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 § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haney (US 2009/0235605) in view of Walker (US 2004/0258869) and further in view of Ngo (US 2014/0363621).
Regarding claim 1, Haney discloses a modular synthetic floor tile 110 comprising:
a plurality of interconnecting structural members 118, 122 defining an upper contact surface 114 of the floor tile having a plurality of openings 130, (Fig 3-5) said plurality of structural members comprising a contact flat 134 defining a portion of said upper contact surface and having a width (Fig 6).
Haney does not disclose the width of the contact flat being between 2.5 and 5.0 mm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the upper contact surface to have the contact flat width between 2.5 and 5.0 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the width of the upper contact surface according to the required structural capabilities of the tile. A change in a width is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Haney does not disclose said contact flat having a plurality of protrusions wherein said protrusions extend between .01 and .10 mm above the upper contact surface, and the contact flat and the plurality of protrusions are unitary. However, Walker discloses a modular synthetic floor tile 1 having an upper surface 20 with a plurality of protrusions (spherical dimpling, photo chemically etched texture), the upper surface and the plurality of protrusions (spherical dimpling, photo chemically etched texture) are unitary (Fig 1, 4), (Par 0021). Examiner wants to note that the protrusions formed by “spherical dimpling” is formed by indentations in the upper surface and the protrusions formed by “photo chemically etched texture” are from the same material of the upper surface thus the protrusions are unitary with the upper surface. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact flat to include protrusions as taught by Walker, in order to improve non-slip properties and to enhance the wear resistance of the floor tile. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
As modified, the floor tile of Haney and Walker would have the contact flat and the plurality of protrusions unitary.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have protrusions extending between .01 and .10 mm above the upper contact surface, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the protrusions according to the required slip resistance of the tile. A change in a size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Haney discloses the floor tile can be made of any suitable materials and can be engineered to provide more or less shock absorption, depending upon various factors such as intended use, cost, etc. but does not disclose at least the upper contact surface is formed from a composition of rigid plastic and rubber. However, Ngo discloses that it is well known to have composite boards made from plastic and rubber (Par 0004). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor tile of Haney to be made of a composite of rigid plastic and rubber as taught by Ngo, in order to provide a floor tile that would require little maintenance while providing strength and flexibility according to the required structural characteristics of the tile. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2, 3, Haney modified by Walker and Ngo discloses as discussed in claim 1, but does not disclose the protrusions having a width between 0.1 and 0.3 mm and a length between 0.3 and 1.0 mm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have protrusions having a width between 0.1 and 0.3 mm and a length between 0.3 and 1.0 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the protrusions according to the required slip resistance of the tile. A change in a size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Haney discloses a radius of a side of the contact flat is less than .005 inches, (Fig 6, 7), (Par 0073, 0083).
Regarding claim 6, Haney modified by Walker and Ngo discloses the modified protrusions are formed of the same material as the upper contact surface (dimples formed by indentations in the same material of the upper contact surface or photo chemically etched texture in the upper contact surface).
Regarding claims 7, 8, Haney modified by Walker and Ngo discloses the claimed modular synthetic floor tile having the protrusions.
The claim is a product by process claim and the floor tile with protrusions does not depend on the process of making it. The product-by-process limitation " formed by etching” or “formed from an additive post-process” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the floor tile. Therefore, the claimed protrusions are not a different and unobvious protrusions from the protrusions of Haney and Walker.
Regarding claim 21, Haney modified by Walker and Ngo discloses as discussed in claim 1, as modified, the upper contact surface would be configured to elastically deform under load so as to conform to irregularities of an underlying subfloor and reduce dead spots during ball impact. Examiner concludes this because the modified upper contact surface would be formed from a composition of rigid plastic and rubber and it would be structurally the same than Applicant’s claimed invention thus it will be capable of performing in the same manner.
5. Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haney (US 2009/0235605) in view of Walker (US 2004/0258869), Ngo (US 2014/0363621) and further in view of Gardner (US 2005/0223664). Haney modified by Walker and Ngo discloses as discussed in claim 7, but does not disclose the protrusions comprise a sand or grit material suspended in an additive coating. However, Gardner discloses a modular synthetic floor tile 1 having an upper surface 5 with a plurality of protrusions 10 (Fig 1), the protrusions 10 comprise grit material suspended in an additive coating (Par 0010, 0015, 0016). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protrusions of Haney, Walker and Ngo as taught by Gardner, in order to improve the non-slip properties and to enhance the wear resistance of the floor tile. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 11,12,14-20 are allowed.
7. Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
8. In the response filed on 12/31/2025 Applicant noted that Claim 10 was objected to and the dependency was amended, however, claim 10 was not rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, for that reason Claim 10 remains objected to. Examiner attempted multiple times to reach Applicant’s representative Mr. Kurt Hendricks to discuss this but no response was received.
In response to applicant's argument that Haney modified by Walker and Ngo does not meet the limitations towards “the upper contact surface would be configured to elastically deform under load so as to conform to irregularities of an underlying subfloor and reduce dead spots during ball impact”, Examiner would like to note that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention 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.
Conclusion
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-8281. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM MONDAY-FRIDAY.
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.
/ADRIANA FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
01/31/2026