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 .
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: The specification fails to detail the claimed “felt dot”.
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 14 and 16 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 14, the phrase “like" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 16 is rejected for “felt dots”. It is unclear what the felt dots are and the specification provides no further guidance. It is believed Applicant intended to the felt dots to be met by the silicone dots. Applicants are advised to clarify the claim language.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200310191 (hereinafter referred to as ‘191) in view of Jia et al. (CN 114129951) or KR 200310191 (hereinafter referred to as ‘191) in view of Rios et al. (PG Pub. 2009/0162596) in view of Jia et al. (CN 114129951).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, ‘191 teaches a reusable mat device (taught as used for a front door mat or bathroom mat) of a multilayered arrangement [Abstract]. Given ‘191 teaches the mat can be used in various applications including bath mat, front door mat and foot towel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the mat can be used in various custom shapes and sizes depending on the end use as is known in the art and common sense. ‘191 is silent regarding the mat being machine washable and dryable, but given ‘191 teaches such a similar mat made of such similar materials, it is clear the mat is inherently machine washable and dryable. The mat comprises a facing first layer surface fabric (can be considered as layer 50 or 60 or 70) wherein the first layer is made from a soft, absorbent fabric as ‘191 teaches a superabsorbent composite yarn (considered to be soft) like those taught in KR10-328341 which teaches use of polyester (thus providing strength and stability), nylon and cotton(thus providing comfort and softness) in the fiber (therefore is made from a combination blend of a natural fiber and a manmade fiber providing absorbent property of the mat device), a wicking second layer (can be considered moisture absorbing layer 60 or layer 40 or a combination of layers 40 and 30) wherein the second layer instantly dissipated any liquid by making the facing fabric dry quickly (‘191 teach a second layer made of such similar materials and teaches that the layers of 30 and 40 wicks the moisture absorbed down) and a bottom fourth layer wherein the bottom fourth layer has a fabric (cotton) that is designed to cling to a surface that it is used on without shifting with a unique silicone coating (base of the anti-slip means) and particularly arranged dots (protrusion of anti-slip means 10) protruding from the silicone layer. In the alternative, Rios et al. teach anti-slip protrusions with adhered with a silicone adhesive (considered to be the silicone coating) and the protrusions being the particularly arranged dots) and using polyester (including 100% polyester) bottom layer in lieu of cotton with or without a silicon backing to provide slip resistance on a surface that it is used on depending on the end use requirements and to securely adhere the dots to provide an anti-slip function and because silicone adheres excellently to polyester. The silicon backing has dots embedded in the layer during manufacturing wherein interspacing between the dots are configured in a particular pattern [Figures]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the silicone adhesive with the anti-slip protrusions and the polyester and polyester bottom layer with silicon backing of Rios et al. in ‘191 in order to securely adhere the dots to provide an anti-slip function and to provide slip resistance on a surface that it is used on and arrive at the claimed invention.
‘191 teaches using an adhesive layer (considered to be the third layer) between layer 20 and layer 30 ‘191 and the previous combination are silent regarding the claimed third layer being a protective barrier layer. However, Jia et al. provide prevent liquid from seeping through the device and therefore to protect a surface it is used on. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the waterproof adhesive as taught by Jia et al. in ‘191 or the previous combination in order to provide prevent liquid from seeping through the device and therefore to protect a surface it is used on and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 11-14, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed size and shape. However, per MPEP 2144.04 IV, “In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)” “In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the mat any size or shape including that presently claimed and further, a mat having the claimed relative dimensions or shape would not perform differently than the prior art mat, therefore the claimed mat is not patentably distinct from the prior art mat.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200310191 (hereinafter referred to as ‘191) in view of Rios et al. (PG Pub. 2009/0162596) in view of Jia et al. (CN 114129951).
Regarding claim 15, ‘191 teaches a method for making a custom cut exercise mat configured as a reusable mat of multilayers arrangement comprising integrating three layers of fabric by applying adhesive wherein a facing first layer soft fabric is an absorbent surface allowing sweat to be absorbed and preventing liquid stagnation, a wicking second layer wherein the second layer instantly dissipates any liquid by making the facing fabric dry quickly (‘191 teach a second layer made of such similar materials and teaches that the layers of 30 and 40 wicks the moisture absorbed down) and a fourth bottom layer that is designed for skid resistance on the surface it is used on.
‘191 and Rios et al. teaches the layers are adhered to each other by means of adhesive. The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed quilting. However, ‘727 teaches quilt pattern formation stitching in a wave pattern across all layers to provide anti-slip on an upper surface of the mat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the quilt pattern stitching of ‘727 in the previous combination in order to provide anti-slip on an upper surface of the mat and arrive at the claimed invention.
‘191 teaches coating a bottom anti-skid layer with silicone wherein the bottom layer has a special anti-skid coating preventing skidding on a surface it is used on. Rios et al. teach coating a bottom anti-skid layer with silicone wherein the bottom layer has a special anti-skid coating preventing skidding on a surface it is used on and teach applying dots on the silicon layer arranged in an interspacing configuration of specific dimensions in order to in order to securely adhere the dots to provide an anti-slip function and to provide slip resistance on a surface that it is used on. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the silicone layer and dots of Rios et al. in ‘191 in order to securely adhere the dots to provide an anti-slip function and to provide slip resistance on a surface that it is used on and arrive at the claimed invention.
‘191 teaches using an adhesive layer (considered to be the third layer) between layer 20 and layer 30 ‘191 and the previous combination are silent regarding the claimed third layer being a protective barrier layer. However, Jia et al. provide prevent liquid from seeping through the device and therefore to protect a surface it is used on. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the waterproof adhesive as taught by Jia et al. in ‘191 or the previous combination in order to provide prevent liquid from seeping through the device and therefore to protect a surface it is used on and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, the previous combination is silent regarding applying felt dots to the facing fabric surface as claimed. However, given the previous combination teaches using dots are protruding slightly from the surface on the bottom to provide grip, it would have been more than obvious to provide dots are protruding slightly from the surface on the top to provide grip.
Regarding claim 17, the previous combination is silent regarding the claimed cutting in the desired size and shape. However, per MPEP 2144.04 IV, “In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)” “In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cut the mat any size or shape including that presently claimed and further, a mat having the claimed relative dimensions or shape would not perform differently than the prior art mat, therefore the claimed mat is not patentably distinct from the prior art mat.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200310191 (hereinafter referred to as ‘191) in view of Rios et al. (PG Pub. 2009/0162596) in view of Jia et al. (CN 114129951) in view of Edwards (PG Pub. 2005/0192158).
Regarding claim 16, the previous combination is silent regarding applying felt dots to the facing fabric surface as claimed. However, given the previous combination teaches using dots are protruding slightly from the surface on the bottom to provide grip, it would have been more than obvious to provide dots are protruding slightly from the surface on the top to provide grip. In the alternative, Edwards teaches using dots on the upper surface slightly protruding from the surface to provide grip to the user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the dots on the upper surface as taught by Edwards in the previous combination in order to provide grip to the user and arrive at the claimed invention. It is further noted, the dots of the cited invention are considered to meet the claimed “felt” dots”. See the 35 USC 112 rejection above
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200310191 (hereinafter referred to as ‘191) in view of Rios et al. (PG Pub. 2009/0162596) in view of Jia et al. (CN 114129951) as evidenced by Hutchinson et al. (PG Pub. 2009/0297811).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, the previous combination teaches natural fiber is cotton, but is silent regarding the claimed bamboo and rayon. However, Hutchinson teaches rayon and bamboo as equivalent alternatives to cotton as is known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use rayon and/or bamboo as equivalent alternatives to cotton as is known in the art to provide a moisture absorbent material and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 200310191 (hereinafter referred to as ‘191) in view of Rios et al. (PG Pub. 2009/0162596) in view of Jia et al. (CN 114129951) in view of (hereinafter referred to as ‘727).
Regarding claim 7, ‘191 and Rios et al. teaches the layers are adhered to each other by means of adhesive. The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed quilting. However, ‘727 teaches quilt pattern formation stitching in a wave pattern across all layers to provide anti-slip on an upper surface of the mat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the quilt pattern stitching of ‘727 in the previous combination in order to provide anti-slip on an upper surface of the mat and arrive at the claimed invention
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789