DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed June 17, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain
pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejections of claims 14-16 and 20, as previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 21, 2026. However, Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 does not overcome the previously set forth rejection of the aforementioned Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1, 8 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Booth (US-8298644-B2).
Regarding claim 1, Booth teaches “A vehicle floor mat assembly, comprising: a first mat member formed of a first material (12 in Annotated Fig. 2B) (Col 5, lines 29-36); and a second mat member formed of a second material that is different than the first material (11 in Annotated Fig. 2B) (col. 3, lines 57- 62), wherein the first and second mat members are removably connected (col 1, lines 55-57) to one another and/or are inhibited from moving relative to one another, and further wherein each of the first mat member and the second mat member is independently usable relative to the other of the first and second mat members, and wherein neither the first mat member nor the second mat member includes an element protruding so as to prevent one of the first and second mat members from being used independently relative to the other.”
The last two lines of this claim are intended use recitation. Booth teaches all of the limiting geometry of this claim. Furthermore, the prior art is capable of performing the same task (independent use) as the claimed invention. Lastly, slot 18 of prior art Booth does not preclude the invention from becoming separated and used independently. In fact, it is stated in the abstract of Booth that the mat assembly is detachable for cleaning purposes.
Regarding claim 8, Booth teaches “The vehicle floor mat assembly of claim 1 wherein the first mat member (12 in Annotated Fig. 2B) is a textile floor mat (Col 5, lines 29-36) and the second mat member (11 in Annotated Fig. 2B) is a resilient or rubber floor mat (col. 3, lines 57-62).”
Regarding claim 12, Booth discloses “The vehicle floor mat assembly of claim 1 wherein the second mat member includes at least one side edge retaining feature (17 in Annotated Fig. 2B) that inhibits removal or movement of the first mat member relative to the second mat member.”
With respect to claim 13, Booth teaches “The vehicle floor mat assembly of claim 12 wherein the second mat member includes a pair of side edge retaining features (17 in Annotated Fig. 2B) that inhibit removal or movement of the first mat member relative to the second mat member, the pair of side edge retaining features each including a raised side wall that extends upward from an upward facing surface of the second mat member and an overhang wall that extends laterally inward from the raised side wall to form a groove (18 in Annotated Fig. 2B) in which the first mat member is receivable.”
PNG
media_image1.png
410
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 2-5, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booth (US-8298644-B2) in view of Parra Becerra et al. (US-20180229637-A1).
With respect to claim 2, Booth discloses “The vehicle floor mat assembly of claim 1
wherein at least one of the first mat member and the second mat member includes a protruding
feature (20 in Annotated Fig 2B) that is complementarily received in a corresponding grooved
feature (19 in Annotated Fig. 2B) disposed on the other of the first mat member and the second
mat member.”
While this reference does disclose protruding and groove features, they do not disclose
that they are interlocking, but rather serve as drainage and contaminant collection chambers.
Parra Becerra et al. discloses a stackable, two-piece mat assembly that is fastened by
inverted T-shape protrusions and grooves, as seen in Fig. 3-5.
Therefore, it 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 to
combine the teachings of Booth and Parra Becerra et al. to create protrusions and groves on a
stackable, two mat assembly, with an inverted T-shape, with a reasonable expectation of success
for better secured mats.
Regarding claim 3, Booth teaches “The vehicle floor mat assembly of claim 2 wherein
the first mat member has the protruding feature extending from an underside thereof (19 in
Annotated Fig. 2B) and the second mat member has the grooved feature disposed in an upwardly facing surface (20 in Annotated Fig. 2B).”
While this reference does disclose protruding and groove features, they do not disclose
that they are interlocking, but rather serve as drainage and contaminant collection chambers.
Parra Becerra et al. discloses a stackable, two-piece mat assembly that is fastened by
inverted T-shape protrusions and grooves, as seen in Fig. 3-5.
Therefore, it 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 to
combine the teachings of Booth and Parra Becerra et al. to create protrusions and groves on a
stackable, two mat assembly, with an inverted T-shape, with a reasonable expectation of success
for better secured mats.
Regarding claim 4, Booth discloses “The vehicle floor mat assembly of claim 3 wherein
the protruding feature (19 in Annotated Fig. 2B) is an inverted T-shape and the grooved feature
(20 in Annotated Fig. 2B) has a complementary inverted T-shape.”
While this reference does disclose protruding and groove features, they do not disclose
that they are an inverted T-shape or interlocking, but rather serve as drainage and contaminant
collection chambers.
Parra Becerra et al. discloses a stackable, two-piece mat assembly that is fastened by
inverted T-shape protrusions and grooves, as seen in Fig. 3-5.
Therefore, it 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 to
combine the teachings of Booth and Parra Becerra et al. to create protrusions and groves on a
stackable, two mat assembly, with an inverted T-shape, with a reasonable expectation of success for better secured mats.
With respect to claim 5, Booth teaches “The vehicle floor mat assembly of claim 2
wherein the first mat member includes a scrim member (15 in Annotated Fig. 2B) having a first
side (14 in Annotated Fig. 2B) and a second side (16 in Annotated Fig. 2B), a textile layer (13
in Annotated Fig. 2B) disposed on the first side of the scrim member and the protruding feature
(20 in Annotated Fig. 2B) extending from the second side of the scrim member.”
