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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are currently pending. Claims 18-20 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The previous claim objections and 112b rejections have been considered with respect to claim amendments and have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum (US 6219876 B1) in view of Imsande (US 4107811 A) and Medley et al. (US Pat# 5,639,123).
Regarding claim 1, Blum discloses (Fig. 1-8; Specifically, the 2nd embodiment of Fig. 3) a floor mat system (100; Abstract, line 1) comprising: a mat base (200) comprising a recessed portion (210) defined by substantially planar side walls oriented orthogonally to a lower surface of the recessed portion, the recessed portion being configured to receive a pad of adhesive sheets (300; Col. 7, lines 38-39; Fig. 3) in a replaceable manner (Col. 7, lines 42-49), a border surrounding the recessed portion (Fig. 1) and configured to protect edges of the adhesive sheets from wear (Col. 3, lines 62-67); and the pad of adhesive sheets, each of the adhesive sheets comprising an adhesive first surface (Col. 7, lines 40-42 and 51-54; Col. 9, lines 19-20) and an opposed non-adhesive surface (Col. 6, lines 1-9; Only the top side is a “tacky surface”).
Blum fails to disclose a first tab/portion located at a first corner of the adhesive sheet, and a second tab/portion located at a second corner of the adhesive sheet, the second corner being diagonally opposed to the first corner, wherein the first and second tabs are effective to allow the first and second opposed corners of the adhesive sheet to be simultaneously peeled away from an adjacent or lower sheet of the pad of adhesive sheets, and wherein at least one corner of the recessed portion comprises a notch configured to allow a user to lift up a single adhesive sheet, of the pad of adhesive sheets, using at least one of the first portion or the second portion of the adhesive sheet.
Nevertheless, Imsande teaches (Fig. 1-5) it is old and well-known in the art of tacky floor mats, specifically those comprising a stack of adhesive sheets (Col. 1, lines 6-12), to print a thin coating of non adhesive material (18; i.e., a tab) on one or more corners of each sheet to initiate and facilitate ready peeling of each sheet (Col. 3, lines 57-62; Col. Col. 5, line 35), wherein if more than one corner has been non-adhesively coated the peeling may originate in any such corner (Col. 4, lines 21-23). Imsande also teaches (Col. 5, lines 8-14) it is expected that with the improved non-adhesive coating for peeling purposes, it would be feasible to stack approximately 30 or even a greater number of sheets in one stack providing longer use of the stack without replacement.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to print a thin coating of non-adhesive material (i.e., tabs) on all of the corners of the sheets of Blum to initiate and facilitate peeling at any corner the user chooses to peel from.
The combination of Blum and Imsande does not explicitly teach wherein at least one corner of the recessed portion comprises a notch configured to allow a user to lift up a single adhesive sheet, of the pad of adhesive sheets, using at least one of the first portion or the second portion of the adhesive sheet.
However, Medley disclosed the use of a notch 2 for allowing easy removal of tacky sheets (Post-it Notes) from a holder 1. Medley discloses that the notch allows a finger to access the notes for easy removal. (col. 1, lines 5-15, col. 2, lines 1-9, col. 3, lines 7-35, and figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the notch of Medley, to the holder to Blum in view of Imsande, in order to allow for finger access for ease of removal as taught by Medly. The combination of Medley with Blum and Imsande would have resulted in the notches being placed in the corners of the holder as Imsande teaches the portions for removal being included in the corners.
Regarding claim 2, Blum also discloses wherein the recessed portion is shaped and dimensioned slightly larger or substantially identical to the shape and dimensions of the pad (Fig. 2; Col. 5, lines 48 52).
Regarding claim 3, Blum also discloses wherein the recessed portion comprises a shallow, hollow structure sized to contain the pad disposed therein (Fig. 2; Col. 3, lines 62-67).
