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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on May 15, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 3, 5-7, and 10 are amended; claims 16-20 are cancelled; resulting in claims 1-15 pending for examination.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1 and 10, the limitations directed to a court area “for the play of a sporting game” are interpreted as functional limitations directed to an intended use of the claimed court area. A claimed limitation is functional when it recites a feature by what it does rather than by what it is, where functional limitations are considered to be met when the prior art product is capable of being used for or performing the recited function. See MPEP 2173.05(g). In the instant case, any part of the sport floor (claim 1) or wood floor surface (claim 10) which is capable of being used for the play of a sporting game is interpreted as corresponding to the claimed court area for the play of a sporting game.
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 10-15 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 10, the limitation reciting “a wood sport floor comprising a wood floor surface layer and a subfloor layer, the wood floor surface having a court area” is indefinite because the phrase “the wood floor surface” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim. The limitation immediately preceding the recitation of “the wood floor surface” sets forth a “wood floor surface layer”, such that the aforementioned limitation is interpreted as referring back to the previously recited “wood floor surface layer”.
Regarding claims 11-15, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 10.
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, 2, 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_image1.png
272
527
media_image1.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 bleachers, 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 second zones supported only by the second pads provide greater cushioning to a user compared to first zones which are supported only by the first pads.
The first and second zones defined by the arrangement of first and second pads are considered to be positioned in a court area of the sport floor, where the court area is capable of being used for the play of a sporting game. For example, when the bleachers located over the high durometer pads in the first zone are retracted (i.e., not in the extended position), the area of the floor which includes both low and high durometer pads can be used as a court area for the play of various sporting games (e.g., badminton or games based on gymnastics or parkour).
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.
Regarding claim 11, Randjelovic teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. It is noted that the limitation in claim 11 does not specifically define an arrangement of the first and second zones, such that any arrangement of the first and second zones within the court area could be said to be “located based on the 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 within the court area based on the sporting game.
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_image2.png
354
431
media_image2.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 or gymnasium equipment which may be 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.
With respect to the limitations directed to a “court area for the play of a sporting game”, it is noted that the claimed court area is interpreted to be satisfied by any area of the floor which is designed as an area for playing a sporting game. Although Valentine and JP ‘304 renders obvious the configuration in which soft and hard pads are located in second and first zones which are arranged inside and outside, respectively, of a first court used for playing a first game, the combination of first and second zones can be taken to correspond to the claimed court area which is capable of being used for the play of a second sporting game which may be different from the first sporting game.
Regarding claim 3, Valentine in view of JP ‘304 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. It is noted that the limitation in claim 3 does not specifically define an arrangement of the first and second zones within the court area, such that any arrangement of the first and second zones could be said to be “located within the court area based on the type of sporting game.” As explained above with respect to claim 1, 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 areas which may bear the weight of 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.
Although Valentine teaches that the floor assembly can be used for basketball ([0006]), the reference does not specifically teach that the floor has lines, such that the floor is lined based on the type of sporting game played thereon. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide conventional markings on the playing surface in order for a portion of the floor assembly to be used, for example, as a basketball court.
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 court area of 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 court 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 11, Valentine in view of JP ‘304 teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. It is noted that the limitation in claim 11 does not specifically define an arrangement of the first and second zones within the court area, such that any arrangement of the first and second zones could be said to be “located within the court area at locations based on the sporting game.” As explained above with respect to claim 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 areas which may support 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 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).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response filed May 15, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 1-9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 3, and 11 in the response filed May 15, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of the remarks filed May 15, 2026, with respect to the previous rejections based on Nilsen have been fully considered in light of the amendments to claims 1 and 10 and are persuasive. The previous rejections based on Nilsen have therefore been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11 of the remarks filed May 15, 2026, with respect to the previous rejections based on Randjelovic have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Randjelovic teaches away from utilizing first and second types of shock absorbing pads within the court area, as the Background section of Randjelovic only discusses the areas inside of the court and those outside of the court having different shock absorbing characteristics.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections above, Randjelovic anticipates the claimed configuration in which first and second types of shock absorbing pads having first and second hardness values are arranged in first and second zones, such as a configuration in which the higher hardness first pads are located in first zones which may be subjected to high loads (e.g., bleachers) and the lower hardness second pads are located in second zones which provide greater cushioning. Although it is acknowledged that Randjelovic recognizes that such a configuration may not be preferable because the use of both high and low durometer pads creates different performance characteristics, it is noted that the question of whether a reference “teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. See MPEP 2131.05. As explained in the prior art rejections, the first and second zones defined by areas in which the first and second pads are located correspond to the claimed court area which is capable of being used for the play of a sporting game (i.e., when the bleachers or heavy objects are removed from the area of the first zone).
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-12 of the remarks filed May 15, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the combination of Valentine in view of JP ‘304, the Applicant argues on page 12 of the remarks that neither of the cited references contemplates or suggests different zones in the court area where the different zones have different cushioning for the users when the users are on the court playing or training. Rather, the Applicant argues, both of these references discuss issues that could occur outside of the court area, where Valentine discusses compression of pads under bleachers, and JP ‘304 discusses a danger area that allows the athlete to determine when they have left the court and are nearing a wall.
These arguments are not persuasive. As explained in the claim interpretation section and prior art rejections above, the claimed “court area” is interpreted to be satisfied by any area of the floor which is capable of being used as an area for playing a sporting game. As acknowledged by the Applicant, the combination of Valentine and JP ‘304 renders obvious the configuration in which soft and hard pads are located in second and first zones which are arranged inside and outside, respectively, of a first court used for playing a first game. However, such first and second zones can also be interpreted as corresponding to the claimed court area which is capable of being used for the play of a second sporting game which may be different from the first sporting game. For example, although the first court (e.g., a basketball or volleyball court) may be surrounded by first zones defined by hard pads and may have only second zones defined by soft pads located therein, the portion of the floor surface corresponding to the first and second zones located both inside and outside of the first court is capable of being used as a second court (i.e., a court area) for the play of a different game (e.g., badminton, gymnastics, parkour, etc.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hamar (US 2002/0108341) is cited as additional evidence that providing hard and soft shock absorbing pads in different zones of a sport flooring system is well-known. For example, Hamar teaches that by varying the cushioning ability of the shock absorbing members, one can tailor a practice area for dance, gymnastics, and basketball to have a relatively soft (low durometer) cushioning arrangement, whereas the competitive area has a harder (higher durometer) cushioning arrangement while utilizing the same subfloor structure, thus accommodating different functions by providing different shock absorption levels in different areas [0013].
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights