DETAILED 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to currently amended claims 1-2, 6, 10-11, and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that “the Examiner fails to point to any specific language in the prior at that points to a user setting a threshold weight based on an expected package” and that “it does not seem obvious that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have realized that the value of the threshold weight can be set by the user”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that the currently amended claims only recite “a threshold weight of at least 30 pounds is detected by the pressure sensor.” The examiner respectfully submits that assigning a particular range of value as the threshold weight (in this case, at least 30 pounds) requires only routine skill in the art to discovery the optimum or workable ranges (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Puljan explicitly teaches that the mat 70 can detects a person when they step on the pressure sensor and can keep track of the user’s weight and to determine if the user has gained or lost weight since the last recorded measurement. Clearly, Puljan as disclosed teaches a comparison between a currently measured weight to a historically stored weight of a user to determine any changes. Puljan further teaches recognizing and identifying the users based on their recorded weights (see Puljan’s Column 9, line 20, to Column 10, line 15). The examiner respectfully submits that setting a value for the threshold weight is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because the optimization of the result-effective variable and ranges requires only routine skill in the art.
In response to the applicant’s argument that “the examiner appears to make a conclusory assumption based on the figure” because the prior arts does not teach “a field of view between 0 and 180 degrees”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant appears to assert that the field of view or the angle of detection between 0-180o is a specific and novel range for a proximity sensor or a laser proximity sensor. The examiner respectfully submits that the range of 0-180o for the angle of detection or the field of view is conventional, standard, and default for proximity sensors and even laser proximity sensor. In this case, the phrase “a field of view between 0 and 180 degrees” is extremely broad not only because it does not disclose whether the field of view is defined with respect to a particular surface, but 0-180o range is the default field of view. In the case that the surface happens to be any surface of the mat, the detection range of 0-180o would obviously be the default because one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the flat surface ranges between 0-180o. The examiner respectfully submits that stating that the proximity sensor can detect between 0 and 180 degrees does not make the field of detection or the field of view (specifically between 0-180o) for the sensor conceptually unique or non-obvious over the prior arts.
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.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 6, the currently amended claim recites “a transmitter in electrical communication with the pressure sensor and configured to wirelessly send an alert to a smart phone once a movement is detected within 15 feet of the doormat device by the laser proximity sensor” without disclosing a function for the pressure sensor and its electrical communication with the transmitter and without disclosing a communication between the transmitter and the laser proximity sensor. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claim
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the same subject matter as the independent claim 6. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puljan (Pat. No. US 9,212,814) (hereafter Puljan).
Regarding claim 1, Puljan teaches a doormat device (i.e., some mats are configured to serve as a bathmat for use in or near a bathtub, shower, hot tub, pool, river, or lake. Some mats are used for lighting swimming pools, spas, or walkways in places such as resorts, cruise ships, movie theaters, and aircraft) (see Column 4, lines 53-61) comprising:
a body comprising a top surface (i.e., mat 10 has a top surface 14 and side surfaces 18) (see Fig. 1) and a recessed texture (i.e., several mat embodiments include suction cups to aid in the adhesion or coupling of the mats to the surface of a floor, tile, vinyl, bathtub, shower, pool, or spa. The mats can have strips of raised rubber that act as a non-slip surface. Some embodiments of mats that are not configured to be submerged have surface features such as bumps, raised rubber strips, or divots that act as a non-slip surface) (see Column 6, lines 18-24) sponge rubber bottom surface (i.e., the mat 30 can be made from PVC vinyl, a rubber-based material, a woven material, carpet, and/or foam. Many portions of the mat 30 can be made from one material, the mat 30 can include many components and portions made from different materials) (see Column 4, lines 53-61);
a pressure sensor embedded within the top surface of the body (i.e., pressure sensor 122 can be under a majority of the top surface of the mat 70) (see Column 9, lines 45-51);
a proximity sensor (i.e., motion sensor 116 can be used to detect when a person is close to the mat 70) (see Column 9, lines 3-21);
a transmitter (i.e., wireless communication device 74) (see Column 7, lines 36-55) in electrical communication with the pressure sensor and configured to send wirelessly an alert to a smart phone (i.e., computing device 78) (see Column 7, lines 36-55; and fig. 5) once a weight is detected by the pressure sensor (i.e., the mat 70 provides a first type of feedback if the user has gained weight since the last recorded measurement and provides a second type of feedback if the user has lost weight since the last recorded measurement) (see Column 10, lines 8-15); and
a battery in electrical communication with the pressure sensor and the transmitter (i.e., a power source 104, such as a battery or a power cord that plugs into an electrical outlet, can be used to provide electricity to all mat components that need electricity) (see Colum 8, lines 32-39); and
wherein the proximity sensor has a field of view between 0 and 180 degrees (i.e., motion sensor 116 can be used to detect when a person is close to the mat 70. Field of detection in this case would be at least between 0 and 180 degrees) (see Column 9, lines 3-21); but does not explicitly teach a threshold weight of at least 30 pounds.
