are an infinite number of angles with any given angular range-not a finite
number of angles. Moreover, the claimed angles have not been identified in the art as among a finite number of solutions. The Office's rationale here is inapplicable.
By contrast, the present application has identified the claimed angular ranges as
particularly suitable for locking the panels. Absent evidence that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been led to those claimed angular ranges, Claims 15 and 16 are patentable over Cappelle.
Withdrawal of the obviousness rejection is respectfully requested.
Double Patenting:
The Office Action asserts nonstatutory double patenting rejections of Claims 1-17 based on claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,287,777, claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,851,549, and claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,814,850.
It is respectfully submitted that the time for filing a Terminal Disclaimer, should one even be necessary, has not matured because the application is still being prosecuted and it is not clear if the scope of the claims will change. Applicant will respond to any future double
patenting rejection when it is indicated that the present claims are otherwise in condition for allowance.
New Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites that a locking strip protrudes from a lower groove below the tongue at the first edge, the locking strip comprises the locking element, and an entire extent of the locking strip from the lower groove to the locking element is horizontal.
Cappelle fails to disclose these features, and teaches away from them.
A reference teaches away "when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken" in the claim. Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
With reference to the figures below, Cappelle seeks to increase the size of the
opening H by bending the hook-shaped portion 18 downward.
Cappelle,
col. 16, lines 62-67. For this reason, Cappelle ensures a "bending zone [that] is not located in the lip 20 and/or 23, but at a farther distance from the respective edge in the respective panel itself."
Cappelle,
col. 17, lines 21-24. This is why portions of the lip 20 close to the locking element 21 are thinner.
Cappell
e,
Figs. 11 and 12.
Accordingly, Cappelle's embodiments all involve a general angling down of the portion of the alleged strip leading to the alleged locking element, to facilitate the connection of the panels.
In view of Cappelle's disclosure, an ordinarily skilled artisan therefore would not have modified Cappelle to make the entire portion of the strip from the panel edge to the locking element horizontal, as doing so would not have ensured the above-described bending zone located away from the panel edge.
Claim 18 is allowable for at least these additional reasons.
Dependent Claims:
The dependent claims define additional distinguishing aspects associated with this application. These claims are allowable at least by virtue of their dependence from an
allowable independent claim. Accordingly, a detailed discussion of the additional distinguishing features recited in each of these dependent claims is not presented at this time. Applicant reserves the right to present such arguments later during prosecution or on appeal.
Conclusion: