DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-17 were rejected in the Office Action mailed 05/20/2025.
Applicant filed an after final response on 07/15/2025, which was not entered on 07/24/2025.
Applicant filed a request for continued examination and amended claim 1 on 08/20/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-17 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/20/2025 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burke et al. (US 2003/0129354) (Burke) in view of Gordon (US 3,953,631), Bing et al. (US 2016/0257097) (Bing), and Xu et al. (CN 104095504) (Xu).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 10-11, 13, and 17
Burke teaches a single-piece floor mat that can withstand at least one industrial wash cycle in a rotary washing machine and is suitable for re-use after exposure to the at least one wash cycle. The single-piece floor mat comprises a layer of tufted pile carpet formed by tufting fibers through a nonwoven substrate and a vulcanized rubber backing sheet bonded on the other side of the nonwoven substrate. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0007-0023], [0033], and [0035]. Given Burke teaches the vulcanized rubber backing sheet is bonded well to the nonwoven pile substrate such that the floor mat is long-lasting, it follows the vulcanized rubber backing sheet is permanently attached to the nonwoven pile substrate.
The nonwoven substrate corresponds to the claimed primary backing layer. The tufted pile carpet, nonwoven substrate, and vulcanized rubber backing sheet corresponds to the claimed textile component of the floor mat and necessarily possesses a floor-facing surface and a non-floor facing surface. The vulcanized rubber backing sheet underlies the nonwoven substrate.
Burke does not explicitly teach the presence of a reinforcement layer (A) or a base component (B) containing up to 40% recycled rubber material (C).
With respect to the difference, Gordon (A) teaches a dust control mat having a pile fabric upper surface and a bottom calendered rubber stock sheet which employs an anti-tear strip located between the rubber sheet and the pile fabric. The anti-tear strip prevents the rubber mat from tearing, such as when the mat is processed in the laundry. The anti-tear strip is a woven, knit, or nonwoven fabric and preferably has a width of 1.5 inches in view of cost and physical characteristic. To improve the adherence of the anti-tear strips the fabric may comprises intestacies or openings to allow the rubber stock sheet to flow therethrough. As shown in FIGs. 1 and 2, the anti-tear strips are attached to at least one edge portion of the dust control mat. See, e.g., abstract, col. 1, lines 53-64, col. 2, lines 58-62, col. 3, lines 3-33, col. 3, line 35 – col. 4, line 26, and FIGs. 1 and 2.
Gordon and Burke are analogous art as they are both drawn to dust control mats.
In light of the motivation as provided by Gordon, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add anti-tear strips between the nonwoven substrate and vulcanized rubber backing sheet attached to the edges of the floor mat of Burke and to allow the vulcanized rubber backing sheet of Burke to flow through the interstices or openings of the anti-tear strips fabrics, in order to prevent the rubber mat from tearing and improve the adherence of the anti-tear strips, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference, Bing (B) teaches a floor mat comprising a fibrous component and a liquid impervious base. The floor mat is washable and reusable. The base of the floor mat is bonded to a fibrous upper pile portion. The base is two layers of vulcanized rubber with a reinforcing layer therebetween. The rubber is natural or synthetic rubber. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0005-0006], [0017], [0019], [0021], [0023], and [0042-0043].
Bing and Burke in view of Gordon are analogous art as they are both drawn to washable floor mats.
In light of the disclosure as provided by Bing, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the base of Bing as the vulcanized rubber backing sheet of Burke in view of Gordon, in order to provide a base for a floor mat that is durable and capable of withstanding repeated commercial, industrial or other cleaning, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference, Xu (C) discloses a rubber floor mat comprising a first rubber layer comprising recycled rubber particles and a second rubber layer comprising recycled rubber particles. The first and second rubber layers are vulcanized. The floor mat employs a lesser amount of raw rubber than a floor mat without the addition of recycled rubber particles and is thus more environmentally friendly and less expensive. The first rubber layer comprises 10-30 parts by weight recycled rubber particles, while the second rubber layer comprises 4-10 parts by weight recycled rubber particles. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0002-0006], [0033], and [0039].
Xu and Burke in view of Gordon and Bing are analogous art as they are both drawn to floor mats.
In light of the disclosure of Xu, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate 10-30 parts by weight recycled rubber particles in the first rubber layer and 4-10 parts by weight recycled rubber particles in the second rubber layer of Burke in view of Gordon and Bing, in order to reduce cost and produce a more environmentally friendly floor mat, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
The vulcanized rubber layers of Burke in view of Gordon, Bing, and Xu read on the claimed secondary backing layer and the claimed single layer base component. Since the vulcanized rubber layer are individual layers, it follows one of the vulcanized layers corresponds to the secondary backing layer and the other corresponds to the single layer base component. Since the anti-tear strips are added between the nonwoven substrate and vulcanized rubber backing sheet, it follows the secondary backing layer underlies the reinforcement layer and the primary backing layer. Given the rubber stock sheet flows through the interstices or openings of the anti-tear strips to improve adherence, it follows the anti-tear strips of Burke in view of Gordon, Bing, and Xu include an elastomeric component of the same material as the rubber backing sheet, i.e., natural or synthetic rubber.
Since Gordon teaches the mat comprising the anti-tear strips are washable, Bing teaches the mat comprising the base of two layers of vulcanized rubber with a reinforcing layer therebetween is washable, and Burke teaches a single-piece floor mat that can withstand at least one industrial wash cycle in a rotary washing machine and is suitable for re-use after exposure to the at least one wash cycle, it follows the single-piece floor mat of Burke in view of Gordon, Bing, and Xu is capable of withstanding at least one industrial wash cycle in a rotary washing machine and is suitable for re-use after exposure to the at least one wash cycle.
Regarding claim 2
Burke further teaches the face fibers are synthetic or natural fibers. Paragraph [0023].
Regarding claim 3
Burke further teaches the face fibers are cotton, polyester, nylon, or polypropylene fibers, particularly nylon fibers. Paragraph [0023].
Regarding claim 14
Burke further teaches the base material for the rubber backing sheet is acrylonitrile butadiene rubber is desirable from a cost perspective. Paragraph [0039].
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use acrylonitrile butadiene rubber in the vulcanized rubber backing sheet of Burke in view of Gordon, Bing, and Xu, in view of a cost perspective, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16
Burke further teaches the face fibers are dyed to produce aesthetically pleasing designs. Paragraph [0023] and [0027].
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-17 are substantially maintained. Any modification to the rejection is in response to the amendment of claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as set forth above.
Applicant primarily argues the recitation “a single layer base component composed of one single layer of recycled rubber material, wherein the rubber material contains up to 40% recycled rubber material” distinguished over the proposed combination. Remarks, pages 7-8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
As discussed in the rejection above, the vulcanized rubber layers of Burke in view of Gordon, Bing, and Xu read on the claimed secondary backing layer and the claimed single layer base component. Since the vulcanized rubber layer are individual layers, it follows one of the vulcanized layers corresponds to the secondary backing layer and the other corresponds to the single layer base component comprised of one single layer of recycled rubber material.
Applicant further argues the claim recites, “the textile component and the base component are permanently attached to one another.” Remarks, page 7.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
As discussed in the rejection above and in the rejection mailed 05/20/2025, since Burke teaches the vulcanized rubber backing sheet is bonded well to the nonwoven pile substrate such that the floor mat is long-lasting, it follows the vulcanized rubber backing sheet is permanently attached to the nonwoven pile substrate.
Applicant further argues the claim recites the reinforcement strips attach to floor-facing surface of the textile component, not to an intermediate tie-coat. Remarks, page 8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Firstly, Gordon is not used to teach the addition of a tie-coat layer. The fact remains Burke does not require the presence of a tie-coat layer between the nonwoven substrate and rubber backing sheet. The anti-tear strips of Gordon do not require the presence of the tie-coat layer to fulfill its function, i.e., prevent the rubber mat from tearing.
Secondly, Gordon teaches the presence of an anti-tear strip between the pile fabric and rubber sheet. The anti-tear strips prevent the rubber mat from tearing. As shown in FIGs. 1 and 2 of Gordon, the anti-tear strips are attached to at least one edge portion of the dust control mat. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would add anti-tear strips between the nonwoven substrate and vulcanized rubber backing sheet attached to the edges of the floor mat, in order to prevent the rubber mat from tearing. Since the anti-tear strips are between the nonwoven substrate and the vulcanized rubber backing sheet, it follows the anti-tear strips attach to at least one edge portion of the floor-facing surface of the nonwoven substrate.
Applicant argues the claimed invention (different structurally from the proposed combination) eliminates rippling by providing a washable single-piece floor mat that can withstand at least one wash cycle in a commercial or residential washing machine and is suitable for re-use after exposure to the at least one wash cycle. Remarks, page 8.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
For the reasons set forth above and in the rejection set forth above, it is the Examiner’s opinion the proposed combination does not differ structurally from the claimed invention and is capable of withstanding at least one wash cycle in a commercial or residential washing machine and is suitable for re-use after exposure to the at least one wash cycle, for the reasons outlined the rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789