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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/25/2026 has been entered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
1 Claims 1, 5, 6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0143374 to Stitchick (cited by applicant) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0308784 to Chen.
Stitchick discloses a work mat for supporting containers such as cans. [0001]. The mat includes opposed sides, one side defining a base (lower surface 14), and the other side (upper surface 16) defining a vessel/container support portion. [0017] An adhesive layer is provided on the base or the lower surface 14 for adhering the work surface. [0026]
Stitchick does not teach that the vessel support portion (upper side) is configured to releasably adhere to a laboratory vessel.
Chen teaches a pad for removably securing objects to surfaces which pad includes a back adhesive layer 102, a front adhesive layer 104, and an intermediary layer 106. [0023]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Stitchick to provide the upper surface with an adhesive layer as taught by Chen for purposes of releasable securing objects thereto.
The recitation of a “laboratory vessel support mat” does not incorporate any structural features from the previous recitation of a “work mat for supporting laboratory vessels.”
The recitation in claim 1, lines 1-4 of “configured to” support laboratory vessels containing cells and [“configured to”] be arranged in an environmentally controlled incubator to be shaken to agitate the vessels,” is intended use language and does not incorporate structural limitations into the claimed work mat. The incubator is not a structural element of the mat and not claimed in combination with the mat.
The limitation of “the base is configured to releasably adhere to a surface of the incubator” reads on the adhesive layer provided on the base or the lower surface 14 of Stitchick which can be releasable adhered to any support surface.
As can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3 of Stitchick upper surface defines a discontinuous planar surface having a plurality of lands that are separated by grooves.
As for the limitations of the base being “configured to” adhere to the surface of the incubator more firmly than the vessel support portion is configured to adhere to the laboratory vessel, in Chen the object held by the adhesive layer 104 can be removed without the pad being removed from a surface to which the pad is attached.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Stitchick in view of Chen to provide the top and bottom surfaces adhesive strengths to cause firmer adhesion against a surface to which the mat is attached while allowing removal of an object on the upper surface of the mat.
Otherwise, the lands would provide a lesser overall surface area than the support portion making the adherence to the surface of the incubator more firmly than to a laboratory vessel on the vessel support portion.
In response to the newly add limitation that the base is configured to adhere to the surface of the incubator by pressing the base against the surface of the incubator to cause the panel to compress and then adhere to the surface of the incubator, and the support portion is configured to adhere to the laboratory vessel by pressing a base of the vessel to the support portion to cause the panel to compress and then adhere to the vessel, Stitchick teaches that the mat can be made from a rubber material. [0026]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to press the base of the mat against the surface of a support surface (e.g., incubator) to cause the mat to compress to some degree and then adhere to the surface of the support surface, and press a base of the vessel to the support portion (upper surface of the mat) to cause the mat to compress to some degree and then adhere to the vessel for purposes of ensuring attachment via the adhesive.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Stitchick in view of Chen renders all the limitations of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the discontinuous planar surface defines a surface area of less than or equal to 75% of the continuous planar surface.
Stitchick in view of Chen does not teach that the discontinuous planar surface defines a surface area of less than or equal to 75% of the continuous planar surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine a suitable amount of the discontinuous planar surface area to the continuous planar surface in Stitchick in view of Chen including an amount of discontinuous planar surface area that is less than or equal to 75% of the continuous planar surface, for containers/vessels having a particular base size.
Therefore, Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 5 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 5 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the discontinuous planar surface defines a surface area of less than or equal to 50% of the continuous planar surface.
Stitchick in view of Chen does not teach that the discontinuous planar surface defines a surface area of less than or equal to 50% of the continuous planar surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to conduct routine engineering optimization experimentation to determine a suitable amount of the discontinuous planar surface area to the continuous planar surface in Stitchick in view of Chen including an amount of discontinuous planar surface area that is less than or equal to 50% of the continuous planar surface, for securing containers/vessels having a particular base size.
Therefore, Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 6 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites that the panel comprises a first layer formed from a first material and defining the base, and a second layer formed from a second material and defining the vessel support portion, the first material being different to the second material to cause firmer adhesion to another object.
In Chen the object held by the adhesive layer 104 can be removed without the pad being removed from a surface to which the pad is attached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Stitchick in view of Chen to provide the top and bottom surfaces adhesive strengths to cause firmer adhesion against a surface to which the mat is attached while allowing removal of an object on the upper surface of the mat.
Therefore, Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 9 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that each of the base and the vessel support portion are configured to be tacky.
As noted above, in Stitchick in view of Chen, both the upper and lower surfaces are tacky.
Therefore, Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 10 obvious.
VI.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, claim 11 recites a laboratory vessel support mat system including a plurality of work mat modules according to claim 1, where the modules are securable adjacent to each other on a surface to cover at least a portion of the surface.
As noted above, Stitchick in view of Chen renders the work mat of claim 1 obvious.
Stitchick in view of Chen does not teach a work mat system including a plurality of work mat modules according to claim 1, where the modules are securable adjacent to each other on a surface to cover at least a portion of the surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to use a plurality of the mats of Stitchick in view of Chen together to cover a given surface area.
Therefore, Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 11 obvious.
VII.) Regarding applicant’s claim 12, as noted above Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 11 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites that each of the modules are identical.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a plurality of identical mats of Stitchick in view of Chen together to cover a given surface area.
Therefore, Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 12 obvious.
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Stitchick in view of Chen as applied to claim 1 and further in view of German Utility Patent No. DE9001455 to Wimmer (cited by applicant).
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 3 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites that the lands form elongate strips, the strips arranged to be parallel to each other.
Stitchick in view of Chen does not teach that the lands form elongate strips, the strips arranged to be parallel to each other.
Wimmer teaches a mat for supporting laboratory vessels that includes ridges and grooves that are shown in Figs. 1-3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Stitchick in view of Chen to provide the upper surface with grooves and ridges as taught by Wimmer and provide the grooves and ridges parallel to each other for supporting laboratory vessels.
Therefore, Stitchick in view of Chen and Wimmer renders claim 4 obvious.
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Stitchick in view of Chen as applied to claim 1 and further in view of German Utility Patent No. DE 202010013662 U1 to Heibsch et al.
Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Stitchick in view of Chen renders claim 7 obvious from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that the panel is formed from a polyurethane elastomer.
Stitchick in view of Chen does not teach that the mat is formed from a polyurethane elastomer.
As noted above Stitchick teaches that the mat can be made from a rubber material. [0026]
Heibsch et al. teaches a massage mat that can be made from rubber and particularly a polyurethane elastomer. (page 2, second paragraph from the bottom of English translation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Stitchick in view of Chen to use polyurethan elastomer for the rubber material taught by Stitchick in view of Heibsch et al. teaches that polyurethan elastomer is a rubber material.
Therefore, Stitchick in view of Chen and Heibsch et al. renders claim 8 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-6 and 8-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection which addresses the new claim limitations of pressing the base against the surface of the incubator to cause the panel to compress and then adhere to the surface of the incubator and pressing a base of the vessel to the support portion to cause the panel to compress and then adhere to the vessel.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of applicant’s response applicant argues that Chen's adhesion mechanism relies on the inherent tackiness imparted by naphthenic oil impregnation of the thermoplastic rubber, not as a result of compression of a resiliently deformable polymer panel, as required by amended independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the base configured to adhere to the surface of the incubator by pressing the base against the surface of the incubator to cause the panel to compress and then adhere to the surface of the incubator, and the support portion is configured to adhere to the laboratory vessel by pressing a base of the vessel to the support portion to cause the panel to compress and then adhere to the vessel.
As noted above, Stitchick teaches that the mat can be made from a rubber material. [0026]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to press the base of the mat (made of rubber) against the surface of a support surface (e.g., incubator) to cause the (rubber) mat to compress to some degree and then adhere to the surface of the support surface, and press a base of the vessel to the support portion (upper surface of the mat) to cause the (rubber) mat to compress to some degree and then adhere to the vessel for purposes of ensuring attachment via the adhesive. Applying pressure to an adhesive is an obvious way to cause the adhesive to attach to surface.
Applicant’s claim language does not distinguish over pressing the rubber mat of Stitchick in view of Chen against a support surface to achieve adhesion or pressing a vessel against the upper surface of the rubber mat to achieve adhesion.
On pages 8-9 applicant argues that in Stitchick the bumps are shaped and arranged to accept a container placed on the non-skid surface such that a support rim of a bottom of the container registers between bumps and rests solely on the upper surface of the base layer," and that the “adjacent bumps prevent the paint can from sliding laterally in any direction."
Stitchick has been modified in view of Chen to include an adhesive.
As noted above, Chen teaches a pad for removably securing objects to surfaces which pad includes a back adhesive layer 102, a front adhesive layer 104, and an intermediary layer 106. [0023]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Stitchick to provide the upper surface with an adhesive layer as taught by Chen for purposes of releasable securing objects thereto.
Applicant argues that should the mat of Stitchick be modified to incorporate the claimed lands and grooves arrangement such that the container rests only on the lands, there would be no features to obstruct lateral motion of the container relative to the mat.
In modifying Stitchick in view of Chen to include adhesive on the upper surface, one skilled in the art would find it obvious to removably secure objects to upper surface on the bumps/protrusions 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/MICHAEL STANLEY GZYBOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights