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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I within claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-13 are non-elected and are thereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6: “tapper” should be “taper”.
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 recites the limitation “the ends” within line 4, after reciting “at least one end” within line 3. It is unclear to Examiner whether the claim is to be limited to at least one or multiple ends. Examiner recommends changing “the ends” to “the at least one end”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the at least two ends” within line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation within the claim, after reciting “at least one end” within claim 1.
Claim 1 recites, “a plurality of second traction elements extending from the traction surface wherein the second traction elements extend from the traction surface” which appears to restate the previous limitation. It is unclear to Examiner how this limitation is meant to further limit the claim.
Claim 1 contains the indefinite pronoun “they” within line 6. Please replace with the noun to which it refers.
Claim 2 contains the reciprocal pronoun “each other” within line 1. Please replace with the noun to which it refers.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an extending” within line 1. Making it unclear what Applicant means by an “extending”. According to the specification (Para.[0009]), “The first traction elements can have a set pattern extending across the first surface.” Examiner recommends amending the claim to “a set pattern
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. 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.
Claim 9 recites “the second traction element can be the shape of…” the phrase "can be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 5, 7 and 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, 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joyce (US 10759224 B2).
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 plurality of first traction elements extending from the first surface (150; Fig.11), the first traction element comprising at least one end, and at least two side walls that substantially form a traction surface from the ends and the side walls (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 specifically teach that the second traction elements substantially taper as they extend from the traction surface.
However, 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 further teaches the traction system of claim 1, wherein the first traction elements have a set pattern or an extending across the first surface (Fig.11).
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 6: Joyce further teaches the traction system of claim 1, wherein the at least two ends have at least a first end and a second end wherein the first end and the second end are radiused (apparent from Fig.11).
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).
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joyce in view of 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.
Conclusion
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