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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on February 10, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended. Claims 6, 7, and 13 have been cancelled. New Claims 17 and 18 have been added. As such, Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 14-18 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-5, 8, 10-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Taiwanese Patent Application Publication No. M566155 to Zhao (an English translation obtained from the PE2E database is referenced herein) (“Zhao”).
With regard to Claims 1, 12, 14, and 18, Zhao discloses a floor mat for vehicles comprising a surface layer located at an upper surface and a cushion layer located at a bottom surface. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Zhao discloses that the surface layer includes a first pattern for cleaning objects rubbed thereagainst, including a rough surface and a plurality of through holes or slits. Page 3 and Figures 3 and 4. Zhao discloses that the cushion layer has a three-dimensional anti-slip structure on the bottom surface thereof that grips against a support surface, such as a floor. Pages 2-3 and Figure 4. Zhao does not specifically disclose that the cushion layer grips a support surface via a plurality of air pockets to create suction with the surface. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to presume that such a feature is inherent to the floor mat disclosed by Zhao. Support for the presumption is found because Zhao discloses the desire to provide anti-slip properties of the floor mat with the surface to which it is attached using a three-dimensional pattern in the bottom surface. Abstract. Moreover, Zhao teaches that such a feature is effectuated using a wave pattern of parallel, wavy ridges, which is structurally similar to the configuration recited in the present Specification that achieves such a property. Page 3; compare Figure 3 of Zhao to Figure 3 of the present application. The burden is upon the Applicant to show otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977). With regard to Claim 2, the upper surface fibers of the fabric of the surface layer provide a plurality of high points, Figure 4, and a plurality of through holes or slits between fibers of the fabric of the surface layer provide a plurality of low points. With regard to Claim 3, Zhao discloses that the surface layer can be formed from a plastic woven mesh, page 3, which would provide a checkered pattern of warp and weft yarn. With regard to Claims 4 and 5, Zhao discloses that “the three-dimensional anti-slip structure [of the cushion layer] includes a plurality of wavy ridges adjacent to each other and arranged in parallel, and two adjacent wavy ridges are spaced apart from each other to form a wavy concave shape, thereby.” Page 2. With regard to Claims 8, 10, and 11, Zhao discloses that the surface layer comprises polyvinyl chloride and the cushion layer comprises ethylene-vinyl acetate, page 3, which are known thermoplastic materials that are flexible. Moreover, ethylene-vinyl acetate is a softer thermoplastic rubbery material that would be pliable with a surface, rather than scuff-inducing. With regard to Claim 14, Zhao discloses that the surface layer can be formed from resilient fibrous materials, such as nonwoven fabrics, mesh yarns, or woven meshes. Page 2. With regard to Claim 15, Zhao discloses that the surface layer includes a first pattern for cleaning objects rubbed thereagainst, including a rough surface and a plurality of through holes or slits, and that the cushion layer has a three-dimensional anti-slip structure on the bottom surface thereof that grips against a support surface, such as a floor. Pages 2-3 and Figures 3 and 4. With regard to Claim 16, Zhao illustrates that the surface layer can comprise weave fibers grouped together (illustrated by numeral 10 in Figure 4), the groupings of which the person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize as providing a multiplicity of square shapes. With regard to Claim 17, Zhao does not specifically disclose that the cushion layer is configured to readily release from the support surface when a user peels it away from the support surface. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to presume that such a feature is inherent to the floor mat disclosed by Zhao. Support for the presumption is found because Zhao discloses the desire to provide a similar anti-slip floor mat with the surface to which it is attached using a three-dimensional pattern in the bottom surface and because Zhao teaches that such a feature is effectuated using a wave pattern of parallel, wavy ridges, which is structurally similar to the configuration recited in the present Specification that achieves such a property. Page 3; compare Figure 3 of Zhao to Figure 3 of the present application. The burden is upon the Applicant to show otherwise. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 9 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0187300 to Nakasuji et al. (“Nakasuji”).
With regard to Claims 9 and 18, Zhao does not disclose that the surface layer comprises polyester fiber. Nakasuji is also related to floor mats comprising fibrous materials. See, e.g., Abstract, entire document. Nakasuji teaches that polyester fiber are suitable for use in floor mats in place of other polymeric materials. Paragraph [0049]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide polyester fiber in the surface layer of Zhao in order to provide a halogen-free fibrous material suitable for use in a floor mat, as shown to be known by Nakasuji, and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cushion layer of Zhao is not described as creating suction against the support surface by creating a plurality of air pockets with the second pattern. The Examiner agrees that Zhao does not address this specific function. However, there is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of the disclosure of the prior art, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. M.P.E.P. 2112(II). Additionally, “the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In this instance, Applicant claims a gripping layer configured to create a suction using air pockets against a support surface. Applicant achieves this “configuration” by using a layer of thermoplastic rubber having a pattern of a plurality of grooves extending in a transverse direction (Claim 4), wherein the plurality of grooves are wavy shaped (Claim 5). This configuration is disclosed by the prior art, even if the end use is not. Zhao discloses that its cushion layer has a three-dimensional anti-slip structure on the bottom surface thereof that grips against a support surface. Zhao teaches that its cushion layer is formed using a thermoplastic rubber. And finally, Zhao discloses that its cushion layer has a pattern of a plurality of grooves extending a transverse direction, wherein the plurality of grooves are wavy shaped. As such, the Office has established sufficient reasoning to allege that the claimed property of the material creating a plurality of air pockets to provide a suction surface is inherent, and the burden is upon the Applicant to show otherwise. The product claims, as currently recited, lack structural or materialistic characteristics that distinguish the invention from the prior art.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is suitable for use in aquatic environments, such as wet support surfaces and/or support surfaces of low-friction materials, including on a boat, pool deck, or bathroom floor. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., methods of using the product in wet environments) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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 it would not be reasonable to presume that Zhao’s car mat inherently includes the structure to create a suction against the support surface by creating a plurality of air pockets. The Examiner disagrees. The cushion layer of Zhao is made from ethylene-vinyl acetate, which is a soft, pliable rubber. The cushion layer of Zhao has a three-dimensional arrangement of a plurality of wavy grooves. As such, if the floor mat of Zhao were placed into an aquatic environment, with water present, and stepped upon, it would be reasonable to presume that the rubbery layer possessing a plurality of three-dimensional grooves would behave in the same manner as the material currently claimed, due to the structural similarity and lack of structural differences. The lack of disclosure by Zhao concerning the use of its material in an aquatic environment is not disqualifying of the reference with respect to the structure of the claims.
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 JEREMY R PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 am to 5 pm.
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 D. McConnell can be reached at 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.
JEREMY R. PIERCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/JEREMY R PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789