DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 16 June 2023 and 5 May 2024 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The Japanese and Korean Office Actions were not provided with an English language translation, which is required to be considered for the current application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “diction” in line 28 should be changed to “direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 and 10 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. The new limitations that “the dust suction mat has a frameless mat body" or that “the plurality of unit mats maintain a coupled state independent of an auxiliary supporting structure” is not supported by the original application as a whole. There is no direct disclosure for either of these limitations. Regarding the “frameless mat body” and “auxiliary supporting structure” limitations, there is no disclosure to clarify what either of a “frameless body” or “auxiliary supporting structures” actually are (i.e. what do these terms effectively positively claim and what constitutes “auxiliary” for any structure). Further, the specification actually contradicts the concept of a frameless body, by providing the finishing members, which are understood to effectively form a frame in Figs. 7-9). Regarding the coupled state of the unit mats, although the disclosure does vaguely indicate that the unit mats may be coupled to one another (relating to Fig. 5 on pg. 6, lines 18-19, and pg. 13, lines 14-15), there is no supporting structure or disclosure for how the unit mats are coupled to one another in a manner that supports the new claim limitation that the mats are coupled “independent of an auxiliary supporting structure” or in a “frameless” manner.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are understood to effectively define a frame, for the previously claimed “frameless mat body”, which also lacks supporting disclosure in the original application.
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 1 and 10 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 claim 1:
It is unclear what is intended by the term “discontinuous suction flow path” because the path disclosed for the current application is not understood to be discontinued or interrupted within the unit mats. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the direction of airflow is discontinuous, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action. However, the limitation following this limitation, which describes the airflow direction, effectively defines the same thing, such that the term “discontinuous” would be redundant. Thus, it is suggested that the applicant delete the word “discontinuous” from the claim.
As discussed above, it is unclear exactly what structure defines the newly claimed “frameless mat body”.
It is unclear how the unit mats are actually intended to be coupled in a manner that would maintain a coupled state independent of an auxiliary supporting structure, as there is no structure disclosed for coupling the unit mats to one another.
It is unclear what is intended by the term “auxiliary supporting structure”.
As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the mats are directly connected to one another without external structure (that is not part of the unit mats) needed to secure the unit mats to adjacent unit mats, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are understood to effectively define a frame, which contradicts the limitation of claim 1 that the mat body is “frameless”. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define an outer border to external side walls of the unit mats, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (10,159,399) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-1330699), Shin (2020/0113411; to be referred to hereinafter as Shin ’411) and any one or more of Johnson (6,505,444), Kneill et al. (2017/0326810) and McIntosh et al. (10,781,595).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a dust suction mat comprising a plurality of unit mats (1) detachably connected to each other in a first direction, each of the unit mats has a plurality of through holes (113/121) for dust suction and through hole opening/closing means (13/14/131/142) for opening or closing the through holes, the dust suction mat having a length in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and a width in the first direction, wherein each of the detachably coupled unit mats is configured to have at least one internal side wall that is disposed at a boundary region between adjacent unit mats, wherein a central unit mat, disposed between a first adjacent unit mat and second adjacent unit mat comprises a first internal side wall have an offset opening at a first boundary with the first adjacent unit mat, and a second internal side wall having a corresponding offset opening at a second boundary with the second adjacent unit mat with the first internal side wall being laterally offset from the second internal side wall. However, Choi fails to disclose that the openings are offset from one another such that a solid portion of the second internal side wall is positioned directly opposite the offset opening of the first internal side wall or that the dust suction mat has a frameless body with self-supporting unit mats being directly coupled to one another.
Regarding the location of the openings, Choi discloses that each of the unit mats includes partitions positioned at a boundary of the lower plates of neighboring unit mats adjacent to edges of the respective mats that are in contact with one another to separate (portions of) the airflow path of the neighboring unit mats from one another along the length of the partitions, and Choi discloses alternative opening locations (on walls in one direction at opposite corners adjacent to a single wall in the other direction in Fig. 4 or central locations on opposite walls extending in one direction in Fig. 9) and when several lower plates are in contact with each other, partitions are disposed at boundary parts where two lower plates are in contact with each other so that dust suction paths are continuously formed through the unit mats. Lee also teaches that the unit mats of Choi may alternatively be formed in the shape of rectangles, as a known alternative shape (as discussed above for claim 3). However, Choi fails to disclose that the partitions are formed in locations that will produce air flow in a square wave shape and Lee fails to disclose any specific airflow path created by the combination of rectangular unit mats. Shin ‘411 discloses the dust suction mat, as discussed supra, and teaches that the internal space of the mat includes partitions that have alternating opposed openings, such that the air will flow through the mat in a square wave pattern, effectively forming one single duct that travels from the inlet to the outlet end of the plate, which would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain equal suction force at all through hole locations during operation. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that the
PNG
media_image1.png
566
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
airflow that will be imparted through both embodiments of Choi (Figs. 4 and 9; Fig. 4 annotated for example of the expected airflow) would not provide consistent airflow through the entire unit mat due to the aligned openings in opposite walls, which will allow the majority of airflow (arrow A) to flow directly from one opening to the other while bypassing the lateral channels (path of least resistance), which will create reduced-flow or “dead zones” (x) within each unit mat that will not collect debris as well as the primary airflow, if at all. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the location of the openings (air communication holes 115) in the unit mats of Choi to provide a more desirable air flow through the entire unit mat, such as the opening in the first wall at an opposite corner from the opening in the second wall in both the first and second directions (such as the inlet and outlet openings taught by Shin ‘411),
PNG
media_image2.png
262
361
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which will effectively provide a similar alternating square wave airflow path as shown by Shin ‘411, or to provide the airflow shown here (also reading on the claimed “discontinuous suction flow path with a plurality of substantially right-angled junction forming a square-wave pattern through the plurality of unit mats), which will impart airflow through the entire unit mat and avoid reduced-flow or “dead zones” and will maintain substantially equal suction force at all through hole locations during operation and thus provide consistent dust removal, regardless of which opening/closing means are actuated to open during use.
Regarding the new limitation of the “frameless mat body”, Lee discloses a similar dust suction mat, also having a plurality of unit mats (112), and teaches that the modularization of the plurality of dust suction units allows a user to flexibly adjust the size of the dust suction mat by simply adjusting the number of dust suction units 112 to be connected, without having to newly form the dust suction unit 10 according to the size of the place (Paragraphs 4 and 6 on page 18 of English language translation of Lee). It is best understood that the adjustable size embodiment is shown in Fig. 5, (as opposed to Fig. 1 having a frame (10) and Lee discloses the ”frameless” embodiment includes only a single suction intake (170) for connecting a suction source to the unit mats. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to similarly configure each of the unit mats of Choi with their own lower plate (similar to 130 of Lee) to allow adjustment of the size of the overall dust suction mat by changing the number of unit mats connected to one another, as taught by Lee, without requiring modification to the dust suction unit. Thus, when the unit mats are configured to be connected to one another along the first direction in a frameless manner, as taught by Lee, the mat body would obviously be frameless and self-supporting and will be modularly adjustable along the first direction via addition or removal of at least one of the plurality of unit mats. Although the Lee reference does not disclose specifically how the unit mats are connected to one another (neither does the current application), one of ordinary skill would look to well known interlocking unit mats for other flooring applications, such as Johnson, Kneill and McIntosh, all having similarly sized and shaped unit mats, with relatively simple structures formed thereon to allow connection to other unit mats, in a similar modular manner taught by Lee and Choi, to form a larger mat. Therefore, when providing a modular “frameless mat in the manner taught for Fog. 5 of Lee, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide some form of connecting structure for the respective unit mats to connect to one another, as taught by Johnson, Kneill and McIntosh, which will allow the plurality of unit mats to maintain a coupled state independent of an auxiliary supporting structure, and wherein the frameless mat body is.
Regarding claim 2, Choi and Lee both disclose that the unit mats include one pair of outer unit mats spaced apart from each other at a distance, and at least one or more intermediate unit mats positioned between the one pair of outer unit mats (Figs. 1, 6, 10 and 12 of Choi, and Figs. 1 and 5 of Lee).
Regarding claim 10, Choi further disclose a finishing member (3/31) installed along outer edges of a dust suction mat in the form of an assembly in which the unit mats are continuously connected to each other in the first direction, wherein the finishing member includes one pair of traverse finishing members (31) installed along the outer edges of the assembly type dust suction mat in the first direction, one pair of longitudinal finishing members (numbered as 3 in Fig. 1) installed along the outer edges of the assembly type dust suction mat in the second direction, and corner finishing members (the ends of the finishing members 31 effectively forming corner members) installed at corners of the assembly type dust suction mat where the traverse finishing members and the longitudinal finishing members meet.
Claims 3, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (10,159,399) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-1330699), Shin (2020/0113411; to be referred to hereinafter as Shin ’411) and any one or more of Johnson (6,505,444), Kneill et al. (2017/0326810) and McIntosh et al. (10,781,595) as applied to claims 1-2, and further in view of Shin (CN 106170240; to be referred to hereinafter as Shin ’240).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Choi and Lee teaches that each the unit mats includes a lower plate (taught by Lee to form modularized unit mats), with Lee also teaching an alternative shape that is rectangular (and thus obvious to provide alternative shapes to the unit mats of Choi, being a known alternative with the different shape retaining the same function as taught by Choi; see MPEP 2144.04, section IV-B), defined by a second direction length longer than a first direction width and Choi discloses traverse side walls (114) formed along both side edges in the first direction, an intermediate plate (12 of Choi), which is formed in a shape corresponding to that of the lower plate and has a plurality of through holes (121), a plurality of spacers (125 in Fig. 4o of Choi) for separating the intermediate plate from the lower plate by a predetermined distance, and a finishing upper plate (11), which is formed in a shape corresponding to that of the lower plate, has a plurality of through holes (113) matched one by one to the through holes formed in the intermediate plate, and covers the intermediate plate from the top. However, Choi and Lee both fail to disclose that the spacers may also function as fastening projections or any other structure for securing the plates together. Shin ‘240 discloses a similar dust suction mat, also having upper and lower plates, a plurality of through holes in the upper plate and opening/closing means, and spacers (530) for separating the plates from one another by a predetermined distance. Shin ‘240 further teaches that the spacers may have internally threaded apertures, that are aligned with apertures of the lower plate, to allow fasteners to extend through the lower plate and secure the plates together. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide similar apertures in the spacers of Choi and the lower plate taught by Lee, to provide a known securing means that will firmly secure the plates together while also providing additional function to the spacers and eliminating a need for additional securing means.
Regarding claim 4, Choi further discloses that the through hole opening/closing means are installed between the lower plate and the intermediate plate so as to match the through holes of the intermediate plate and the finishing upper plate one by one, and the through hole opening/closing means partially protrude upward from the top of the finishing upper plate through the through holes formed in the intermediate plate and the finishing upper plate (portion 13 extends through both the intermediate and the upper plates and protrude through the upper plate, as seen in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Choi further discloses that the lateral sides of each unit mat include surfaces that engage with side surface of adjacent unit mats, and that the intermediate plate include a side surface that engages the sidewall and that each of the side surfaces include rubber packings (119, also shown in the plate 12 in Fig. 7, but not numbered) to provide a sealing engagement between the surfaces, to optimize suction force within the respective unit mats by avoiding loss of airflow pressure at the joining surfaces. Therefore, when providing the unit mats of Choi with a lower plate, as taught by Lee, it further would have been obvious for the lower plate of the outer unit mat to further include similar longitudinal side walls formed along each side edge in the (first and) second direction, and to provide rubber packings attached to the longitudinal side wall and the traverse side wall, as taught by Choi, so as to ensure airtightness along inner surfaces of the longitudinal side wall and the traverse side wall.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (10,159,399) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-1330699), Shin (2020/0113411; to be referred to hereinafter as Shin ’411) and any one or more of Johnson (6,505,444), Kneill et al. (2017/0326810) and McIntosh et al. (10,781,595) and Shin (CN 106170240; to be referred to hereinafter as Shin ’240) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Borg (3,786,531).
Choi discloses that each of the through hole opening/closing means includes a plate (141) with a rounded upper surface disposed under the intermediate plate so as to correspond to the through holes of the intermediate plate and the finishing upper plate one by one, and a spring (131) for applying elasticity to the plate so that the plate comes into close contact with a corresponding through hole and a part (13) of the through hole opening/closing means protrudes upward from the top of the finishing upper plate. However, Choi fails to disclose that the through hole opening/closing means includes a ball, with the spring applying elasticity to the bottom of the ball. Each of Borg and Shin ‘411 disclose similar dust suction mats, also having plates with a plurality through holes and through hole opening/closing means corresponding to each through hole, and both teaching that the opening/closing means include balls (18 and 320, respectively) with springs (19 and 310, respectively) under the balls to bias the ball to protrude partially through the through holes of the plate, wherein any one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a ball shaped opening/closing means would be easier to manufacture and install, than the specialized shape of the plunger (13/14) of Choi. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an alternative through hole opening/closing means in the form of an alternative and well-known structure, as taught by Borg and Shin ‘411, having a ball, which will be substantially easier to manufacture and/or readily available in the form of a ball bearing, with the spring positioned below the ball, also taught by Borg and Shin ‘411 as known alternative structure, for applying elasticity to the bottom of the ball to bias the ball through the through holes of the upper plate, to provide a simpler and more readily available through hole opening/closing means to the unit mat of Choi.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (10,159,399) in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-1330699), Shin (2020/0113411; to be referred to hereinafter as Shin ’411) and any one or more of Johnson (6,505,444), Kneill et al. (2017/0326810) and McIntosh et al. (10,781,595) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of KR 10/1096161; to be referred to hereinafter as KR’161).
Choi discloses that the intermediate plate includes a plurality of flow guide members (124/125 in Figs. 4 and 9), including at least one member positioned at a corner of the plate where two neighboring paths are connected to one another, but fails to disclose a curved concave guide surface. KR’161 discloses another similar dust suction mat, and discloses a plurality of curved guide members (18) directed toward the source of the suction airflow, which are known to anyone of ordinary skill in the art as airflow vanes, used to smooth, balance and optimize airflow in multiple different types of airflow passages. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally provide curved guide members to the unit mats of Choi, particularly when modifying the airflow path, as taught by Shin’411 (for claim 7), to smooth, balance and optimize the airflow for optimal suction to be applied to all through holes during use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The primary/sole arguments over the prior art rejections focuses on the teachings of Lee, with the applicant suggesting that Lee does not disclose a “frameless” mat body. However, as discussed above, the examiner has interpreted Lee to include two different embodiments, with the mat body (10) of Fig. 1 forming a frame that surrounds the unit mats, and Fig. 5, which is understood to be a frameless mat body, based on the disclosure (English Language translation included as NPL) with paragraphs 221-223 and 226 relating to a fixed size dust suction unit, and paragraphs 224-225 relating to a variable size suction mat that “can easily and efficiently adjust the size of the dust suction unit 112 by adjusting the number of the dust suction units 112 that are simply connected without the need to form the dust suction unit 10 newly according to the size of the place”. The examiner maintains that the disclosure of paragraph 224 of Lee clearly indicates that the size of the overall unit (which effectively forms a frame) does not need to be changed if/when the unit mats (112) are connected to one another. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the prior art, when considered as a whole, does make obvious the claimed structure of the suction mat.
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 BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 16 January 2026