DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the claims filed 12/06/2023.
Claims 1-12 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2023 and 3/26/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin in US Patent 2015/0251375 (hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a shoe bottom cleansing apparatus (one could wear shoes and wipe their feet on the floor mat of Lin) configured to be placed on a support surface (a floor surface), the shoe bottom cleansing apparatus comprising: an inner layer comprising a compression molded material (Fig. 2; inner layer 20 is a foam; paragraph [0020]); a cover 30 coupled to the inner layer 20, the cover comprising a microfiber (paragraph [0022]); a lower layer 10 coupled to the cover and defining a lower surface of the shoe bottom cleansing apparatus, the lower surface configured to contact the ground surface and comprising an anti-slip material (via rubber material, for example; paragraph [0021]); a plurality of cleansing portions 33A (Fig. 6; paragraph [0028]) defining an upper surface of the shoe bottom cleansing apparatus opposite the lower surface; and a plurality of grooves, each groove of the plurality of grooves disposed between adjacent cleansing portions of the plurality of cleansing portions (see Fig. 6; the equivalent grooves are simply the space between the protrusion 33A).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses the shoe bottom cleansing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the compression molded material is a foam (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses the shoe bottom cleansing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the microfiber comprises anti-microbial properties (paragraph [0021]; ramie cotton has anti-bacterial material and thus comprises anti-microbial properties).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses the shoe bottom cleansing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of cleansing portions comprises seven cleansing portions and the plurality of grooves comprises six grooves (see Fig. 6; since Lin discloses a plurality of raised cleaning portions and grooves between in a number greater than 7 and 6, respectively, Lin is considered to anticipate a claim to a structure comprising seven cleansing portions and six grooves; Examiner’s note: a claim to EXACTLY seven raised/cleansing portions and six grooves would be subject to an obviousness rejection based on Lin alone).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin alone.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Lin does not explicitly disclose the particularly claimed width and height dimensions, instead only mentioning that the floor mat could be made to size and shape as desired without departing from the sprit of the floor mat. The Court has held “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.” See MPEP 2144.04. Instantly, claims 5 and 6 fail to patently distinguish themselves over Lin alone because they merely recite relative dimensions of the sides of the floor mat apparatus disclosed by Lin. A person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that floor mats can be made of various different lengths and widths (or heights) and would be motivated to do so in order to fill different floor spaces where a person might employ such a floor mat, and the result would have been predictable. To this point, a brief search of any popular online retailer of household products such as floor mats shows myriad different sizes including those encompassed in the language of claims 5 and 6.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied above in view of McMahan in US Patent 6851141 (hereinafter “McMahan”).
Regarding claim 7, manufacture of the device of Lin as applied above necessarily meets all of the method steps of claim 7, except Lin does not explicitly disclose coupling layers via a thermal lamination process (Lin is silent to any particular bonding method of the layers). McMahan teaches an analogous floor mat to that of Lin, including a structure comprised of an anti-slip layer, a soft resilient inner layer, and a cover layer (see Fig. 2 and column 3 middle paragraph). Specifically, McMahan teaches that such floor mats can be manufactured by heat sealing the top and bottom layers to secure the middle resilient layer inside the structure (column 2 last paragraph to the end of column 3 first paragraph describes heat bonding the floor mat layers together). The Court has held that simple substitution of one known element or step for another serves as basis for a prima facie case of obviousness. Instantly, the prior art (Lin), differs only from the claimed invention by the recitation of employing thermal lamination to couple layers together. McMahan is evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that thermal lamination is a suitable and actively employed method to bond together layers of a floor mat (or “shoe bottom cleansing apparatus”). See MPEP 2141 and 2143. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manufacturing method of the device of Lin by employing thermal lamination to bond together layers by simply substituting the known method demonstrated by McMahon for the non-descript method of Lin, and the result would have been predictable. See MPEP 2141 and 2143.
Regarding claim 8, Lin as modified by McMahan comprises the method of claim 7, wherein the compression molded material is a foam (see Lin paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 9, Lin as modified by McMahon comprises the method of claim 7, wherein the microfiber comprises anti-microbial properties (see Lin paragraph [0021]; ramie cotton has anti-bacterial material and thus comprises anti-microbial properties).
Regarding claim 10, Lin as modified by McMahon comprises the method of claim 7, further comprising forming a plurality of cleansing portions and a plurality of grooves on the shoe bottom cleansing apparatus, the plurality of cleansing portions defining an upper surface of the shoe bottom cleansing apparatus opposite the lower surface (see Lin Fig. 6; since Lin discloses a plurality of raised cleaning portions and grooves between in a number greater than 7 and 6, respectively, Lin is considered to anticipate a claim to a structure comprising seven cleansing portions and six grooves; Examiner’s note: a claim to EXACTLY seven raised/cleansing portions and six grooves would be subject to an obviousness rejection based on Lin alone).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the same rationale for a finding of obvious is applied to the particularly claimed dimensions as was applied above with respect to claims 5 and 6 in view of Lin alone. The rejection will not be repeated verbatim so as to not unnecessarily belabor the record. See above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The field of art is replete with examples of floor mats or “shoe cleansing” devices made up of multiple layers of material bonded together like the instantly claimed invention. No particular guidance can be given at this time as to possible avenues of advancing towards allowable language.Notable Prior Art:
US5645914 discloses a multi-layered anti-fatigue floor mat. US6921502 discloses a cushioned rubber floor mat and the method for manufacturing such, particularly a cushioned, non-slip, anti-microbial mat with an inner foam core like the instantly claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm 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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799