DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[t]he invention relates to” (line 1) is redundant to the purpose of the abstract and because the abstract refers to the purported merits of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
The recitation of “associated with the pivoting means in the same manner…” in line 2 of claim 3 is narrative and indefinite, since the scope of the recitation “associated with” is unclear and “the same manner” is vague and without clear antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rope et al. (U.S. Patent 4,964,751).
Rope discloses a road surface matting (Figure 3, for example) having first and second mats (11) and a pivoting means including ball joints (18, for example). Each mat has parallel beams (ribs, at 13) connected to one another (by the body 11). The mats are connected to each other by respective balls (Figure 1, for example).
Regarding claim 2, there are four ball joints (Figure 1, for example).
Regarding claim 3, Figure 2 shows 4 connected mats. Because the mats are connected to pivoting means in the same manner as the first and second mats, claim recitations are met. Also note the 112 rejection, above.
Because the beams (ribs) are integral, they meet the recitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, a ground surface is overlaid with the matting of Rope (Figures 2 and 3, for example).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rope et al., (U.S. Patent 4,964,751), as applied above.
Claim 1 is deemed to be met. Regarding the parallel beams, the examiner further takes Official notice that it is well known to use a plurality of beams to assemble a mat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Rope in this manner in order to, for example, obtain a desired appearance.
Regarding claim 4, the bolt and threaded engagement is not disclosed; however, the examiner takes Official notice that this is well known and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Rope in this manner in order to secure the connection.
Regarding claim 7, the examiner takes Official notice that reinforcing bars are well known to use in order to strengthen mats designed to support vehicular loading. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured Rope as claimed.
Rope meets the recitation of claim 8, except for the bamboo. The examiner takes Official notice that it is known to use bamboo to make mats, since this is an inexpensive and easily sourced material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any known material capable of use in the matting in order to suit a particular application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach pivotal mats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Thomas Will can be reached at 571272-6998. 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671