Regarding claim 4, Blum also discloses wherein the recessed portion is defined by raised walls on a surface of the mat base (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, the combination of Blum in view of Imsande and Medley as applied and cited in claim 1 above would lead to a notch being positioned at each corner to facilitate in ease of removal of the sheets.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Blum in view of Imsande teaches wherein each of the adhesive sheets further comprises a third tab located at a third corner of the adhesive sheet and a fourth tab located at a fourth corner of the adhesive sheet, the fourth corner being diagonally opposed to the third corner. (as cited in rejection of claim 1)
Regarding claim 8, Blum also discloses wherein a bottom surface of the recessed portion comprises a display area configured to display a design, illustration, logo, picture or the like (220; Fig. 2; Col. 4, lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 10, Blum fails to disclose in the 2nd embodiment a decorative sheet configured to be removably placed with the recessed portion, below the pad of adhesive sheets. Nevertheless, Blum suggests providing a modifiable display panel, such as an erasable writing board, beneath the pad of adhesive sheets such that a user may design and display their customized graphic (Col. 6, lines 66-67, and Col. 5, lines 1-6). Accordingly, because Blum provides a suggestion to do so, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a removable decorative sheet beneath the pad of adhesive sheets of Blum to achieve the predictable result of displaying an image.
Regarding claim 11, Blum also discloses wherein the mat base comprises a weight and mass effective to maintain the mat base position on the floor surface when stepped on by a user (Col. 3, lines 48-51).
Regarding claim 13, Blum also discloses wherein the mat base is comprised of plastic, metal, plastic composites, or combinations thereof (Col. 3, lines 52-57, the mat base is comprised of “polyurethane” which is a plastic material; See the 112(b) rejection of “and combinations thereof”).
Regarding claim 14, Blum also discloses wherein each of the adhesive sheets is recyclable (Col. 7, lines 42-49; Col. 6, lines 29-53; the adhesive sheets can be cleaned and re-used).
Regarding claim 15, Blum fails to disclose in the 2nd embodiment wherein each of the adhesive sheets comprises a sanitizing agent. Nevertheless, Blum suggests that the adhesive sheets may include an antibacterial composition such as anthraquinone derivatives of polyethylene glycol mono- and di-methacrylate to remove potentially harmful bacteria from a person’s soles (Col. 6, lines 54-65). Accordingly, because Blum provides a suggestion to do so, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a sanitizing agent in the form of an antibacterial composition to achieve the predictable result of removing potentially harmful bacteria from a person’s sole.
Regarding claim 16, Blum fails to disclose wherein the pad of adhesive sheets comprises between 15 and 60 adhesive sheets. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to stack 30 adhesive sheets to provide extended use of the stack of Blum without replacement.
Regarding claim 17, The modified device of Blum discloses the claimed invention except for the specific arrangement and/or content of indicia (printed matter) set forth in the claim(s). It has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401, (CAFC 1983). The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with an indication of the remaining number of adhesive sheets it does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability. The examiner asserts that the floor mat system comprising a pad of adhesive sheets is the same structure claimed by applicant and the sole difference is in the content of the printed material. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter (e.g., the numbers) and the substrate (e.g., the pad of adhesive sheets) which is required for patentability. Accordingly, there being no functional relationship of the printed material to the substrate, as noted above, there is no reason to give patentable weight to the content of the printed matter which, by itself, is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blum in view of Imsande and Medley, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of McKay (US 20030024062 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Blum as modified by Imsande and Medley discloses the floor mat system of claim 1.
However, Blum as modified fails to disclose wherein the mat base comprises a non-slip surface treatment on a bottom surface of the mat base, the non-slip surface treatment being effective to maintain the mat base position on the floor surface when stepped on by a user.
Nevertheless, McKay teaches (Para. 0087, lines 17-21) it is old and well-known to make the lower surface of a mat base tacky to grip the floor and prevent slipping of the mat base.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mat base of Blum to include a tacky lower surface to grip the floor and prevent slipping of the mat base.
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 IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5569. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights