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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Election
1. Applicant’s election of claims 1-11, without traverse, in the reply filed on December 5, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 5, 2023, and January 24, 2024, have been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 7, the phrase, “the coloring and/or structure of the carpets” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 4 does not recite a coloring.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/947158. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 recites similar subject matter as claims 1 of copending ‘158, as copending ‘158 encompasses all the limitations of the instantly claimed invention.
All of the remaining instant claims recite similar subject matter as claims 2, 9, 11 and 13-15 of copending '158.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
7. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itakura (JP 2010207530 A).
Itakura discloses a car floor mat having hooking means such as one side strip of a hook-and-loop fastener, on the back side, which provides an effective fixing state for securing both of fixation and easy attachment/detachment, where a linear body having linear projections made of elastic and rigid monofilaments, is used as the hooking means. The linear body is fixed so as to be exposed on one side of a substrate made of a nonwoven fabric or the like and the linear body is easily twisted or rotated has projections, so that the projections have different directions spontaneously or by very simple processing, and also may have a high hooking force (abstract). Figure 5 of Itakura shows first and second hook and loop elements:
PNG
media_image1.png
527
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Itakura discloses a linear body may be fixed to the non-woven fabric to the mat body by an appropriate means such as a hot melt adhesive or thermocompression bonding (paragraph 42), as in claim 1.
In claim 1, the phrase, “configured to be fastened to the floor unit by a hook-and-loop connection between the first hook-and-loop element and the second hook-and-loop element” is an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Concerning claim 2, Itakura discloses a linear body may be fixed to the non-woven fabric to the mat body by an appropriate means such as a hot melt adhesive or thermocompression bonding (welded, paragraph 42). In claim 2, the phrase, “attached to the floor unit by a welded connection” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having hook-and-loop elements. The reference suggests such a product because Itakura discloses a car floor mat having hooking means such as one side strip of a hook-and-loop fastener, on the back side, which provides an effective fixing state for securing both of fixation and easy attachment/detachment, where a linear body having linear projections made of elastic and rigid monofilaments, is used as the hooking means. The linear body is fixed so as to be exposed on one side of a substrate made of a nonwoven fabric or the like and the linear body is easily twisted or rotated has projections, so that the projections have different directions spontaneously or by very simple processing, and also may have a high hooking force (abstract). Figure 5 of Itakura shows first and second hook and loop elements.
Concerning claim 3, Itakura discloses a car floor mat having hooking means such as one side strip of a hook-and-loop fastener, on the back side, which provides an effective fixing state for securing both of fixation and easy attachment/detachment, where a linear body having linear projections made of elastic and rigid monofilaments, is used as the hooking means. The linear body is fixed so as to be exposed on one side of a substrate made of a nonwoven fabric or the like and the linear body is easily twisted or rotated has projections, so that the projections have different directions spontaneously or by very simple processing, and also may have a high hooking force (abstract). Figure 5 of Itakura shows the floor element is bonded to the attachment.
PNG
media_image2.png
427
441
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Concerning claim 4, Figure 5 of Itakura shows the floor unit has upward pointing carpet material.
Concerning claim 5, Itakura discloses a linear body may be fixed to the non-woven fabric to the mat body by an appropriate means such as a hot melt adhesive or thermocompression bonding (welded, paragraph 42).
PNG
media_image2.png
427
441
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Concerning claim 6, Itakura discloses a car floor mat having hooking means such as one side strip of a hook-and-loop fastener, on the back side, which provides an effective fixing state for securing both of fixation and easy attachment/detachment, where a linear body having linear projections made of elastic and rigid monofilaments, is used as the hooking means. The linear body is fixed so as to be exposed on one side of a substrate made of a nonwoven fabric or the like and the linear body is easily twisted or rotated has projections, so that the projections have different directions spontaneously or by very simple processing, and also may have a high hooking force (abstract). Figure 5 of Itakura shows the first hook-and-loop element is directly fastened to the carpet, where the carpet is fastened to the floor element and the attachment is fastened to the carpet.
Concerning claim 8, Itakura discloses a car floor mat having hooking means such as one side strip of a hook-and-loop fastener, on the back side, which provides an effective fixing state for securing both of fixation and easy attachment/detachment, where a linear body having linear projections made of elastic and rigid monofilaments, is used as the hooking means. The linear body is fixed so as to be exposed on one side of a substrate made of a nonwoven fabric or the like and the linear body is easily twisted or rotated has projections, so that the projections have different directions spontaneously or by very simple processing, and also may have a high hooking force (abstract). Regarding the mushroom shaped elements, the court held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
9. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoo (KR 2002042044 Y1).
Ryoo discloses a floor mat for a vehicle having a floor unit, a first and second hook and loop element and a floor mat (abstract), as shown in Figure 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
630
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, as in claim 1.
In claim 1, the phrase, “configured to be fastened to the floor unit by a hook-and-loop connection between the first hook-and-loop element and the second hook-and-loop element” is an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
In claim 1, the phrase, “materially bonded to the floor unit” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a hook and loop element for a floor mat. The reference suggests such a product because Ryoo discloses a floor mat for a vehicle having a floor unit, a first and second hook and loop element and a floor mat (abstract and Figure 3).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
10. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber (KR DE 102010042284 A1).
Weber discloses a vehicle having an inlay mat secured at a bottom lining of a vehicle floor by a hook and loop fastener system. A lower side of the mat comprises a fastening element, of the fastener system and another fastening element of the fastener system fastened in or at the lining. The fastening element is arranged at the mat and connected with the lower side of the mat, and a resilient ring is fastened to an outer periphery of one of the fastening elements by welding operation at the fastening element. The coating pad includes polyamide fibers (abstract), as in claims 1-3.
In claim 1, the phrase, “configured to be fastened to the floor unit by a hook-and-loop connection between the first hook-and-loop element and the second hook-and-loop element” is an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Concerning claim 5, Figure 2 of Weber shows the hook and loop element directly fastened to the carpet.
PNG
media_image4.png
477
905
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 6, Figure 2 of Weber shows the floor unit has a floor element and attachment, where the attachment is fastened to the floor element and to the carpet, where the carpet is fastened to the floor element and the attachment is fastened to the carpet.
PNG
media_image4.png
477
905
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Concerning claim 8, Weber discloses a vehicle having an inlay mat secured at a bottom lining of a vehicle floor by a hook and loop fastener system. A lower side of the mat comprises a fastening element, of the fastener system and another fastening element of the fastener system fastened in or at the lining. The fastening element is arranged at the mat and connected with the lower side of the mat, and a resilient ring is fastened to an outer periphery of one of the fastening elements by welding operation at the fastening element. The coating pad includes polyamide fibers (abstract).
Regarding the mushroom shaped elements, the court held that the configuration of the claimed apparatus was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed apparatus was significant In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Concerning claims 10-11, Weber discloses a vehicle having an inlay mat secured at a bottom lining of a vehicle floor by a hook and loop fastener system. A lower side of the mat comprises a fastening element, of the fastener system and another fastening element of the fastener system fastened in or at the lining. The fastening element is arranged at the mat and connected with the lower side of the mat, and a resilient ring is fastened to an outer periphery of one of the fastening elements by welding operation at the fastening element. The coating pad includes polyamide fibers (abstract).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781