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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 02/10/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwamoto (JP H0650298 U; Translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Iwamoto teaches a grounding mat assembly (abstract, grounded and laid in a bathtub, or a rug), wherein the grounding mat assembly comprises:
a grounding mat (i.e. rug 30) (fig.3);
a metallic lead (i.e. ground conductor 5) (fig.3) having a first end (e.g. end of 5 attached to 30) (fig.3) and a second end (e.g. end of 5 attached to metal fitting 81) (fig.3), wherein the first end of the metallic lead is operatively connected to the grounding mat (page 3, the ground conductor 5 drawn out from the conductor); and
a residential water system (page 3, the faucet), wherein the residential water system is operatively connected to the second end of the metallic lead (page 3, ground conductor 5 drawn out from the conductor is connected to the faucet 81 of the metal fitting (the bath water is No)) status).
Regarding claim 5, Iwamoto teaches the grounding mat assembly, according to claim 1, wherein the residential water system is further comprised of: a water supply pipe (page 4, grounding portion such as a metal pipe).
Regarding claim 6, Iwamoto teaches the grounding mat assembly, according to claim 5, wherein the residential water system is further comprised of: a coupling (e.g. ring shaped part at 81) (fig.3) operatively connected to the water supply pipe and the second end of the metallic lead (page 4, grounding conductor that leads to the ground can be integrally formed in the conductor so that it can be pulled out, electrical connection to a grounding portion such as a metal pipe is simple).
Regarding claim 7, Iwamoto teaches the grounding mat assembly, according to claim 6, wherein the coupling is further comprised of: a metallic coupling (page 3, metal fitting).
Regarding claim 8, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Iwamoto substantially teaches the claim limitations as stated above in claim 1. Iwamoto further teaches, contacting the grounding mat with a user's body (page 4, using a conductive laying body), wherein the contacting of the grounding mat causes a transfer of energy from the ground into the user's body (page 4, whole body when bathing in water is laid on the bottom of the bath, just like improving the blood circulation in the human body in the electrostatic field).
Regarding claim 18, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 7.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 2-3, 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto (JP H0650298 U; Translation attached), and further in view of Klug (US 20190374069 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Iwamoto teaches the grounding mat assembly, according to claim 1.
Iwamoto does not teach, wherein the grounding mat is further comprised of: a plurality of openings.
Klug teaches in a similar field of endeavor of bath mats, a plurality of openings (abstract, the absorbent substrate … ceramic-like material that holds firm under feet) ([0028], Water rapidly evaporates from the product through millions of pores therein).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the plurality of openings in Iwamoto, as taught by Klug, as it provides the advantage of water to flow through, rapidly evaporate and causing bacteria and parasites to dry out.
Regarding claim 3, Iwamoto and Klug teach the grounding mat assembly, according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of openings is further comprised of: a net-like structure (Klug, [0028], comfort cover).
Regarding claim 9, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 2.
Claims 4, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwamoto (JP H0650298 U; Translation attached), and further in view of Cintas (US 20150037384 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Iwamoto teaches the grounding mat assembly, according to claim 1, wherein the grounding mat is further comprised of: a rust resistant (page 3, non-oxidizing metal such as aluminum as a base material), heat resistant (page 3, As it is dissolved in the hot water), high temperature resistant (page 3, As it is dissolved in the hot water).
Iwamoto does not teach, water resistant, UV resistant and slip resistant material.
Cintas teaches in a similar field of endeavor of bath mats, water resistant ([0021], naturally moisture and water-absorbent; quick-drying), UV resistant ([0021], provides UV protection) and slip resistant material ([0019], surface texture of fabric layer 112 forms a slip-resistant user-supporting surface 110).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optionally included the water resistant, UV resistant and slip resistant material in Iwamoto, as taught by Cintas, as it provides the advantage of flexible, comfortable and hygienic bath mat.
Regarding claim 11, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, the method is rejected for the same reasons as stated above for claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SREEYA SREEVATSA whose telephone number is (571)272-8304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, Thienvu V Tran can be reached at (571) 270-1276. 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.
/SREEYA SREEVATSA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2838 09/09/2025