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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendment filed July 14, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-5 remain pending in the application. Claims 1 and 4-5 are currently amended. Claim 2 is original. Claims 3 and 6 are cancelled.
Applicant provided replacement drawing set; however, the replacement set when viewed with the original, have no noticeable difference. (See at least: Figs. 3A-4 comparison below). Therefore, the previous objections are maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
545
1342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
331
1283
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, have overcome each and every Specification objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed June 09, 2025. In view of the amendment to the Specification the previous objections have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to the claims 1 and 4-5 the previous objections to claims 1 and 3 have been withdrawn. In view of the amendment to the claims 1 and 4-5 the previous 35 USC § 112(b) rejections to claims 1-6 are maintained. However, the amendments to the claims have created additional rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Please refer to the detailed discussion below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: {The Examiner maintains the previous drawing objections though are rewritten for more clarity on the objections. New objections are added due to the amended claim 1 language.}.
FIRST: Figs. 1, through 3A-4 all show the material of Fig. 1 “1” to be different than that of Fig. 1 “2”. The amended claim 1 clarifies that the materials of “1” and “2” are the same. Therefore, the material drawing symbols should match, where an example of this is that the drawings show that they are both white/blank filled or cross hatched fill. (See at least: MPEP 608.02.IX for known graphic drawing symbols; 37 C.F.R. 1.84(h)(3) sectional views “…The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section…”).
SECOND: Fig. 3B is not clear when viewed with fig. 3A; such that fig. 3A has arrows showing to make the bent or formed edges 33 of fig. 3B would be turned in the direction of the arrows. Fig. 3B does not show the invention with the bending or forming in the direction of Fig. 3A. Therefore, it is not clear which direction is the correct way to bend or form the routed edges 32 of fig. 3A.
THIRD: Fig. 3B is not clear when viewed with fig. 3A; such that fig. 3A reference character “2” points to the non-routed material, and fig. 3B reference character “2” points to the routed material. This adds to the confusion of the SECOND issue above as to they appear flipped or inverse of each other. Having “1” and “2” point to the correct part will solve this.
FOURTH: Fig. 4 is not clear when viewed with figs. 3A-3B. Where fig. 4 is more closely aligned with fig. 3B. It is not clear Fig. 4 or Fig. 3A version is correct due to the above issues causing confusion when searching for prior art.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Figs. 3A, 3B and 4 all are missing reference sign “1”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4 recites “…the the top layer…” and should be “…the top layer…”.
Claim 1, line 6 recites “…non-routed bottom layer edges…” and should be “…the non-routed bottom layer edges …”.
Claim 4, lines 2-3 are inconstant with the use of “mm” when viewed with the claim 5 language. Changing to “6 millimeters… 12 millimeters” or “6 mm… 12 mm” {adding a space} would correct this.
Claim 5, lines 2-3 are inconstant with the use of “inch/inches” and should be “inch” as it is less than 1 inch.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2 and 4-5 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “EVA/PE foam” in line 2. Where “EVA/PE foam” was not previous introduced. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the edges of the boat deck lid” in lines 7-8. Where “a plurality of edges of the boat deck lid” was not previous introduced. The Examiner notes: that a boat deck lid in the simplest form consists of sides and a top and bottom, which all have many edges; clarification as to what the boat deck lid is, would need to happen to explain which edge(s) are being described along with additional adjectives for example a perimeter edge. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the space” in line 8. Where “a space” was not previous introduced. The Examiner notes: that the space and the two or more items that make up the space would have to introduced to define the space. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the boat deck” in lines 8-9. Where “a boat deck” was not previous introduced. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 and 4-5 recites the limitation “a boat deck lid” in line 1. Where claim 1 line 1 already introduced “a boat deck lid”. It is not clear if this is a new boat deck lid or the same boat deck lid. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the two layers” in line 2. Where “two layers” was not previous introduced. Changing to “the top layer and the bottom layer” to match the amended claim 1 will correct this. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “covering material” in line 2. Where claim 1 line 1 already introduces “a covering material”. It is not clear if this is a covering material or the same covering material. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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, 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SeaDek® Marine Products (archived website date 07/17/2020) in view of Jones (DIY Jon Boat INTERIOR BOAT CARPET On A Budget). {Examiner notes: SeaDek® NPL is as previous provided on the non-final action}
Regarding claim 1, SeaDek® Marine Products discloses a covering material (SeaDek®) for a boat deck lid (boat deck lid) comprising: (See at least: NPL pages 1 and 4; where page 4, 3rd image to the right has SeaDek® on a boat deck lid)
a) a top layer (color) and a bottom layer (color) of EVA/PE foam (closed cell PE/EVA foam) wherein the top layer and the bottom layer are laminated together (a combination of any two colors laminated together); and (See at least: NPL page 1 first para. second line “Made from…”; page 2 first para. first line “They may be…”; where each of a top layer or bottom layer is defied by a color)
b) wherein the the top layer comprises edges that are routed (routed edges) to a thickness (thickness, diameter or depth) which allows the top layer routed edges and non-routed bottom layer edges to be bent or formed over the edges of the boat deck lid and prevent rattling and filling the space between the boat deck and the boat deck lid. (See at least pages 2-3 where the figures show routed edges to a thickness of a outside to inside diameter to a depth, where the depth revels the next layer/color.).
However, SeaDek® Marine Products does not disclose which allows the top layer routed edges and non-routed bottom layer edges to be bent or formed over the edges of the boat deck lid and prevent rattling and filling the space between the boat deck and the boat deck lid.
Jones in a similar field of endeavor, teaches b) wherein the the top layer (1/8-inch-thick carpet) comprises edges that are routed to a thickness (thickness) which allows the top layer routed edges and non-routed bottom layer edges (1/8-inch-thick carpet) to be bent or formed over the edges of the boat deck lid (around your hatch) and prevent rattling and filling the space between the boat deck and the boat deck lid (tight fit). (See at least: video from time 3:10 to 3:30; where Jones teaches to cut the hatch so that there is a ¼ inch space/gap from the hatch side to the side of the next panel piece, this is due to Jones will use 1/8 inch carpet where 1/8 inch + 1/8 inch = 1/4 inch achieves a tight fit; written another way a formula of: 2*cover thickness = space or gap size; for tight fit). {The examiner notes; that a tight fit under broadest reasonable interpretation would also prevent rattle as there is no space to cause the vibration movement and there is a dampening effect with the base layer of carpet}
Additionally, Jones teaches in the comments section (3 years ago, approx. 9/19/2022 the date of writing this action is 9/19/2025) that “hydroturf” (brand Hydro-Turf; which is an EVA foam and marine upholstery product) is a better solution than carpet. Where SeaDek® and Hydro-Turf are similar products.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have performed a simple substitution of a two-color laminated together closed cell PE/EVA foam of SeaDek® and routed edges with carpet of Jones with a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art of Jones teaches that carpet is wrapped around the sides and edges of a hatch along with a formula to determine a tight fit based on the dimensions of the carpet and the gap or space between the hatch and the other panels. Jones additionally notes that Hydro-Turf is a better solution than carpet and therefore the substitution of one for the other is known. SeaDek® and Hydro-Turf are similar products and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution that would have the predictable outcome of a tight fit when adhering to the formula of 2*cover thickness = space or gap size. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of either routing the foam as disclosed by SeaDek® or modifying the hatch as taught by Jones to achieve a tight fit using the artisan’s skill and best judgment for the best solution.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to Claim 1 above. (See at least: SeaDek® NPL pages 2-3 where thickness options and two or more colors are discussed).
Regarding claim 5, one of ordinary skill of the art would adhere to the formula of 2*cover thickness = space or gap size to determine that the cover would need to be routed to a final cover thickness of the space or gap size divided by two (solving the equation for cover thickness). Additionally, SeaDek® NPL page 2 modified by the examiner shows when selecting the 6 mm option routing to 0.12 inch will be around depth to expose the second color.
PNG
media_image3.png
338
926
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Mullinax et al. (US 20050048245 A1) teaches backing for fabrics (marine grade carpet), of a composition of low-density polyethylene ("LDPE") and flexibilizers, used to provide flexibility to the backing material, of ethylene vinyl acetate. (See at least: fig. 2 and para. [0030]-[0037]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument of claim 1.
Conclusion
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 ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (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, SAMUEL J MORANO can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615