Regarding the threshold weight, Puljan as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that a threshold weight of at least 30 pounds. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have set the threshold weight at an optimal or workable range in order to detect the presence of a user based on weight. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the provisions of adjustability (see MPEP 2144.04(V-D)) and discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 2, Puljan teaches that the body is comprised of a nylon, a polypropylene, a coir, a cotton, a microfiber, a natural rubber (i.e., the mat 30 can be made from PVC vinyl, a rubber-based material, a woven material, carpet, and/or foam. Many portions of the mat 30 can be made from one material, the mat 30 can include many components and portions made from different materials) (see Column 4, lines 53-61), or a natural grass
Claims 6, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puljan (Pat. No. US 9,212,814) (hereafter Puljan) in view of Bogie et al. (Pat. No. US 11,083,652) (hereafter Bogie).
Regarding claim 6, Puljan teaches a doormat device (i.e., some mats are configured to serve as a bathmat for use in or near a bathtub, shower, hot tub, pool, river, or lake. Some mats are used for lighting swimming pools, spas, or walkways in places such as resorts, cruise ships, movie theaters, and aircraft) (see Column 4, lines 53-61) comprising:
a body comprising a top surface and a bottom surface (i.e., mat 10 has a top surface 14 and side surfaces 18) (see Fig. 1);
a pressure sensor embedded within the body (i.e., pressure sensor 122 can be under a majority of the top surface of the mat 70) (see Column 9, lines 45-51);
a proximity sensor embedded within a side surface of the body (i.e., motion sensor 116 can be used to detect when a person is close to the mat 70) (see Column 9, lines 3-21);
a transmitter (i.e., wireless communication device 74) (see Column 7, lines 36-55) in electrical communication with the pressure sensor and configured to wirelessly send an alert to a smart phone (i.e., computing device 78) (see Column 7, lines 36-55) once a movement is detected by the laser proximity sensor (i.e., motion sensor 116 can be used to detect when a person is close to the mat 70) (see Column 9, lines 3-21); and
a battery in electrical communication with the laser proximity sensor and the transmitter (i.e., a power source 104, such as a battery or a power cord that plugs into an electrical outlet, can be used to provide electricity to all mat components that need electricity) (see Colum 8, lines 32-39); and
wherein the body is logo shaped body (i.e., mat embodiments include diverse shapes. The sides of mats may be straight, curved, or wavy. Embodiments include mats of many different shapes including squares, rectangles, circles, ovals, stars, and animal shapes) (see Column 6, lines 1-11); and
wherein the proximity sensor has a field of view between 0 and 180 degrees (i.e., motion sensor 116 can be used to detect when a person is close to the mat 70. Field of detection in this case would be at least between 0 and 180 degrees) (see Column 9, lines 3-21); but does not explicitly teach a cork bottom surface; a laser proximity sensor; a movement is detected within 15 feet of the doormat device by the laser proximity sensor.
Regarding the cork bottom surface, Puljan as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach a cork bottom surface. However, Puljan teaches the non-slip features of the mat (i.e., several mat embodiments include suction cups to aid in the adhesion or coupling of the mats to the surface of a floor, tile, vinyl, bathtub, shower, pool, or spa. The mats can have strips of raised rubber that act as a non-slip surface. Some embodiments of mats that are not configured to be submerged have surface features such as bumps, raised rubber strips, or divots that act as a non-slip surface) (see Column 6, lines 18-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the bottom surface from any material with recognized anti-slip properties in order to avoid accidents and/or injuries. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see MPEP 2144.07). In this case, the specification appears to disclose that any non-slip material would suffice, cork or not, as a matter of design choice (see paragraph section [0024] of the specification dated 03/07/2023).
Regarding the laser proximity sensor, Puljan as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach a laser proximity sensor. However, Bogie teaches a laser proximity sensor embedded within a side surface of the body (i.e., the plurality of proximity sensors 50 can comprise a plurality of infrared distance sensors, including optical distance sensors (e.g. laser, infrared, or optical noncoherent light sources), shadow sensors (e.g. blocking ambient light), thermoelectric or pyroelectric sensors, ultrasonic distance sensors, radar distance sensors, capacitive fringing field sensors) (see Column 11, line 56, to Column 12, line 5; and Fig. 1B); and a transmitter (i.e., it is contemplated that the processing circuitry can be configured to identify an alarm condition corresponding to a threshold value of one or more of the output signals of the force sensors 34 and/or the proximity sensors 50) (see Column 14, lines 20-36). In view of the teaching of Bogie, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used another type of proximity sensor in order to compare and assess the different types of proximity sensors. In this case, the specification appears to disclose that any type of proximity sensor known in the art can be used (see paragraph section [0027] of specification dated 03/07/2023).
Regarding the movement detection threshold, Puljan as modified by Bogie as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach the movement detection threshold. However, However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the detection threshold depending on the layout of the residence and/or the user’s preference in order to accurately detect the approaching user. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the provisions of adjustability (see MPEP 2144.04(V-D)) and discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Regarding claim 10, Puljan teaches that the laser proximity sensor is comprised of a field of view between 0 and 180 degrees (i.e., motion sensor 116 can be used to detect when a person is close to the mat 70. Field of detection in this case would be at least between 0 and 180 degrees) (see Column 9, lines 3-21).
Regarding claim 11, Puljan teaches a doormat device (i.e., some mats are configured to serve as a bathmat for use in or near a bathtub, shower, hot tub, pool, river, or lake. Some mats are used for lighting swimming pools, spas, or walkways in places such as resorts, cruise ships, movie theaters, and aircraft) (see Column 4, lines 53-61) comprising:
a body comprising a top surface (i.e., mat 10 has a top surface 14 and side surfaces 18) (see Fig. 1) and a ridged (i.e., several mat embodiments include suction cups to aid in the adhesion or coupling of the mats to the surface of a floor, tile, vinyl, bathtub, shower, pool, or spa. The mats can have strips of raised rubber that act as a non-slip surface. Some embodiments of mats that are not configured to be submerged have surface features such as bumps, raised rubber strips, or divots that act as a non-slip surface) (see Column 6, lines 18-24) rubber bottom surface (i.e., the mat 30 can be made from PVC vinyl, a rubber-based material, a woven material, carpet, and/or foam. Many portions of the mat 30 can be made from one material, the mat 30 can include many components and portions made from different materials) (see Column 4, lines 53-61);
a pressure sensor embedded within the top surface of the body (i.e., pressure sensor 122 can be under a majority of the top surface of the mat 70) (see Column 9, lines 45-51);
a proximity sensor embedded within a side surface of the body (i.e., motion sensor 116 can be used to detect when a person is close to the mat 70) (see Column 9, lines 3-21);
a transmitter (i.e., wireless communication device 74) (see Column 7, lines 36-55) in electrical communication with the pressure sensor and the laser proximity sensor and configured to send an alert to a two-way speaker (i.e., microphone 108 and speaker 112) (see Fig. 5) once a weight is detected by the pressure sensor (i.e., the mat 70 provides a first type of feedback if the user has gained weight since the last recorded measurement and provides a second type of feedback if the user has lost weight since the last recorded measurement) (see Column 10, lines 8-15) or once a movement is detected (i.e., motion sensor 116 can be used to detect when a person is close to the mat 70. Field of detection in this case would be at least between 0 and 180 degrees) (see Column 9, lines 3-21) within 15 feet of the doormat device by the laser proximity sensor (examiner’s note: this limitation appears to be optional and will not be considered); and
a battery comprised of a charging port positioned within the body and in electrical communication with the pressure sensor, the laser proximity sensor, and the transmitter (i.e., a power source 104, such as a battery or a power cord that plugs into an electrical outlet, can be used to provide electricity to all mat components that need electricity) (see Colum 8, lines 32-39);
wherein the body is an icon shaped body (i.e., mat embodiments include diverse shapes. The sides of mats may be straight, curved, or wavy. Embodiments include mats of many different shapes including squares, rectangles, circles, ovals, stars, and animal shapes) (see Column 6, lines 1-11); and
wherein the proximity sensor has a field of view between 0 and 180 degrees (i.e., motion sensor 116 can be used to detect when a person is close to the mat 70. Field of detection in this case would be at least between 0 and 180 degrees) (see Column 9, lines 3-21); but does not explicitly teach a laser proximity sensor and a threshold weight of at least 30 pounds.
Regarding the laser proximity sensor, Puljan as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach a laser proximity sensor. However, Bogie teaches a laser proximity sensor embedded within a side surface of the body (i.e., the plurality of proximity sensors 50 can comprise a plurality of infrared distance sensors, including optical distance sensors (e.g. laser, infrared, or optical noncoherent light sources), shadow sensors (e.g. blocking ambient light), thermoelectric or pyroelectric sensors, ultrasonic distance sensors, radar distance sensors, capacitive fringing field sensors) (see Column 11, line 56, to Column 12, line 5; and Fig. 1B); and a transmitter (i.e., it is contemplated that the processing circuitry can be configured to identify an alarm condition corresponding to a threshold value of one or more of the output signals of the force sensors 34 and/or the proximity sensors 50) (see Column 14, lines 20-36). In view of the teaching of Bogie, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used another type of proximity sensor in order to compare and assess the different types of proximity sensors. In this case, the specification appears to disclose that any type of proximity sensor known in the art can be used (see paragraph section [0027] of specification dated 03/07/2023).
Regarding the threshold weight, Puljan as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that a threshold weight of at least 30 pounds. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have set the threshold weight at an optimal or workable range in order to detect the presence of a user based on weight. Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the provisions of adjustability (see MPEP 2144.04(V-D)) and discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puljan (Pat. No. US 9,212,814) (hereafter Puljan) in view of Bogie et al. (Pat. No. US 11,083,652) (hereafter Bogie) and Brooksby et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0415150) (hereafter Brooksby).
Regarding claim 13, Puljan as modified by Bogie as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the charging port is comprised of a USB port. However, Brooksby teaches that the charging port is comprised of a USB port (i.e., a mat 102 comprising a microcontroller 102 a first wireless transceiver 106, a second wireless transceiver 108, and a battery 110, wherein the battery is rechargeable via a charging connector 112 (e.g., a USB-C connector)) (see paragraph section [0022]). In view of the teaching of Brooksby, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a USB port in order to reduce the device’s power consumption and to improve the device’s compatibility with other devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855