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 .
Preliminary Matters
The present application has been accorded a filing date of 1/29/2024, and hence, any changes to the claims after the filing date of 1/29/2024, must be made by way of an amendment in compliance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c). It is noted that the claims filed on 4/4/2024, after the filing date of 1/29/2024, in response to the Notice to File Missing Parts dated 2/23/2024, include various changes to the original claims filed on 1/29/2024 – changes that do not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because the claims (filed 4/4/2024) do not include proper markings indicating all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims (filed 1/29/2024), and each claim has not been provided with the proper status identifier. Note: the status of every claim in an amendment must be indicated after its claim number by using the following status identifiers: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Previously presented), (New), (Not entered), (Withdrawn), and (Withdrawn-currently amended).
More specifically, 37 CFR 1.121(c) states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
In the interest of compact prosecution and given that it appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner), a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment is not being sent by the Examiner at this time. The amendment filed 4/4/2024 has been entered, however, any future claim amendments must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(c) as stated above. Similarly, any amendments to the specification must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b). See also MPEP § 714.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 1 recites, “preparing a mixture of epoxy resin and amine hardener containing granular materials in an amount effective to from [sic] a roughened surface to form a third coating material when hardened; applying the third coating material to the twice-coated base material; permitting said third coating material to harden and dry form a rough coated base; and attaching said rough coated base to rubber-bottom mat” (emphasis added) on lines 6-10; and although the specification recites that in forming the third coating material or third mixture, “The amount of granular material added may vary but must be at least enough to provide the function of yielding a non-slip surface in the finished product,” the specification does not recite that the amount is “effective” to form a “roughened surface” nor that the resulting coated base is a ”rough coated base” (e.g. limitations supported by the claims as originally filed but not recited in the original specification, and hence, the same “roughened” and “rough” limitations should be added to the specification). It is also noted that claim 7 recites that “the granular material is in a concentration of about ½ pound per gallon of the third coating”, while the specification recites, “The granular material is mixed, preferably at a concentration of approximately ½ pound of granular material per gallon of the thermosetting epoxy resin and amine hardener part A and part B mixture” (emphasis added, see lines 11-13 of the paragraph on Page 9 of 12 of the fax). Although the “about ½ pound” limitation of claim 7 is similar to the “approximately ½ pound” limitation recited in the specification, the former appears to be based upon the dried/cured “third coating” while the latter is based upon the “mixture” utilized to form the third coating such that the claimed limitations of claim 7, which is fully supported by original claim 9, lacks proper antecedent basis in the specification (especially given that the third coating is not necessarily limited to a coating consisting of the epoxy resin, the amine hardener, and the granular material). It is further noted that claim 8 recites, “The surface structure…has a first section, a second section separating the first section from the second section,” and although the limitation lacks clarity (as discussed in detail below) and is fully supported by original claim 10, the specification only recites, “the epoxy floor mats can be made to have different shapes, colors and structures that provide for interlocking sections to each other and in various configurations” (emphasis added, see Page 10 of 12 of the fax), and hence, the specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed limitations of claim 8.
The disclosure is also objected to because of the following informalities: in the first paragraph of the specification (see Page 5 of 12 of the fax dated 4/4/2024), the Applicant states, “This is a patented invention, Inventor: Adrian C. Corder, [address omitted], Patent No.: 6,399,181. With a new base that is made of a mixture of crushed walnut shells, silica, sand, granule quartz, rubber and epoxy when mixed all together, dry and harden. This mixture becomes a durable base that epoxy, paint and other material can bone to. The base is the main supporting member and upon which and over which one or more layers of coating material are applied. You can spray, roll, trowel, pour or broadcast onto the base. Any corporations that make thermosetting HI BILD epoxy resin an amine hardener material can be use.” (Underlining added by Examiner for emphasis). However, it is first noted that the present application is not a “patented invention” and although the present application does appear to be directed to a similar non-skid surface structure as disclosed and patented in USPN 6,399,181, by the same inventor as in the present application, the above first paragraph of the specification should probably be rewritten to clarify that the present invention is directed to a non-skid surface structure that is similar to the patented invention of USPN 6,399,181 but “with a new base that is made of a mixture of crushed walnut…” such that the above underlined sentence fragment beginning with “With a new base” is part of the same sentence that refers to the prior patent. (Note: the prior patent should probably be referenced in the Background section.) It is also noted that “can bone to” should probably read “can bond to” (emphasis added) and “epoxy resin an amine hardener” should probably read “epoxy resin and amine hardener” emphasis added). Further, Applicant’s address should be removed from the specification (as in the published application).
