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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on March 9, 2026.
Claims 14 – 20 was previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected securing mechanism and a nonelected method for fabricating a floor mat,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.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Mach 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the specification provides sufficient context for the meaning of “substantially complements” as used in Independent Claim 1 because the specification teaches that the second upper layer complements the first upper layer such that the second panel is securely couplable to the first panel. Applicant further notes that the structural features in the specification further inform the meaning of the term. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The language in the specification does not use the phrase “substantially,” so it is not clear what the metes and bounds of “substantially complements” versus “complements” are. Furthermore, the language that the panels substantially complement to provide “securable coupling” fails to define the level of attachment desired as it is not clear what level of force may be allowed to de-couple the panels. Examiner finally notes that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Yamada teaches pressure-sensitive adhesive for attaching hook and loop fasteners to substrates, which is distinct from a double-sided adhesive that directly engages a fabric strip to couple panels together. Applicant argues that the adhesive from Yamada merely attaches Velcro fasteners to rug sections whereas the claimed invention couples the panels together via the adhesive engaging the fabric strip. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As claimed the floor mat requires a first panel with a double-sided adhesive, a second panel with a double-sided adhesive and a fabric strip. The language of the claim is open-ended and does not preclude the addition of further materials on the panels. While the claim requires that the double-sided adhesive is configured to engage the fabric strip such that the first panel is securely coupled to the second panel, Examiner notes that Applicant’s interpretation that the adhesive of the first panel bonds to the fabric panel directly is more narrow than the language of the claim and is not consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Applicant argues that the specification distinguishes the claimed invention from hook and loop connections because the instant specification discloses direct bonding between an adhesive and the fabric strip, a fundamentally different approach than the hook and look system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not require direct bonding between an adhesive and a fabric strip, merely that the double-sided adhesive engages the fabric strip such that the first panel is securely coupled to the second panel. Since the adhesive of Yamada helps secure the hook and loop fasteners that connect the first and second panels, it is interpreted as “engaging the fabric strip such that the first panel is securely coupled to the second panel” as claimed.
Applicant argues that the claimed connection provides different properties than hook and loop fasteners and that the tensile strength of the double-sided adhesive is five times stronger than that of a conventional hook and loop connection. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not restrict the fabric strip material nor does it prohibit the addition of additional materials in the floor mat. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claims 1 – 13 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.
Claim 1 recites that the second upper layer has a configuration that “substantially” complements the first configuration. The term is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of “substantially” complementing the first configuration. This renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how much the second upper layer is required to complement the first configuration.
For examination purposes, any amount of joining between the two panels is interpreted as the claimed level of complimenting.
Claims 2 – 13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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 a 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 engage 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 “engaging the fabric strip such that the first panel is securely coupled to the second panel” as claimed.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights