DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l). The drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
Figs. 1A-7B do not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics. The drawings appear to be multi-generation copies of computer or hand drawn figures. Some of the lines appear digitized and distorted and not all solid. Further, some of the smaller/finer elements are not clear due to the darkness or lightness of the elements.
Further, regarding Figs. 2, 3, and 7B, it is not clear what the horizontal dashed lines signify. It appears that “M” designates a mat and “C” designates the carper. In Figs. 2 and 3, there appears to be a space between the carpet and the mat. In Fig. 7B, the middle space is designated with a “C” indicating carpet. Does that mean that Figs. 2, 3, and 7B illustrate 2 layers of carpet.
Further, regarding Fig. 4A, it appears that element 300 passes through the mat hole “H”.
Further, regarding Fig. 5, it is not clear why two element 300’s are shown and it is not clear what the dashed circle on the bottom illustration represents. It appear that elements 200 and 300 mate with the mat substantially between the two elements (except for protrusions 310 which reside in hole “H” when mated.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3). Figs. 2, 3, and 4A-4E do not appear to have proper sectional views. It is noted that the cross sections may be cross hatched but such is not clear from the drawings (see above). The plane upon which a sectional view is taken should be indicated on the view from which the section is cut by a broken line. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic or Roman numerals corresponding to the view number of the sectional view, and should have arrows to indicate the direction of sight. Hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. Hatching should not impede the clear reading of the reference characters and lead lines. If it is not possible to place reference characters outside the hatched area, the hatching may be broken off wherever reference characters are inserted. Hatching must be at a substantial angle to the surrounding axes or principal lines, preferably 45°. A cross section must be set out and drawn to show all of the materials as they are shown in the view from which the cross section was taken. The parts in cross section must show proper material(s) by hatching with regularly spaced parallel oblique strokes, the space between strokes being chosen on the basis of the total area to be hatched. The various parts of a cross section of the same item should be hatched in the same manner and should accurately and graphically indicate the nature of the material(s) that is illustrated in cross section. The hatching of juxtaposed different elements must be angled in a different way. In the case of large areas, hatching may be confined to an edging drawn around the entire inside of the outline of the area to be hatched. Different types of hatching should have different conventional meanings as regards the nature of a material seen in cross section.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2, line 8 recites “a soft portion (121)” . This recitation is indefinite as it is not clear or understood as to what portion of element 121 is “soft” or what is meant by the term “soft’ as applied to the instant claim. It appears that the recited “soft portion (121) is the same as the joint illustrated in Fig. 2. As Fig. 2 is described as prior art, it appears that “soft portion (121)” is well known in the art and therefore not novel.
Claim Objections
Claim1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
lines 4-5 recite “a carpet clip (100) mounted on a floor carpet (C), and mounted on the floor carpet for a vehicle”. This recitation is cumbersome and could cause confusion as to where the clip (100) is mounted. It is suggested that the recitation be amended so as to not be repetitive and confusing (a suggestion would be “a carpet clip (100) mounted on a floor carpet (C) for a vehicle”); and
line 6 recites “to finish the mounting hole (H)”. this recitation is cumbersome as it is not clear what meaning is trying to be conveyed. It seems like the term “finish” should be “cover” (or a similar term).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ausprung (EP 1980444) in view of Fiedler (US 20120291227).
Regarding claim 1 Ausprung discloses a vehicle floor mat fixture comprising an upper member 9 and a lower member 8, which are installed in a mounting hole 11 formed in a floor mat 7 (Fig. 1; [0009] of the translation). Ausprung discloses that the floor mat is hooked and mounted on a hooking protrusion 3, 5 formed to protrude from one surface of a carpet clip 16 mounted on a floor carpet 17 for a vehicle (Fig. 1; [0009], [0012] of the translation). Ausprung discloses that the upper member 9 is formed wider than the mounting hole 11 to finish the mounting hole (Fig. 1). Ausprung discloses a column 12 which passes through and is fitted into the mounting hole and is formed in a center of the upper member 9 to surround the hooking protrusion 3, 5 (Fig. 1; [0009] of the translation). Ausprung discloses an elastic step ( 13 - bottom part of 12) is formed to protrude from an outer edge of the column 12 (Fig. 1; [0009] of the translation). Ausprung discloses the lower member 8 is formed wider than the mounting hole 11 so that the hooking protrusion is formed to pass through the lower member (Fig. 1; [0009], [0012] of the translation). Ausprung discloses a hooking step 10 is formed in a center of the lower member to be partially fitted into the mounting hole to a partial thickness of the mounting hole (Fig. 1; [0009], [0012] of the translation). Ausprung discloses the elastic step is hooked on the hooking step while the column is forcibly fitted to the hooking step (Fig. 1; [0009], [0012-[0014] of the translation).
Ausprung is silent regarding magnets and does not explicitly disclose that a second permanent magnet is installed inside the column to face a first permanent magnet mounted on the hooking protrusion. Fiedler discloses that a second permanent magnet 11a is installed inside the column to face a first permanent magnet 10a mounted on the hooking protrusion (Fig. 1B; [0076]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the system of Ausprung so that a second permanent magnet is installed inside the column to face a first permanent magnet mounted on the hooking protrusion as taught by Fiedler. As Ausprung and Fiedler are both directed to attaching a vehicle floor mat to vehicle carpet, as the fastening of vehicle mats to vehicle carpets is very well known in the art, as Ausprung is silent regarding magnets but does not preclude such use, and as Fiedler explicitly discloses the use of magnets, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific attachment configuration from a finite selection of attachment configurations (i.e. with magnets or without magnets). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2: Ausprung, as modified by Fiedler, discloses that the carpet clip (Ausprung – 16) includes a base having a predetermined area, that the hooking protrusion Ausprung – 3, 5) formed to protrude from one surface of the base and having a protruding end portion on which the first permanent magnet (Fiedler - 10a, 11a ) is mounted (Ausprung – Fig. 1; [0012]-[0013] of the translation; Fielder - Fig. 1B; [0076]). Ausprung, as modified by Fiedler, discloses a pressing member integrally formed with the base on the other surface of the base to be rotated around a soft portion (Ausprung – 18), passing through and fitted to the floor carpet and having an end portion which protrudes outward and on which an elastic protrusion is integrally formed (Ausprung – Fig. 1; [0012]-[0014] of the translation). Ausprung, as modified by Fiedler, discloses a stopper which is formed on a surface facing the elastic protrusion and to which the elastic protrusion is forcibly fitted to perform a hooking operation (Ausprung – Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3: Ausprung, as modified by Fiedler, discloses that a pressing protrusion 26 is formed to protrude from a surface of the carpet clip in contact with the floor carpet (Ausprung – Fig. 1; [0014]-[0018] of the translation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
12/17/2025