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 .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 14, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on May 14, 2026.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 14 – 20 was previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected securing mechanism and a nonelected method for fabricating a floor mat, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed September 29, 2025.
Claims 1 – 13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed May 14, 2026, caused the withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 – 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention as set forth in the office action filed March 27, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 now recites that the “double-sided adhesive is configured to directly bond to the fabric strip such that the first panel is securely coupled to the second panel.” Applicant argues that this amendment clarifies that the double-sided adhesive must directly bond to the fabric strip, not merely indirectly engage the fabric strip through an intermediary hook and look connection. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The interpretation provided by Applicant, precluding the intermediate hook and loop connection is not required by the claim language. Applicant has not provided a definition for the word “directly bonded” that prohibits the inclusion of additional, intermediary layers. Furthermore, as claimed, the language only requires that the double-sided adhesive is “configured to” directly bond to the fabric strip, therefore it is not clear from the claim that the double-sided adhesive needs to be directly bonded or only if it needs to be “capable of” being bonded to the fabric strip.
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 – 13 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the double-sided adhesive is configured to “directly bond to the fabric strip.” Applicant cites [0028] of the instant specification as support for the claimed limitations. Applicant specifically points that [0028] teaches “to facilitate assembling the floor mat, 100, an upper surface 336 of the fabric strip 330 is configured to engage the lower side of the double-sided adhesive 230,” and “the adhesive material of the double-sided adhesive 230 (shown in Fig. 3) is configured to bond with the fabric strip 330 in a manner that is more secure than a hook-and-loop connection and yet still allows the double-sided adhesive 230 and fabric strip 330 to be separated relatively easily and smoothly,” and “the tensile strength of the double-sided adhesive 230-fabric strip 330 connection is five times stronger than that of a conventional hook-and-loop connection.” None of these cited passages refer to “directly bonding” as currently claimed. The only discussion the Examiner can find of directly bonding is in [0029] of the specification as filed, where it is discussed that without the fabric strip, the double-sided adhesive could directly engage the upper surface and that the force coupling the double-sided adhesive to the fabric strip is less than the force coupling the double-sided adhesive directly to the upper surface. In both mentions, the discussion of “directly bonded” is directed to the upper surface, not the fabric strip. Therefore, it does not appear that the claims as amended have support in the specification as originally filed and therefore the claim amendments appear to constitute new matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4 – 6, 9 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poletti (US3866267A) in view of Yamada (US3849840A).
As per claims 1, 5, 6, 10 – 12, Poletti teaches:
A floor mat (Column 1, Lines 5 – 9: “The purpose of this invention is to enable a room sized rug or carpeting to be easily washing in a family type home washing machine.”)
A first panel comprising at least one first lower layer and a first upper layer at least partially overlying the at least one first lower layer, wherein the first upper layer comprises a core portion and an arm portion that extends laterally from the core portion, and a second panel comprising at least a second lower layer and a second upper layer at least partially overlying the at least one second lower layer, the second upper layer having a second configuration that substantially complements the first configuration and that includes a fabric strip (Fig. 7 as described in Column 1, Line 39 – Column 2, Line 19, annotated below,
PNG
media_image1.png
209
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
teaches the claimed first panel comprising the first lower layer and a first upper layer, which are interpreted as sublayers of the piece on the right. The portion contains a core portion and an arm portion extending laterally from the core portion, as required by claim 5. The claimed second panel is interpreted as the piece on the left, which contains a second lower layer and a second upper layer, which are interpreted as sublayers of the piece, wherein the second upper layer comprises a core portion and a step portion extending laterally from the core portion, as required by claim 10. Reference numbers 12 and 14 are described as Velcro fasteners and reference 12 is taught to be a loop fastener, which is interpreted as the claimed fabric strip. This loop fastener is coupled to an upper surface of the step portion, as required by claim 11.)
Poletti does not specifically teach:
The first upper layer having a first configuration that includes a double-sided adhesive
Wherein the double-sided adhesive is coupled to a lower surface of the arm portion
Wherein the second configuration further includes a double-sided adhesive coupling the fabric strip to the upper surface of the step portion
Wherein the double-sided adhesive is configured to directly bond to the fabric strip such that the first panel is securely coupled to the second panel
Yamada teaches hook and loop fasteners (see Fig. 1) which are adhered to a substrate using pressure-sensitive adhesives comprising a copolymer of acrylic acid (Abstract). This provides a more secure and easier attachment than sewing (Column 1, Lines 40 – 50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Poletti to include the adhesive as a securing mechanism for the hook and loop fasteners, motivated by the desire to predictably provide a more secure and easier attachment (Column 1, Lines 40 – 50). This adhesive is interpreted as double-sided as claimed, since both sides are joined via it. When the structure of Poletti is modified with it, it is provided on both the lower surface of the arm portion to secure the hook portion of the fastener as claimed and couples the fabric strip (i.e. the loop portion) to the upper surface of the step portion as claimed. Since the adhesive helps secure the hook and loop fasteners that connect the first and second panels, it is interpreted as “configured to directly bond to the fabric strip” as claimed, which appears to only require that the adhesive would be capable of performing the claimed function.
As per claims 4 and 9, Poletti teaches:
Wherein the each of the first lower layers are configured to have a common footprint, wherein each of the second lower layers and the second upper layer are configured to have a common footprint (As shown in Fig. 4 below
PNG
media_image2.png
194
260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, the panels are the same width, which is interpreted as the claimed common footprint.)
Claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poletti (US3866267A) in view of Yamada (US3849840A) as applied to claims 1, 4 – 6, 9 – 12 above, and further in view of Ramesh (US20020155274A1).
As per claims 2, 3, 7, and 8, Poletti is silent with respect to the material of the flooring. Therefore, Poletti does not specifically teach:
Wherein the each of the first lower layers is comprised of a foam material
Wherein the first upper layer is comprised of a foam material
Wherein each of the second lower layers are comprised of a foam material
Wherein the second upper layer is comprised of a foam material
Ramesh teaches flooring materials (Abstract). Ramesh teaches that flooring materials typically contains layers of foam to provide cushioning and sound reduction ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flooring of Poletti to include a foam material in the first and second upper and lower layers motivated by the desire to predictably provide flooring materials with cushioning and sound reduction as taught by Ramesh ([0003]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poletti (US3866267A) in view of Yamada (US3849840A) as applied to claims 1, 4 – 6, 9 – 12 above, and further in view of Rodon Viñals (US20210212416A1).
As per claim 13, Poletti teaches that the fabric strip is a loop fastener (Column 1, Lines 42 – 44). Poletti does not teach:
Wherein the fabric strip has an interwoven construction
Rodon Viñals teaches hook and loop fasteners ([0087]). Rodon Viñals further teaches that the loop surface can be formed of woven loop material, embedded in a backing material ([0087]). This is interpreted as the claimed “interwoven construction.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the loop fastener of Poletti in an interwoven construction wherein the loop surface is formed of a woven loop material, embedded in backing material because Rodon Viñals teaches that this was a predictably known type of loop fastener for use in hook and loop fasteners ([0087]).
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA N CHANDHOK whose telephone number is (571)272-5780. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 - 3:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNA N CHANDHOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
