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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on January 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 28, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/18/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the limitations reciting “wherein the plurality of the first and second types of shock absorbing pads are positioned to defined at least one first zone and at least one second zone” appears to contain a typographical error, where the word “defined” should be replaced with --define--.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the limitations reciting “wherein floor surface layer” appear to contain a typographical error that should instead read --wherein the floor surface layer--, in order to clearly refer back to the previously-recited feature.
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 1-9 and 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations reciting “a plurality of a first type of shock absorbing pads to support the subfloor layer on the substrate layer” (lines 4-5) and “a plurality of a second type of shock absorbing pads to support the subfloor layer on the substrate layer” (lines 6-7) are indefinite because the phrase “the subfloor layer” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
In looking to paragraphs [0026]-[0028] of the as-filed specification, in reference to Fig. 2, the sport floor (10) is said to include a floor surface layer (38) that defines the playing surface, a subfloor (42) which supports the floor surface layer, a concrete substrate layer (48), and first and second types of shock absorbing pads (52, 54) attached to the bottom surface (53) of the subfloor to support the subfloor on the concrete substrate layer.
Paragraph [0026] further discloses that although subfloor (42) is shown in the embodiment of Fig. 2, in other systems, the subfloor could be eliminated or combined with the floor surface layer (38). It is not clear whether claim 1 is meant to require that the shock absorbing pads are intended to support the floor surface layer on the substrate layer (i.e., in an embodiment in which there is no subfloor layer), or if the claim is meant to require that the sport floor comprises a subfloor layer in addition to a floor surface layer (similar to the limitations set forth in claim 10). Absent further clarification, for the purpose of applying prior art, any configuration in which the first and second types of shock absorbing pads are capable of supporting the sport floor on the substrate layer is considered to satisfy the aforementioned limitations.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the limitations reciting “wherein the at least one first zone and the at least one second zone are located based on the sporting game” are indefinite because the phrase “the sporting game” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Although the preamble of independent claim 10 sets forth that the sport flooring system is intended for use by a user when playing or training for a game, the claim does not establish proper antecedent basis for the phrase “the sporting game”.
Furthermore, it is noted that the claim does not specifically define an arrangement of the first and second zones or describe how the first and second zones are located within the sport flooring system. Given that the sporting game is not specifically defined, any arrangement of the first and second zones could be said to be located “based on the sporting game” (e.g., where the first and second zones are arranged in a particular manner based upon an imaginary or made-up game).
Regarding claims 2 and 4-9, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nilsen (US 5,253,464).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 10, and 12 Nilsen teaches a resilient sports floor (sport flooring system) comprising a rigid upper layer which is provided on a rigid sub-floor (substrate layer), e.g., a concrete support, via springy means (col 1, Ln 4-10; Figs. 2-6). As shown in Fig. 2, the sports floor comprises a relatively rigid top layer (1; sport floor) comprising lamellar parquet boards (2) connected by a tongue and groove connection (3), where the lamellar parquet consists of a top layer (4; floor surface layer) of hardwood, an intermediate blocking layer (6), and a bottom layer (5; subfloor layer) of a less expensive wood (col 3, Ln 12-22). As shown in Fig. 4, reproduced below, grooves (7) are formed in the underside of the boards, wherein strips (8; first type of shock absorbing pads) of a springy resilient material are placed in the grooves, and a further resilient material (10; second type of shock absorbing pads) is provided between the strips (col 3, Ln 25-45).
PNG
media_image1.png
202
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nilsen teaches that the extension of the further resilient material (10) is several times that of the strips (8), wherein the strips are formed of a springy resilient material such as rubber or plastic, while the further resilient material may consist of a foamed plastic material (col 3, Ln 26-47), such that the second hardness of the further resilient material is less than the first hardness of the strips. As shown in Fig. 4, annotated above, the strips (8) are positioned to define first zones which include only the springy resilient material, while the further resilient material (10) is positioned to define second zones which include only the further resilient material. Given that Nilsen teaches that the extension of the further resilient material (10) is greater than that of the strips (8), the second zone formed of the further resilient material is capable of providing greater cushioning to a user.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Nilsen teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. As explained in the indefiniteness rejections above, the limitations in claims 3 and 11 do not specifically define an arrangement of the first and second zones, such that any arrangement of the first and second zones could be said to be “located based on a sporting game.” Nilsen additionally teaches that certain athletic activities are especially demanding on a resilient sports floor, where the sports floor described above is particularly suitable for, e.g., ball games or other activities where demands for the floor to give way are high (col 2, Ln 32-39, 61-66). Nilsen therefore recognizes that the arrangement of the resilient materials can be determined based upon the activity.
Regarding claim 6, Nilsen teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. Nilsen further teaches that the sports floor can be used for ball games or other activities where demands for the floor to give way are high (col 2, Ln 61-66). As shown in Figs. 4-6, the further resilient material (10) is compressed when the boards (2) are loaded by an uncommonly high force (P3), so that the underside of the boards does not contact the support (9) until the further resilient material is compressed (col 3, Ln 52-col 4, Ln 15). The second zones defined by the further resilient material can therefore be said to define an impact zone which includes a restricted area of the floor surface layer.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Randjelovic (US 5,682,724, cited on IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 10, and 12, Randjelovic teaches a typical floor system comprising flooring (13; floor surface layer) made up of hardwood strips attached to a subfloor (14; subfloor layer), wherein resilient pads are disposed between the subfloor (14) and a substrate (18; substrate layer) (col 4, Ln 60-col 5, Ln 6; see Fig. 3 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image2.png
272
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Randjelovic teaches that it is generally known to provide cushioning pads under a sports floor system in order to provide resiliency to the floor, wherein the amount of cushioning can be controlled by the durometer (hardness) of the material, wherein there are advantages and disadvantages to using either hard or soft materials (col 1, Ln 13-21). The advantage of a soft, low durometer material is in providing greater cushioning, but has a disadvantage when providing high loads such as bleaches, weight room equipment, and the like, where soft pads are prone to compression set, i.e., losing resiliency when placed under a high load for extended periods of time (col 1, Ln 22-30). The advantage of hard, high durometer material is in providing greater loading capacity to the system without damaging the cushions, but detracts from the system’s resiliency and cushioning for the athletes performing on the floor (col 1, Ln 31-35). Facilities such as gymnasiums typically have bleacher areas which exert loads beyond the acceptable limit of low durometer pads, where an alternative configuration is to change to high durometer pads beneath the subfloor where the bleachers exist in the extended positions, which results in different performance characteristics for both the shock absorption and the ball rebound when traversing across different shock absorbing durometers (col 2, Ln 11-25).
Randjelovic therefore anticipates the claimed configuration in which first and second types of shock absorbing pads are arranged to support the subfloor layer on the substrate layer, wherein the first and second types of pads include a first type of shock absorbing pads having a first hardness and a second type of shock absorbing pads having a second hardness that is less than the first hardness, wherein the second pads located in second zones provide greater cushioning to a user compared to first zones (e.g., areas located under high loads such as bleachers) containing the first pads.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Randjelovic teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. As explained in the indefiniteness rejections above, the limitations in claims 3 and 11 do not specifically define an arrangement of the first and second zones, such that any arrangement of the first and second zones could be said to be “located based on a sporting game.” As explained above, Randjelovic teaches that the floor system can include low durometer pads to provide cushioning for athletes performing on the floor, as well as high durometer pads to provide support for high loads such as bleachers. The arrangement of low and high durometer pads in first and second different zones of the floor system therefore satisfies the limitation requiring that the first and second zones are located based on the sporting game.
Regarding claim 6, Randjelovic teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. Randjelovic further teaches that the soft, low durometer material has the advantage of providing greater cushioning for athletes performing on the floor (col 1, Ln 22-35), wherein an area in which the low durometer pads is provided corresponds to the claimed at least one of the plurality of second zones, which defines an impact zone that includes a restricted area of the floor surface layer.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentine (US 2002/0178675) in view of JP ‘304 (JP 3165304, machine translation via EPO provided).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 10, and 12, Valentine teaches a floor assembly (10) comprising a playing surface (11; floor surface layer) made out of strips of wood (12), and sub-flooring (14; subfloor layer) resting directly under the underside of the playing surface ([0011], Fig. 1). A cement slab is generally provided as a rigid support base (20; substrate layer) for the playing surface and the sub-flooring, wherein a plurality of shock absorbers (22) are arranged to support the sub-flooring with respect to the rigid support base ([0011]-[0012], see Fig. 1 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image3.png
354
431
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Valentine teaches that in sports such as basketball and racquetball, it is important that the floor be relatively stiff so that the ball bounces back easily, wherein high durometer (hard) resilient pads produce a floor having preferred ball response characteristics [0006]. However, hard pads provide little shock absorption and have a greater potential to cause injury to the athlete [0006]. Low durometer (soft) resilient pads provide greater shock absorption and thus provide a higher level of safety or protection to the athlete; however, floors employing such soft pads are prone to “compression set”, which is a permanent change in profile after the pad has been subjected to high loads for a long period of time, e.g., in areas where bleachers, basketball standards, or other gymnasium equipment is likely to be placed for long periods of time [0007]. Although Valentine recognizes advantages and disadvantages associated with each of high and low durometer (hard and soft) resilient pads, Valentine differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach the use of both hard and soft pads positioned in respective first and second zones as claimed.
However, in the analogous art of sports flooring, JP ‘304 teaches an indoor exercise facility having a flat floor (1) and side walls (2) provided around the periphery of the floor ([0025], Fig. 1). The floor (1) comprises a danger area (11) having a certain width along the wall, and an exercise area (12) located inside the danger area, wherein a boundary between the danger area and an exercise area is set at a certain distance outside of the sports court ([0025], Fig. 2). JP ‘304 teaches that the hardness of the floor is different in the danger area and in the exercise area so that an athlete can recognize that they have entered the danger zone by the different feeling of the floor on their feet, thereby more reliably avoiding collision with obstacles such as walls, benches, or spectator seats ([0005], [0021], [0026]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor assembly of Valentine by providing high and low durometer pads in first and second zones, respectively, below the subfloor. Based on the teachings of Valentine and JP ‘304, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to employ a combination of high and low durometer pads in order to provide a higher level of shock absorption to an athlete playing on the court, and to provide sufficient support for high loads such as bleachers located outside of the court. The use of hard pads (first type of shock absorbing pads) outside of the court (first zones) and soft pads (second type of shock absorbing pads) inside of the court (second zones) thus creates a hardness differential that allows an athlete to easily recognize the bounds of the court to avoid collision with obstacles located outside of the court.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Valentine in view of JP ‘304 teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above. As explained in the indefiniteness rejections above, the limitations in claims 3 and 11 do not specifically define an arrangement of the first and second zones, such that any arrangement of the first and second zones could be said to be “located based on a sporting game.” As explained above with respect to claims 1 and 10, the combination of references teaches a sport flooring system comprising low durometer pads to provide a high level of shock absorption to athletes, as well as high durometer pads to provide support for high loads such as bleachers. The arrangement of low and high durometer pads in first and second different zones of the floor system therefore satisfies the limitation requiring that the first and second zones are located based on the sporting game.
Regarding claim 5, Valentine in view of JP ‘304 teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 above. As explained above with respect to claim 1, the combination of references teaches a flooring system used for sports such as basketball, comprising low durometer pads arranged inside the basketball court to provide a high level of shock absorption to athletes, and high durometer pads located outside of the court to provide support for high loads such as bleachers.
Although Valentine teaches that the floor assembly can be used for basketball ([0006]), the reference does not specifically teach that the playing surface (11; floor surface layer) is lined for basketball, including a three-point line. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide conventional markings on the playing surface, including a three-point line, in order for a portion of the floor assembly to be used as a basketball court. The soft pads (second type of shock absorbing pads) located within the basketball court therefore define at least one zone which corresponds to the claimed at least one of the plurality of second zones that defines a shooting zone that includes the three-point line.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Valentine in view of JP ‘304 teaches all of the limitations of claims 4 and 5 above. As explained above with respect to claim 1 above, Valentine teaches that the low durometer (soft) resilient pads (second type of shock absorbing pads) provide greater shock absorption and thus provide a higher level of safety or protection to the athlete ([0007]), wherein an area in which the low durometer pads is provided corresponds to the claimed second zones, which defines an impact zone that includes a restricted area of the floor surface layer.
Regarding claims 8 and 13, Valentine in view of JP ‘304 teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10 above, but does not expressly teach that the first and second types of shock absorbing pads are formed from the same type of resilient material and have the same shape. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the configuration in which a combination of hard pads and soft pads are used as shock absorbing resilient pads between a subfloor layer and a rigid support base by utilizing the same shock absorbers (22) taught by Valentine, i.e., wherein the hard and soft pads have the same shape and are made of the same type of material aside from a difference in hardness (e.g., by adjusting the cross-link density or incorporating additives or fillers).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Valentine in view of JP ‘304 teaches all of the limitations of claims 8 and 13 above. As noted above with respect to claims 1 and 10, Valentine discloses advantages and disadvantages of high and low durometer pads, and JP ‘304 renders obvious the use of both high and low durometer pads positioned in first and second zones, respectively, in order to create a hardness differential in different areas of the sport flooring system. The hard pads (first type of shock absorbing pads) therefore have a durometer rating that is greater than the durometer rating of the soft pads (second type of shock absorbing pads).
Regarding claim 15, Valentine in view of JP ‘304 teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above, and Valentine further teaches that each of the shock absorbers (22) has a base portion (24) and a nodule portion (26), where the nodule portion has a substantially semi-spherical shape (semi-dome outer surface) which contacts the rigid support base (20; substrate layer) ([0013]-[0014], Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stephenson et al. (US 5,277,010) teaches a flooring system (10) comprising a playing surface (11) including a plurality of hardwood planks (12) overlying a subfloor (18), which is resiliently supported above a solid base surface (14), such as a base of concrete, by floor supports (16) made of resiliently compressible, rubber-like material (col 2, Ln 49-col 3, Ln 23; Figs. 1-6).
Peterson et al. (US 4,879,857) teaches a floor of a basketball court comprising a playing surface (10) made out of strips (10a) of wood such as maple, which overlies subflooring (11), wherein a plurality of individual resilient spaced-apart shock-absorber elements (13) are located between the subflooring and a rigid support base (12) such as a cement slab, wherein the durometer of the shock-absorber elements is set such that they are not so soft that they will virtually flatten out when forces are applied, but not so hard as to provide virtually no elastic shock absorbing effect (col 2, Ln 42-col 3, Ln 16; Figs. 1-4).
Stroppiana (US 2006/0105847) teaches a multi-purpose sports facility having a common base structure comprising a plurality of areas constituting a track, pitch, or court for practicing a respective sports activity (Abstract, Fig. 1). Stroppiana teaches that greater hardness may be desired in the case of a basketball court, as compared to pitches in which greater softness or pliancy are desired [0027].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785