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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 13-24, claim 13 recites a central membrane configured to support in an upper region a plurality of bell protrusions and the central membrane supporting in a lower region a cellular structure formed by mutually adjacent polygonal hollow cells that protrude from the central membrane, the cells being configured to reason on the ground. Applicant’s specification as originally filed does not appear to recite the claimed structure, including cells protruding from the central membrane. Additionally, Applicant’s specification as originally filed does not recite the cells being configured as claimed.
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 13-24 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.
Regarding claims 13-24, claim 13 recites cells that protrude from the central membrane. It is unclear if the cells are formed from the central membrane such that they protrude from the central membrane, or if the cells are separate from the central membrane but extend from the central membrane such that they protrude from the central membrane. For purposes of examination, either interpretation will be deemed within the scope of the claimed invention.
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 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 9,528,280 to Cormier in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0332780 to Son.
Regarding claims 13-24, Cormier teaches a surface underlayment system with interlocking resilient anti-slip shock tiles, comprising a modular energy absorbing system sandwiched between an impact-receiving upper surface and a lower foundation (Cormier, Abstract). Cormier teaches that the energy absorbing system has one or more interconnected modules that cooperate to absorb and distribute impact forces applied thereto, wherein each module has one or more frustoconical support structures (Id., Abstract). Cormier teaches that optionally anti-friction lugs are provided in the upper surface or the bottom surface (Id., column 4 lines 3-16). Note that as shown in at least Fig. 11, the lugs are at right angles.
Cormier teaches a lower geotextile preventing the system from settling into a lower foundation (Cormier, column 3 lines 42-57). Cormier teaches the optional incorporation of drainage holes (Id., column 4 lines 30-39). Cormier teaches that the system may be recoverable (Id., column 4 line 58 to column 5 line 7). Cormier does not appear to teach the claimed hexagonal cells. However, Son teaches a grass protection mat with bottom supporting mat for soft ground, comprising an upper mat and a bottom supporting mat (Son, Abstract). Son teaches that the mats have a grass passing space shape including a hexagonal shape, which is advantageous to maximize the area of a grass passing space (Id., paragraphs 0055-0057). Son teaches a ground peg protruding downward provided under the second outer frame which fastens the frame to the ground (Id., paragraphs 0078-0080, 0123, 0127). Note that as shown in at least Figs. 4(a), 4(b), and 6, the pegs are at right angles.
It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the surface structure of Cormier can be predictably improved for use on grass by incorporating the structure set forth in Son. Additionally, forming the structure wherein the support structures are arranged over the cells would predictably provide a structure with the desired support. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the surface system of Cormier, wherein the lower foundation comprises a grass protection mat having hexagonal spaces under the support structures and pegs extending at right angles, as taught by Son, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional safety surface which can advantageously be placed on grass while securing the surface to the ground.
Regarding claims 18-21, Cormier teaches that the surface of the frustoconical surface may be undulating (Cormier, column 2 lines 23-32, Figs. 5 and 6). As shown in at least Figs. 5 and 6, the surface structure appears to meet the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art combination teaches a safety surface overlaying a surface, including mat overlaying grass. Although the prior art combination does not appear to teach the hexagonal spaces having a diameter larger than a diameter of the protrusions. However, the prior art combination teaches that the load of the mat is spread to prevent grass from damage (Son, paragraph 0002). It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the size of the spaces may predictably vary, based on the desired load to be managed balanced with preventing grass from damage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the surface system of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the size of the spaces in comparison to the protrusions, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine a suitable amount of passing space in combination with a suitable surface structure.
Claims 13, 14, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 9,528,280 to Cormier in view of USPN 3,837,990 to McConnell and US Pub. No. 2005/0214512 to Fascio.
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 16-24, Cormier teaches a surface underlayment system with interlocking resilient anti-slip shock tiles, comprising a modular energy absorbing system sandwiched between an impact-receiving upper surface and a lower foundation (Cormier, Abstract). Cormier teaches that the energy absorbing system has one or more interconnected modules that cooperate to absorb and distribute impact forces applied thereto, wherein each module has one or more frustoconical support structures (Id., Abstract). Cormier teaches that optionally anti-friction lugs are provided in the upper surface or the bottom surface (Id., column 4 lines 3-16). Note that as shown in at least Fig. 11, the lugs are at right angles.
Cormier teaches a lower geotextile preventing the system from settling into a lower foundation (Cormier, column 3 lines 42-57). Cormier teaches the optional incorporation of drainage holes (Id., column 4 lines 30-39). Cormier teaches that the system may be recoverable (Id., column 4 line 58 to column 5 line 7). Cormier does not appear to teach the claimed hexagonal cells. However, McConnell teaches molded thermoplastic sheet material useful in cushioning applications, provided with a multiplicity of adjacent, closely spaced cellular protrusions extending from one side of the sheet material and an interconnected grid of land areas at the base of the cells to reinforce the cushioning material and resist deformation (McConnell, column 1 lines 14-21). McConnell teaches that the cells are formed in geometrical shapes into the shape of hollow beams, which have increased resistance to bending, crushing and similar deforming forces (Id., column 2 lines 9-39). McConnell teaches that the interconnected beams resist deformation and results in a structure which distributes any applied load over a substantial portion of the network (Id., column 3 line 63 to column 4 line 15). McConnell teaches that hexagonally shaped cells are preferred, since, as is well known, it will resist deformation more readily in all directions than other shapes (Id.). As shown in at least Figs. 1-4, the cells are mutually adjacent.
Additionally, Fascio teaches a similar protective cushioning product comprising a corrugated packaging and insulation material (Fascio, Abstract, paragraph 0002, Fig. 1). Fascio teaches that corrugated products can be used as protective cushioning packaging material can carpet and flooring underlay (Id., paragraph 0030).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the energy absorbing system of Cormier, wherein the lower foundation includes mutually adjacent hexagonal cells as claimed wherein the support structures are directly above a respective cell, as taught by McConnell, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional energy absorbing surface having predictably increased resistance to bending, crushing and similar deforming forces to distribute any applied load over a substantial portion of the network, as Fascio establishes that cushioning products were known in the art as being predictably suitable for both packaging and flooring applications.
Note that since the prior art combination teaches a surface underlayment system, including a lower foundation including hexagonal cells, the cells appear configured as claimed.
Regarding claims 18-21, Cormier teaches that the surface of the frustoconical surface may be undulating (Cormier, column 2 lines 23-32, Figs. 5 and 6). As shown in at least Figs. 5 and 6, the surface structure appears to meet the limitations of the claims.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art combination appears to teach the hexagonal spaces having a diameter larger than a diameter of the protrusions (McConnell, Figures 1-4). Additionally, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the size of the spaces may predictably vary, based on the desired ability to resist deformation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the surface of the prior art combination, and adjusting and varying the size of the spaces in comparison to the protrusions, as it is within the level of ordinary skill to determine suitable dimensions of the surface system, based on the desired properties.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cormier in view of McConnell and Fascio, as applied to claims 13, 14, and 16-24 above, and further in view of Son.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art combination does not appear to teach the claimed protruding pins. However, Son teaches a grass protection mat with bottom supporting mat for soft ground, comprising an upper mat and a bottom supporting mat (Son, Abstract). Son teaches that the mats have a grass passing space shape including a hexagonal shape, which is advantageous to maximize the area of a grass passing space (Id., paragraphs 0055-0057). Son teaches a ground peg protruding downward provided under the second outer frame which fastens the frame to the ground (Id., paragraphs 0078-0080, 0123, 0127). Note that as shown in at least Figs. 4(a), 4(b), and 6, the pegs are at right angles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the surface system of the prior art combination, wherein the lower foundation comprises pegs extending at right angles, as taught by Son, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional safety surface which can advantageously be placed on grass while securing the surface to the ground.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cormier in view of Son, as applied to claims 13-24 above, and further in view of USPN 5,383,314 to Rothberg.
Regarding claims 18-21, the prior art combination teaches the inclusion of an undulating surface which appears to be within the scope of the claimed additional protrusions. Alternatively, the prior art combination appears to suggest that an upper layer is optional (Cormier, column 3 lines 5-16). Additionally, Rothberg teaches a drainage and support mat consisting of evenly spaced, upwardly projecting, dimple-type protuberances, wherein each of the protuberances has a slotted section allowing any accumulating water to run off and down the sides of the protuberances (Rothberg, Abstract). Rothberg teaches that the slots are usually single slot channels, but can be designed as squares or as stars or various shapes for purposes of decoration (Id., column 4 line 66 to column 5 line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the surface system of the prior art combination, and additionally including slotted sections having various shapes such as claimed, as taught by Rothberg, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional safety surface comprising protuberances with added structures to allow for water run off while comprising a desired design.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cormier in view of McConnell and Fascio, as applied to claims 13, 14, and 16-24 above, and further in view Rothberg.
Regarding claims 18-21, the prior art combination teaches the inclusion of an undulating surface which appears to be within the scope of the claimed additional protrusions. Alternatively, the prior art combination appears to suggest that an upper layer is optional (Cormier, column 3 lines 5-16). Additionally, Rothberg teaches a drainage and support mat consisting of evenly spaced, upwardly projecting, dimple-type protuberances, wherein each of the protuberances has a slotted section allowing any accumulating water to run off and down the sides of the protuberances (Rothberg, Abstract). Rothberg teaches that the slots are usually single slot channels, but can be designed as squares or as stars or various shapes for purposes of decoration (Id., column 4 line 66 to column 5 line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the surface of the prior art combination, and additionally including slotted sections having various shapes such as claimed, as taught by Rothberg, motivated by the desire of forming a conventional safety surface comprising protuberances with added structures to allow for water run off while comprising a desired design.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 5, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Cormier discloses a structure designed to rest on the ground with the frustoconical elements, which is directly opposite Applicant’s claimed structure. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are directed to a mat wherein the polygonal hollows cells are configured to rest on the ground. The prior art combination teaches mats having a grass passing space shape including a hexagonal shape, which is advantageous to maximize the area of a grass passing space, and including a round peg protruding downward provided under the second outer frame which fastens the frame to the ground. Therefore, the cells are configured as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786