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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 11, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 Lines 1-2 recite “for lightly cushioning a foot of a first leg of a yogi and heavily cushioning a knee of a second leg of the yogi”, this limitation was not present in the original disclosure and therefore considered new matter.
Claim 1 Lines 9-11 recites “said seam thickness being at least thin enough so that when said flap is folded along said linear seam that said flap remains folded without additional pressure”, this limitation was not present in the original disclosure and therefore considered new matter.
Claim 1 Lines 13-14 recites “a width from said linear seam to said right edge being at least said flap width plus at least eight centimeters”, this limitation was not present in the original disclosure and therefore considered new matter.
Claim 5 Lines 5 and 7 recite “at least as great as”, this limitation was not present in the original disclosure and therefore considered new matter.
Claim 14 Lines 11-12 recites “a width from said linear seam to said right edge being at least said flap width plus at least eight centimeters”, this limitation was not present in the original disclosure and therefore considered new matter.
Claim 18 Lines 11-13 recites “said perpendicular linear seam thickness is at least thin enough so that when said front flap is folded along said perpendicular linear seam that said front flap remains folded without additional pressure”, this limitation was not present in the original disclosure and therefore considered new matter.
Claim 18 recite “at least as great as”, this limitation was not present in the original disclosure and therefore considered new matter. Applicant may overcome the new matter rejection by clearly pointing out support in the original disclosure, amending, or canceling the claims.
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 5 and 18 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.
Claims 5 and 18 recite “at least as great as”, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “as great as” is referring to. It is suggested that Applicant remove the limitation, however, to proceed the Office will interpret the claim such that “as great as” is considered “the same as”.
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 way 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 10, 11, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharir (US 20100227124 A1) in view of Wang (US 20120233772 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sharri teaches a foldable yoga mat for lightly cushioning a foot of a first leg of a yogi and heavily cushioning a knee of a second leg of the yogi, comprising: a mat 700 defining a rectangular perimeter and having a linear seam 732,734, said rectangular perimeter being composed by a front edge, a right edge, a rear edge, a left edge, said right edge and said left edge defining a mat width therebetween, said linear seam 732,734 running from said front edge to said rear edge and defining a flap 702-710 of said mat, said flap having a flap width being defined between said left edge and said linear seam, said flap width being less than half said mat width, said mat having a mat thickness and said linear seam having a seam thickness, said seam thickness being less than said mat thickness, said seam thickness being at least thin enough so that when said flap is folded along said linear seam that said flap remains folded without additional pressure (Refer to Figs. 7A and 8A-C). Sharri teaches the claimed invention as noted above but fails to teach wherein said flap width being at least twelve centimeters, and a width from said linear seam to said right edge being at least said flap width plus at least eight centimeters. Wang teaches a yoga mat comprising a width and flap (Refer to Wang Fig. 2 Paragraph [0059]:” Yoga mat 10 can have a width of at least about 40 cm (e.g., at least about 50 cm, at least about 60 cm, at least about 70 cm, or at least about 80 cm) and/or at most about 120 cm (e.g., at most about 110 cm, at most about 100 cm, at most about 90 cm, or at most about 80 cm) in a completely unfolded state.”..” Yoga mat 10 can have a length of at least about 120 cm (e.g., at least about 150 cm, at least about 170 cm, at least about 180 cm, or at least about 190 cm) and/or at most about 250 cm (e.g., at most about 240 cm, at most about 230 cm, at most about 220 cm, or at most about 210 cm) in a completely unfolded state.”), wherein if the mat is 40-120cm than the width of each of the flap would be at least twelve centimeters. Wang is from the same field of endeavor as Applicants invention and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the mat of Sharri to be the same dimension as Wang such that said flap 702 width is at least twelve cm, wherein such width would provide the device of Sharri to have such a width from said linear seam 732 to said right edge being at least said flap width plus at least eight centimeters (40cm/3= about 13.3cm each flap) since Wang teaches that such mat widths are suitable and known in the art for floor exercises. Refer to MPEP 2144.04 IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS.
Regarding Claim 4, Sharri in view of Wang continues to teach further wherein said flap width is at least twenty-five centimeters (The Office takes the position that if the width of the mat is at least 120cm as taught by Wang, then the flap 710 would be able at least twenty-five centimeters).
Regarding Claim 5, Sharri continues to teach further comprising a further linear seam 742, said further linear seam being formed at a further-flap 730 width from said right edge, said further-flap 730 width being at least eight centimeters, a width between said linear seam 732 and said further linear seam 734 being at least as great as said further-flap 730 width, and said width between said linear seam 732 and said further linear seam 734 being at least as great as said flap 720 width (Refer to Fig. 7A The Office takes the position that if the width of the mat is at least 40cm as taught by Wang, than the flap width, further flap width, and width between the seams 732 and 734 would be able at least eight centimeters and equal to the flap widths).
Regarding Claim 6, Sharri continues to teach wherein said mat is made from a flexible resilient material (Refer to Abstract:” The method may include forming a foam polyvinyl chloride body of a floor mat”).
Regarding Claim 10, Sharri in view of Wang continues to teach wherein said linear seam 732 and said further linear seam 734 are parallel (Refer to Sharri Fig. 7A).
Regarding Claim 11, Sharri in view of Wang continues to teach wherein said flexible resilient mat is rectangular (Refer to Fig. 7A).
Regarding Claim 16, Sharri in view of Wang continues to teach wherein said further-flap 730 width is at least ten centimeters (Refer to Fig. 7A to depict all the flaps 710,720,730 are equal in width and would be at least ten centimeters if the mat was 40cm as taught by Wang).
Regarding Claim 17, Sharir in view of Wang continues to teach wherein: said flap 710 width is one third of a width of said front edge; and said further-flap 730 width is one third of said width of said front edge (Refer to Fig. 7A).
Regarding Claim 18, Sharri in view of Wang continues to teach wherein: said mat has a perpendicular linear seam 742; said perpendicular linear seam runs from left edge to said right edge (Refer to annotated Fig. 7A below);
PNG
media_image1.png
247
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
said perpendicular linear seam 742 is perpendicular to said linear seam 732; said perpendicular linear seam 742 defines a front flap 702,712,722 of said mat; said mat has a length defined between said front edge and said rear edge; said front flap 702,712,722 has a front-flap length defined between said perpendicular linear seam 742 and said front edge; said perpendicular linear seam 742 has a perpendicular linear seam thickness; said perpendicular linear seam 742 thickness is less than said mat thickness (Refer to Fig. 9B to depict that the thickness at some points 942 is less than the mat thickness ); said perpendicular linear seam 742 thickness is at least thin enough so that when said front flap 702,712,722 is folded along said perpendicular linear seam 742 that said front flap remains folded without additional pressure (Refer to Figs. 7D,E); said front-flap 702,712,722 length is at least twelve centimeters (Refer to WANG Paragraph [0059]:” Yoga mat 10 can have a length of at least about 120 cm (e.g., at least about 150 cm, at least about 170 cm, at least about 180 cm, or at least about 190 cm) and/or at most about 250 cm (e.g., at most about 240 cm, at most about 230 cm, at most about 220 cm, or at most about 210 cm) in a completely unfolded state.”); and a length from said perpendicular linear seam 742 to said rear edge is at least as great as said front-flap length plus at least eight centimeters (The Office takes the position that the modification of the device of Sharri to have the length of Wang, such length being 120cm would provide for a front-flap length of at least 12 cm and the length of the perpendicular linear seam 742 to the rear edge would be at least the length of the front flap plus 8 cm).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the claims filed on 10/22/2025 changes the scope of the claims and have been address in the grounds of rejection disclosed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NYCA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/NYCA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784