DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Action for the Request for Continued Examination based on the 17/978,487 application filed on 11/01/2022 and which claims as amended have been considered in the ensuing 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2023 and 08/01/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2, “(POE)” and “(EVA)” should be deleted
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 1-10, 13-16, and 18-21 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the terms "approximately" on line 17 and “substantially” on line 20 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “approximately” and "substantially" are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner suggests removing the terms “approximately” and “substantially” from the claim language.
Regarding claim 14, the terms "approximately" on line 17 and “substantially” on line 19 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “approximately” and "substantially" are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner suggests removing the terms “approximately” and “substantially” from the claim language.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (TW M525772).
Regarding claim 1:
Lin discloses an exercise mat (1) comprising: a top surface (12) having a plurality of top grooves (16; see Fig. 1-5) parallel to each other and spanning a width of a mat body (see Fig. 2); and a bottom surface (14) having a plurality of bottom grooves (16; see Fig. 1-5) parallel to each other and to each of the top grooves and spanning the width of the mat body (see Fig. 2), the bottom grooves being offset relative to the top grooves so as to define a plurality of portions of the mat body each extending from a corresponding one of the plurality of top grooves to an immediately adjacent one of the plurality of bottom grooves (see Fig. 5); wherein the mat body is formed from a single piece of material so that the exercise mat has a unitary construction (see Fig. 2 and 5; the body of the mat is of unitary construction and formed of a single material; the mesh covering 20 has not been interpreted as part of the mat body for the purposes of examination), the top grooves extend from the top surface towards the bottom surface, and the bottom grooves extend from the bottom surface towards the top surface (see Fig.5); wherein the mat body is foldable along the top and bottom grooves in opposite directions (see Fig. 1-5; the Examiner notes that the claim limitation is intended use and the cited reference must only be capable of performing the intended use); wherein, during use, the mat body is provided with a plurality of configurations, wherein in a first configuration of the plurality of configurations, the mat body is substantially planar, wherein in a second configuration of the plurality of configurations, the mat body is folded along a bottom groove to form a secondary upward facing mat surface at a height different than the top surface, and wherein in the second configuration, the top surface and the secondary mat surface are used simultaneously to support a user applying lateral force to each of the top surface and the secondary mat surface (the cited limitations are intended use and the cited reference must only be capable of performing the cited limitation. It makes no difference if the devices of the prior art are used in a different way since 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. In this instance, the prior art is capable of meeting the claimed intended use recitations since the device comprises a unitary body that is configured to be folded).
Lin fails to distinctly disclose that throughout the extent of each of the plurality of portions of the mat body, the mat body has a thickness from the top surface to the bottom surface of approximately 12 mm.
Lin discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness being approximately 12mm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the thickness approximately 12 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2:
Lin as modified discloses that one of the plurality of bottom grooves is centered along a length of the bottom surface (see Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 3:
Lin as modified fails to distinctly disclose the number of top and bottom grooves and more specifically fails to disclose that the mat has more bottom grooves than top grooves.
Lin discloses the claimed invention except for the amount of top and bottom grooves. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make mat have more bottom grooves than top grooves, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6:
Lin as modified discloses fails to distinctly disclose that the top surface comprises no more than three top surface segments separated by the top grooves.
Lin discloses the claimed invention except for no more than three top surface segments separated by the top grooves. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make mat have no more than three top surface segments, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7:
Lin as modified discloses that each of the three top surface segments is bisected by a bottom groove on the bottom surface (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8:
Lin as modified discloses that each of the top grooves and each of the bottom grooves comprises two opposing groove walls, and wherein the groove walls are sloped relative to a plane perpendicular to the exercise mat, such that the groove walls slope away from each other (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9:
Lin as modified discloses that the mat body comprises one or more of polyolefin elastomers (POE) and ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) (“The foam material may be selected from any one of PU, PE, EVA, TPE, and PVC, ” see attached English translation).
Regarding claim 13:
Lin as modified discloses that the exercise mat is a yoga mat (see Fig. 1-5).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (TW M525772) in view of Yeh (US 2011/0052877). Lin as modified discloses the device as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 4:
Lin fails to disclose the bottom surface is provided with a gripping texture, with the gripping texture extending more deeply into the mat body than a texture of the top surface.
Yeh, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the bottom surface is provided with a gripping texture (Yeh, "the first foam layer 1 of the foam sheet 2 is embossed there bottom with a plurality of elongated ridges 11 separated from one another by valleys 10", paragraph 0034), with the gripping texture extending more deeply into the mat body than a texture of the top surface (Yeh, see FIGS. 4 and 5).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin to have a bottom gripping texture that extends more deeply into the mat than the top surface, as taught by Yeh as the bottom surface has more of a need to be textured to keep the mat in place during use.
Regarding claim 5:
Lin as modified discloses that the gripping texture has ridges for gripping and wherein the texture of the top surface comprises a bead blast texture (see Yeh).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (TW M525772) in view of Wells (US 2019/0217151). Lin as modified discloses the device as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 10:
Lin as modified fails to distinctly disclose that the mat body comprises a cross linked polyethylene foam.
Wells teaches a mat comprised of cross linked polyethylene foam (see paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mat of Lin to be made of cross linked polyethylene foam, as taught by Wells, as the material is a commonly used material for exercise mats.
Claims 14-16, 18, and 20- 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (TW M525772) in view of OnCourt OffCourt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A1Ce8BzN4w, previously attached).
Regarding claim 14:
Lin discloses an exercise mat (1) comprising: a top surface (12) having a plurality of top grooves (16; see Fig. 1-5) parallel to each other and spanning a width of a mat body (see Fig. 2); and a bottom surface (14) having a plurality of bottom grooves (16; see Fig. 1-5) parallel to each other and to each of the top grooves and spanning the width of the mat body (see Fig. 2), the bottom grooves being offset relative to the top grooves so as to define a plurality of portions of the mat body each extending from a corresponding one of the plurality of top grooves to an immediately adjacent one of the plurality of bottom grooves (see Fig. 5); wherein the mat body is formed from a single piece of material so that the exercise mat has a unitary construction (see Fig. 2 and 5; the body of the mat is of unitary construction and formed of a single material; the mesh covering 20 has not been interpreted as part of the mat body for the purposes of examination), the top grooves extend from the top surface towards the bottom surface, and the bottom grooves extend from the bottom surface towards the top surface (see Fig.5);positioning the exercise mat in a first configuration in which the mat body is substantially planar with the bottom surface resting on a floor (see Fig. 2); performing a first exercise utilizing the exercise mat (see Fig. 2); folding the exercise mat along at least one bottom groove such that the mat is in a second configuration (see Fig. 1).
Lin fails to distinctly disclose that throughout the extent of each of the plurality of portions of the mat body, the mat body has a thickness from the top surface to the bottom surface of approximately 12 mm and performing a second exercise utilizing the exercise mat, wherein the second exercise generates simultaneous lateral forces in opposite directions on each of the secondary upward facing mat surface and the top surface.
Lin discloses the claimed invention except for the thickness being approximately 12mm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the thickness approximately 12 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
OnCourt Offcourt shows folding the bottom of the mat upwards and performing an exercise on the mat, wherein the second exercise generates simultaneous lateral forces in opposite directions on each of the secondary upward facing mat surfaces and top surface (see reference).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Lin to include the method disclosed by Oncourt Offcourt to allow for different types of exercises to be performed.
Regarding claim 15:
Lin as modified discloses that the second configuration comprises a secondary upward facing mat surface at a height different than the top surface, and wherein the second exercise requires surfaces at distinct heights (see attached reference).
Regarding claim 16:
Lin as modified discloses that the second exercise requires a sitting surface at a height raised relative to a primary mat surface (see attached reference).
Regarding claim 18:
Lin as modified discloses that the second configuration comprises a secondary upward facing mat surface at a height different than the top surface, and wherein the second exercise requires a surface having more padding than the first exercise (see attached reference).
Regarding claim 20:
Lin as modified fails to distinctly disclose the number of top and bottom grooves and more specifically fails to disclose that the mat has more bottom grooves than top grooves.
Lin discloses the claimed invention except for the amount of top and bottom grooves. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make mat have more bottom grooves than top grooves, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 21:
Lin as modified discloses that each of the top grooves and each of the bottom grooves comprises two opposing groove walls, and wherein the groove walls are sloped relative to a plane perpendicular to the exercise mat, such that the groove walls slope away from each other (see Fig. 5).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (TW M525772) and OnCourt OffCourt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A1Ce8BzN4w, previously attached) in view of Yeh (US 2011/0052877). Lin as modified discloses the device as substantially claimed above.
Regarding claim 19:
Lin as modified fails to disclose the bottom surface is provided with a gripping texture, with the gripping texture extending more deeply into the mat body than a texture of the top surface.
Yeh, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the bottom surface is provided with a gripping texture (Yeh, "the first foam layer 1 of the foam sheet 2 is embossed therebottom with a plurality of elongated ridges 11 separated from one another by valleys 10", paragraph 0034), with the gripping texture extending more deeply into the mat body than a texture of the top surface (Yeh, see FIGS. 4 and 5).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin to have a bottom gripping texture that extends more deeply into the mat than the top surface, as taught by Yeh as the bottom surface has more of a need to be textured to keep the mat in place during use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the arguments stating that Lin does not disclose a unitary construction due to the mesh, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the purposes of examination, the mesh has not been interpreted as being part of the mat body.
With regards to the thickness of the mat, a new means of rejection has been issued. The Examiner notes that the thickness lacks criticality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN M ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6531. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 a.m. -4 p.m. (Arizona).
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4966. 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.
/Megan Anderson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784
Prosecution Insights