While this reference does disclose a scrim, textile layer, as well as protruding features,
they do not disclose that they are interlocking, but rather serve as drainage and contaminant
collection chambers.
Parra Becerra et al. discloses a stackable, two-piece mat assembly that is fastened by
inverted T-shape protrusions and grooves, as seen in Fig. 3-5.
Therefore, it 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 to
combine the teachings of Booth and Parra Becerra et al. to create protrusions and groves on a
stackable, two mat assembly, with an inverted T-shape, with a reasonable expectation of success
for better secured mats.
With respect to claim 7, Booth discloses “The vehicle floor mat assembly of claim 1
wherein the second mat member (11 in Annotated Fig. 2B) is unitarily formed from TPE or
TPV (col. 3, lines 57- 62).”
While this reference does disclose the second mat being rubber-like and elastomeric, it
does not disclose that the mat is specifically TPE or TPV.
Parra Becerra et al. discloses a stackable, two-piece mat assembly that is constructed of
TPE, as seen in ¶012, lines 5-7.
Therefore, it 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 to
combine the teachings of Booth and Parra Becerra et al. to create protrusions and groves on a
stackable, two mat assembly, with an inverted T-shape, with a reasonable expectation of success
for mats with better liquid and contaminant resistance.
Regarding claim 9, Booth discloses “The vehicle floor mat assembly of claim 1 wherein
at least one of the first mat member (12 in Annotated Fig. 2B) and the second mat member (11
in Annotated Fig. 2B) includes a surface feature on an engaging surface that engages the other
of the first and second mat members (19 and 20 in Annotated Fig. 2B).”
While this reference does disclose protruding and groove features, they do not disclose
that they are an inverted T-shape or interlocking, but rather serve as drainage and contaminant
collection chambers.
Parra Becerra et al. discloses a stackable, two-piece mat assembly that is fastened by
inverted T-shape protrusions and grooves, as seen in Fig. 3-5.
Therefore, it 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 to
combine the teachings of Booth and Parra Becerra et al. to create protrusions and groves on a
stackable, two mat assembly, with an inverted T-shape, with a reasonable expectation of success
for better secured mats.
PNG
media_image2.png
680
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
9. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booth (US-8298644-B2) in view of Parra Becerra et al. (US-20180229637-A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Jung et al. (US-20120141725-A1).
Regarding claim 10, Booth discloses “The vehicle floor mat assembly of claim 9 wherein the surface feature is one of an embossment (19 and 20 in Annotated Fig. 2B), a hook and loop fastener or a surface texture feature.”
While Booth does disclose an embossment or surface feature, the protrusions and
grooves, it is not a hook and loop fastener or interlocking.
However, Parra Becerra et al. discloses a stackable, two-piece mat assembly that is
fastened by inverted T-shape protrusions and grooves, with a snap fit, as seen in ¶017, lines 1-2.
Furthermore, Jung et al. discloses a mat fastened by hook and loop (20 in annotated Fig.
3), and secured in place by other embossment features (30 in annotated Fig. 3) as seen in
annotated Fig. 3.
Therefore, it 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 to
combine the teachings of Booth, Parra Becerra et al. and Jung et al. to create protrusions and
groves on a stackable, two mat assembly, and hook and loop fasteners, with a reasonable
expectation of success for better secured mats.
PNG
media_image3.png
730
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments pertaining to claim 1, filed July 08, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The last two lines of claim 1 are intended use recitation. Booth teaches all of the limiting geometry of this claim. Furthermore, the prior art is capable of performing the same task (independent use) as the claimed invention. Lastly, slot 18 of prior art Booth does not preclude the invention from becoming separated and used independently. In fact, it is stated in the abstract of Booth that the mat assembly is detachable for cleaning purposes.
11. Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-13, filed July 08, 2026, with respect to claims 6, 11, 14-16 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 6, 11, 14-16 and 20, from Non-Final Office Action mailed April 21, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant’s amendment precludes Booth as prior art. Furthermore, no other art can be taken alone or in combination to achieve all of the limitations described in this claim. Therefore, claim 16 and its subsequent dependent claims, 17-19, are allowable.
With respect to claim 20, Applicant’s amendment precludes Booth as prior art. Furthermore, no other art can be taken alone or in combination to achieve all of the limitations described in this claim. Therefore, claim 20 is allowable.
13. Claims 6, 11 and 14-15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, Examiner is persuaded by Applicant’s argument. Modifying the material of Booth’s first mat, 12, would destroy the reference because the multi-layered nature of the mat is essential to the function. Hence, the rejection is withdrawn and the claim is hereby objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 11, Examiner is persuaded by Applicant’s argument. Modifying the material of Booth’s first mat, 12, would destroy the reference because the multi-layered nature of the mat is essential to the function. Hence, the rejection is withdrawn and the claim is hereby objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In reference to claim 14, Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection as previously set forth in Non-Final Office Action mailed April 21, 2026. No other art can be taken alone or in combination to achieve the new limitation. Therefore, claim 14 and its subsequent dependent claim 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ROBERT DIGIOVANNANTONIO whose telephone number is (571)272-4526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/D.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights