DETAILED ACTION This is a first action on the merits addressing the disclosure filed 18 September 2023. The following is a status of the claims presented: Claims 1-9 are pending and examined; and No claims are cancelled. 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. Drawings The drawings dated 18 September 2023, are entered. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features directed to the language of claim 1, “ wherein said first end perimeter edge of said first layer extends beyond said first end perimeter edge of said second layer and wherein said second end perimeter edge of said first layer extends beyond said second end perimeter edge of said second layer ” mu st be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. 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. The claims will be interpreted as best understood. Claim Objections Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “tab members” lacks antecedent basis. “[a] plurality of tab members”, or equivalent would remedy the matter . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 1 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 1: the language, “ wherein said first end perimeter edge of said first layer extends beyond said first end perimeter edge of said second layer and wherein said second end perimeter edge of said first layer extends beyond said second end perimeter edge of said second layer ” is indefinite as it is unclear how this language is achieved as claimed with “extend[ing] beyond” , and the disclosure, including the drawings, does not clearly set forth this feature. 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 – 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Forbes (U.S. Publication 2023/0158773 A1) . Below is a reproduction of the claim with the examiner’s comments in bold italics . Claim 1: Forbes discloses as prior art An access mat configured to be superposed a terrain to assist vehicles and machinery to traverse thereacross wherein the access mat comprises: a body (Fig s . 1-3 : 10) , said body having a first layer (1 4 ) , a second layer (1 8 ) and a third layer (1 6 ) , said second layer of said body being intermediate said first layer and said third layer (as shown) , said body having a first end ( proximate notches 20) and a second end (proximate 22) , said second layer having a first end perimeter edge (inherent) , said second layer having a second end perimeter edge (inherent as shown) , said third layer having a first end perimeter edge being aligned with the first end perimeter edge of said second layer (as shown) , said third layer having a second end perimeter edge being aligned with the second end perimeter edge of said second layer (as shown) , said first layer having a first end perimeter edge and a second end perimeter edge (inherent) , wherein said first end perimeter edge of said first layer extends beyond said first end perimeter edge of said second layer (see where portion of 14 extends beyond portion of perimeter edge forming 20 as shown in Fig.2) and wherein said second end perimeter edge of said first layer (see “A” from attached annotated Fig. 3 from Forbes, below) extends beyond said second end perimeter edge of said second layer (“B” below) ; and wherein said first end of said body includes at least one notch (20) and wherein said second end of said body includes at least one notch (“C” below, the notch is the part of layer 18 and/or 20 that receives portion of 22 ) . 2351723 197168 0 0 2466975 187325 A 0 0 A 2305050 848360 C 0 0 C 4124325 9525 B 0 0 B 3390900 177800 0 0 1628775 6350 0 0 Annotated Fig. 3 from Forbes Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dagesse (U.S. Patent 10,458,074 B1) Walens et al. (U.S. Patent 10,208,489 B2) Penland, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent 9,486,976 B1) Downing (U.S. Publication 2015/0233065 A1) Hutchison (U.S. Publication 2021/0129504 A1) Slaven, Jr. et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0354562 A1) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT WILLIAM V GILBERT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9055 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 0800-0430 Eastern . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Eileen Lillis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571.272.6928 . 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. /WILLIAM V GILBERT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3993