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant' s use.
Arrangement and Content of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “compressing” on line 1 should probably read “comprising” or similar term; “and” or similar term should be inserted after “quartz,” and before “epoxy” on line 2; a comma should be inserted after “epoxy” on line 2; the colon on line 4 should be replaced by a semi-colon; “from” on line 7 should probably read “form”; “a” or similar term should be inserted before “rubber-bottomed mat” in the last line. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 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, “Selecting a base material made of rubber, crushed walnut shells, silica sand, granule quartz, epoxy” (emphasis added), however, given that “silica sand”, also known as “quartz sand”, is granular and usually in the form of “quartz” wherein silica refers to the chemical compound SiO2 while quartz refers to the specific crystalline mineral form of the compound, and that all quartz comprise silica although not all silica is quartz (as evidenced by the attached Wikipedia article entitled “Sand”), it is unclear as to whether the claimed “silica sand, granule quartz” limitation is meant to refer to a single material or to two different/separate materials, e.g. “silica sand” and “granule quartz”, and if to the latter, how the claimed “silica sand” and “granule quartz” differ. Claim 1 also recites, “preparing a mixture of epoxy resin and amine hardener containing granular materials in an amount effective to from [sic] a roughened surface to form a third coating material when hardened; applying the third coating material to the twice-coated base material; permitting said third coating to harden and dry form a rough coated base; and attaching said rough coated base to rubber-bottomed mat” (emphasis added); however, given that the term “rough” is a relative term that is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, especially given that the specification does not recite the terms “roughened” or “rough”, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, e.g. what degree of surface roughness is required in order to be considered a “roughened” or “rough” surface vs. a non-rough surface?
Claim 2 (assuming claim 2 is meant to depend upon claim 1) does not remedy the above and hence is indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 2 is (further) 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 recites, “The method of claim wherein the granular material includes crushed walnut shells” (emphasis added), however, dependent claim 2 does not specifically recite the claim number from which the dependent claim depends and hence it is unclear as to what is meant to be fully encompassed by the claim.
Claims 3-11 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 3 recites, “A surface structure comprising: a rubber-bottomed mat adhered to a twice-coated substrate; the twice-coated substrate having an epoxy resin based first coating, an epoxy resin based second coating including a substrate coated in an epoxy resin over base first coating and an epoxy resin based third coating including a predetermined amount of granular material” (emphasis added), however, given that the claim recites that the “twice-coated substrate” has a “third coating” in addition to a “first coating” and a “second coating including a substrate coated in an epoxy resin over base first coating,” it is unclear whether the first coating is applied to a substrate that is different from the “substrate” included in the second coating such that the claimed surface structure actually comprises a thrice-coated substrate or “three times coated substrate” (as in the specification), as opposed to a “twice-coated substrate” as currently recited. If the first, second, and third coatings are not all applied to a single substrate (or base material different from the “substrate” included in the “second coating”) to form a “thrice-coated” substrate, then it is unclear as to how the first, second, and third coatings are structurally connected to form the claimed “twice-coated substrate” adhered to the rubber-bottomed mat, e.g. does the claimed “twice-coated substrate” only include a single substrate which is recited as part of the “second coating” and the first and third coatings are present on opposite surfaces of the substrate included in the second coating thereby providing a layer structure of the claimed “surface structure” of: rubber-bottomed mat/first coating/second coating (comprising substrate coated in an epoxy resin)/third coating, such that the substrate of the second coating only has two coatings on either surface?
Assuming dependent claims 4-11 are each meant to be dependent upon claim 3, then it is noted that the dependent claims do not remedy the above, and hence are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claims 4-11 are (further) rejected 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. Each of dependent claims 4-11 recites, “The surface structure of claim” or “The surface structure of the claim” (see claims 5 and 8), however, each dependent claim fails to specifically recite the claim number from which each claim depends, and hence, it is unclear as to what is meant to be fully encompassed by each dependent claim. Dependent claims 4-5, 7-8, and 11 are also indefinite for the following reasons:
Claim 4 recites, “The surface structure of claim wherein the rubber-bottomed mat is adhered to the substrate with an adhesive” (emphasis added), however, given that claim 3 recites a substrate with respect to “a twice-coated substrate” on line 1, as well as a substrate with respect to the “second coating including a substrate coated in an epoxy resin” on lines 2-3, “the substrate” lacks clear antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites, “The surface structure of the claim wherein the substrate is made of rubber” (emphasis added), however, as discussed above with respect to claim 4, “the substrate” lacks clear antecedent basis, as does “the claim”.
Claim 7 recites, “The surface structure of claim wherein the granular material is in a concentration of about ½ pound per gallon of the third coating” (emphasis added), however, given that the claimed “third coating” appears to be a solid or dried/cured coating, it is unclear whether the recited concentration is based upon a liquid composition utilized to produce the third coating, e.g. a third coating material or uncured coating “mixture”, or based upon the solid contents of the third coating.
Claim 8 recites, “The surface structure of the claim has a first section, a second section separating the first section from the second section” (emphasis added), however, “the claim” lacks clear antecedent basis. It is also unclear how the second section itself is “separating” the first section from the second section, and given that any material may be “sectioned” into two (or more) separate sections, e.g. a top section and a bottom section, a front section and a back section, a left section and a right section, etc., it is unclear as to what is meant to be encompassed by the claim.
Claim 11 recites, “The surface structure of claim wherein the durable base that other material can bond to” (emphasis added), however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the durable base” limitation in the claim. It is also noted that “durable” is a relative term that is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, e.g. how “durable” does the base need to be in order to be considered a “durable” base vs. a non-durable base? Further, given that the claim does not recite how “the durable base” is integrated into the claimed surface structure, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement it is unclear as to what is meant to be encompassed by the claim.
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 3-4 and 6-11 (if claims 4 and 6-11 are dependent upon claim 3) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corder (USPN 6,399,181). Corder discloses a non-skid surface structure comprising a rubber-bottom mat upon which a thrice coated, non-slip surface substrate is fastened or adhered with an appropriate adhesive or glue (as in instant claim 4; Abstract; Fig. 1; Col. 1, lines 45-49), wherein the thrice coated substrate comprises an epoxy resin based first coating, an epoxy resin based second coating including a cloth (“substrate”) dipped and coated in an epoxy resin and laid over the first coating (“base first coating”), and an epoxy resin based third coating including a “predetermined amount” of granular material (as in instant claim 3; Abstract; Fig. 1; Col. 1, lines 22-49; Claims 5-6), wherein “the amount of granular material added may vary but must be at least enough to provide the function of yielding a non-slip surface in the finished product, but not so much granular material that the epoxy coating is unable to provide a coating that will adhere to the substrate” (i.e. a “predetermined amount”), preferably at a concentration of approximately ½ pound of granular material per gallon of epoxy/amine mixture of the third coating (as in instant claim 7; Col. 2, lines 23-45). Hence, Corder anticipates the claimed invention as recited in instant claims 3-4 and 7.
With respect to instant claim 6, Corder specifically discloses that the granular material or abrasive material of the third coat include crushed walnut shells (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 23-29; Claims 4 and 8). Hence, Corder anticipates instant claim 6.
With respect to instant claims 8-10, Corder discloses that in one preferred embodiment, the surface structure is sectioned into two separate sections such that a first section is separated from a second section, and the two sections (42) and (44) may be interlocked, in a conventional tongue-in-groove fashion, as is well-known (Col. 3, lines 1-12); and given that Corder also discloses that the non-skid surface structure can be used as a floor or mat adapted for placement on floors (Col. 1, lines 6-10 and lines 21-35), Corder anticipates instant claims 8-10, especially given that the claimed “tile” does not provide any additional structural or material limitations.
With respect to instant claim 11, Corder discloses that the substrate of the thrice-coated substrate may be a “durable, flat material” (Col. 1, lines 62-66) and that “although rubber is the preferred bottom material, other elastomeric materials may be used, so long as they are durable in the chosen environment and are able to be fastened to the created substrate” (Col. 3, lines 20-27); and given that the resulting surface structure disclosed by Corder is a “durable” material to which other materials can be bonded, Corder anticipates instant claim 11.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 5 (assuming claim 2 is meant to depend on claim 1 and claim 5 is meant to depend on claim 3) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corder, as applied to claims 3-4 and 6-11, and in further view of Roth (US2008/0098935A1). The teachings of Corder are discussed in detail above and incorporated herein by reference. In determining the scope and contents of the prior art with respect to the claimed invention, particularly with respect to instant claim 1, it is noted that Corder also teaches a method of making the non-skid/non-slip surface structure comprising the rubber-bottomed mat adhered to the thrice coated, non-slip surfaced substrate by an adhesive or glue, wherein the method (see Fig. 1; Col. 1, lines 36-48; Claim 1) includes selecting a base material (similar to the claimed “Selecting” step), preferably made of wood; applying a first coating of a thermosetting epoxy resin and an amine hardener to said base material (as in instant claim 1); applying a second coating including a cloth dipped in thermosetting epoxy resin (“substrate coated in thermosetting epoxy resin material”) laid on base material to provide a twice-coated base material (as in instant claim 1); permitting said twice-coated base material to dry and harden (as in instant claim 1); preparing a mixture of epoxy resin and amine hardener containing granular materials in an amount effective to form a roughened surface to form a third coating material when hardened (as in instant claim 1); applying the third coating material to the twice-coated base material (as in instant claim 1); permitting said third coating material to harden and dry to form a rough coated base (as in instant claim 1); and attaching or fastening the rough coated base, cloth dipped, granular coated to said rubber-bottomed mat (as in instant claim 1); such that the only difference between the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 1 and the teachings of Corder (e.g. ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue) is that instant claim 1 recites that the “base material is made of rubber, crushed walnut shells, silica sand, granule quartz, [and] epoxy”, while Corder teaches that the base material is “preferably wood” (Col. 1, lines 36-37 and 65-66). However, it is noted that Corder does not specifically limit the substrate or base material (22) as shown in Fig. 1 (corresponding to the base material in the instant invention upon which the first coating is applied in instant claim 1) to wood, and more broadly teaches that the base material or substrate (22) may be “a wooden board or other durable, flat material” (emphasis added; Col. 1, lines 62-67), wherein the “substrate functions as a main supporting member and upon which and over which one or more layers of coating material are applied” (Col. 1, line 66-Col. 2, line 1), and hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize “other durable, flat material[s]” as the base material or substrate in the invention taught by Corder.
With the above “wooden board or other durable, flat material” in mind, it is further noted that Roth (e.g. representative of the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art) teaches a composite structural material that can be utilized as a replacement for wooden boards (Abstract) or in place of wood in various applications, wherein the composite structural material is especially useful as a flooring material, e.g. as in Corder (Entire document, particularly Paragraphs 0001, 0018, 0044, 0088, 0092, 0129, 0197-0198, and 0254). Roth teaches that the composite structural material is generally more durable than wood (Paragraph 0253) and can be provided as a board-shaped composite or sheet-like composite (e.g. a “durable, flat material” as in Corder, Paragraph 0133); and more specifically teaches that the composite structural material comprises a dimensionally stable core material substantially surrounded by a dimensionally stable, laminar covering (Abstract), wherein the core material is preferably formed of a) a resinous matrix, preferably a thermosetting resin with suitable thermosetting resins including epoxy resins; and b) filler solids comprising pieces of one or more of, for example, lignocellulosic material such as walnut shells, cellulosic material, vitreous material, cementitious material such as silica cement, carbonaceous material, plastic, rubber such as preferably from used/scrap tires, and sand (Paragraphs 0016-0082), with the silica cement and/or sand taught by Roth reading upon and/or rendering obvious the claimed “silica sand” and “granule quartz” of instant claim 1. Hence, Roth clearly teaches and/or suggests that the core material of the composite structural material, similar to the “base material” of the claimed surface structure, may be formed from the same components as the instantly claimed “base material” of instant claim 1 given that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to select from any of the suitable resins and filler materials or mixtures thereof as taught by Roth; and given that Roth is of the same field of endeavor as Corder (and the instant invention), and that the resulting “durable, flat” core material and/or composite structural material as taught by Roth can be utilized as a replacement for wooden boards such as in the invention taught by Corder, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 1 would have been obvious over the teachings of Corder in view of Roth given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to instant claim 2, Corder clearly teaches that the granular material in the third coating may be crushed walnut shells as discussed in detail above (see also step 28 as shown in Fig. 1; Col. 1, lines 41-45; and Col. 2, lines 23-28). Hence, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 2 would have been obvious over the teachings of Corder in view of Roth for the same reasons as discussed in detail above with respect to instant claim 1 upon which instant claim 2 is assumed to depend.
In terms of instant claim 5, in addition to the teachings of Corder as discussed above with respect to the “surface structure” as recited in instant claim 3 (upon which it is assumed instant claim 5 depends), it is again noted that Corder does not limit the base material or substrate (22) of the surface structure to the preferred wood, and more broadly teaches that the base material or substrate (22) may be “a wooden board or other durable, flat material” (emphasis added; Col. 1, lines 62-67), wherein the “substrate functions as a main supporting member and upon which and over which one or more layers of coating material are applied” (Col. 1, line 66-Col. 2, line 1). It is also again noted that Roth clearly teaches a durable, flat composite material or substrate/base material that can be utilized as a replacement for wooden boards in similar applications as in Corder, such as flooring (Paragraphs 0088, 0197-0198, and 0254), wherein the composite structural material of Roth is “made of rubber” as discussed in detail above, with Roth more particularly teaching that granulated tire rubber might constitute, for example, about 10 to 90 percent of the volume of the finished material’s core (Paragraph 0080), or no more than about 60 percent of the core’s volume in some applications while other applications permit the use of rubber concentrations of up to 80 to 90 percent of the core’s volume (Paragraphs 0081-0082), with exemplified boards “made of rubber” (Paragraphs 0224-0248). Hence, given that Roth is of the same field of endeavor as Corder (and the instant invention), and that the resulting “durable, flat” core material and/or composite structural material as taught by Roth can be utilized as a replacement for wooden boards such as in the invention taught by Corder, the claimed invention as recited in instant claim 5 would have been obvious over the teachings of Corder in view of Roth given that it is prima facie obviousness to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Citation of pertinent prior art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bobo (USPN 3,481,257) discloses a protective floor coating composition comprising a curable blend of an epoxy resin, an epoxy curing agent, and walnut shell aggregate. Virtanen (US2023/0212408A1) discloses a non-skid coating composition that can be applied to floors, wherein the composition comprises aggregates that impart abrasion resistance and non-skid properties to the composition with suitable aggregates including sand, crushed walnut shells, rubber crumbs, quartz, silica, or mixtures thereof, dispersed in a binder, preferably an epoxy binder. Bando (JP2003-025505A, machine translation also attached) discloses an abrasion-resistant rubber sheet that can be applied to building materials such as floors, wherein the rubber sheet comprises crushed fine-grained wear-resistant particles such as particles of walnut shells, particles of minerals such as sand, gravel, silica sand, and quartz glass, tightly embedded in and/or spread across a rubber sheet and adhered thereto such as by utilizing an epoxy resin adhesive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE R JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Thursdays from 10:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/MONIQUE R JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787