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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are currently pending. Claim 6 is canceled per Applicant. Claims 11-13 are withdrawn as being non-elected within Response to Election filed 10/22/2025. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 remain rejected despite Applicant’s arguments filed 05/11/2026. Amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection presented within this Office action. Claims contain outstanding 112(b) rejections. Response to Applicant arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, line 2: “is has” should be “has”.
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 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.
Claim 1 contains the indefinite pronoun “they” within line 6. Please replace with the noun to which it refers.
Claim 4 recites “an orientation of the first traction element is different from an orientation of the second traction element” with no relativity established regarding the orientation of the traction elements after only reciting that the second traction elements extend from the traction surface and that the first traction element comprises the traction surface. It is unclear to Examiner what orientations to which Applicant is referring.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the substrate" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7 and 9-10 are rejected based upon their dependency on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joyce (US 10759224 B2) in view of Rosier (US 20120321382 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Joyce teaches a traction system for increasing traction on a mat (Fig.8) comprising: a first surface (124; Fig.11) and a second surface (122; Fig.10) adapted for a vehicle wheel to contact (Abstract) wherein the first surface comprises: a pattern formed by a plurality of first traction elements extending from the first surface (150; Fig.11), each first traction element comprising a traction surface (150 and Col.4, lines 15-19); and a plurality of second traction elements extending from the traction surface (160; Fig.8). Joyce does not teach each first traction element being oblong and comprising a first end, a second end, and at least two straight side walls that define a length or specifically teach that the second traction elements substantially taper as they extend from the traction surface.
However, Rosier teaches traction element being oblong and comprising a first end, a second end, and at least two straight side walls that define a length (apparent from Fig.4b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first traction element being of the shape as taught within Rosier since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, Joyce does teach that the first traction elements taper as they extend from the mat surface (Col.4, lines 20-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system to include the second traction elements to taper as described to provide an increase in traction with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2: Joyce further teaches the traction system of claim 1, wherein the first traction elements and the second traction elements are attached to each other (Fig.11).
Regarding claim 3: Joyce does not teach wherein the plurality of oblong first traction elements comprise a first first traction element having a first length with a first axis and a second first traction element having a second length with a second axis and wherein the first axis is not parallel to the second axis.
However, Rosier teaches wherein the plurality of oblong first traction elements comprise a first first traction element having a first length with a first axis and a second first traction element having a second length with a second axis and wherein the first axis is not parallel to the second axis (apparent from Fig.4b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first traction element being of the shape as taught within Rosier since it is obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4: Joyce further teaches the traction system of claim 1, wherein an orientation of the first traction element is different from an orientation of the second traction element (as best understood; Fig.11).
Regarding claim 9: Joyce further teaches the traction system of claim 1, wherein the second traction element can be circular shaped (Fig.11).
Regarding claim 10: Joyce further teaches the traction system of claim 2, wherein the second surface is a mirror image of the first surface (Col.4, lines 57-59).
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joyce in view of Rosier and Harding et al. (US 1815435 A).
Regarding claim 5: Joyce further teaches the traction system, having the second traction elements (160; Fig.8). Joyce does not teach that the second traction elements comprise one or more side walls that are arranged as a crosshatch pattern that substantially diamond shape in the middle of the crosshatch pattern each wall having substantially the same height.
However, Harding teaches the use of a cross hatch pattern that substantially diamond shape in the middle of the crosshatch pattern each wall having substantially the same height (e; Fig.1) for use as a traction element. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Joyce to include a crosshatch pattern for the second traction elements to provide an increase in traction with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7: Joyce further teaches the traction system, wherein the traction elements taper (Col.4, lines 20-22). Joyce does not teach wherein each diamond shape tapers into a point, or a blunt end, or sharp surface.
However, Harding teaches wherein the top of each diamond shape is a blunt end (e; Fig.4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Joyce to include the diamond shape tapering into a blunt end to provide an increase in traction with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8: Joyce further teaches the traction system of claim 5, wherein the substrate is rocks, snow, dirt, mud, or any combination thereof (Col.4, lines 8-9).
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s argument that Joyce fails to teach an oblong first traction element having a first end, a second end, and at least two straight walls as required by the amended claims, Examiner submits the updated obviousness rejection above. Examiner further submits that the traction elements as taught by Joyce in view of Rosier are in a pattern as claimed.
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 HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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 (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights