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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: e.g., combination A2, combination B3, combination C4, combination D5, combination E6, combination F7, combination G8 and combination H9.
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. 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.
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 1-10 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.
The term “thin” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the required thickness of the foot pad body to be considered “thin.”
Claim 1 states “circle of rectangular” which appears to be an oxymoron, so the structure of claim 1 would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. The Examiner recommends further clarifying the rectangular groove to state it has rounded corners.
Claim 1 states “convex groove” which appears to be an oxymoron (e.g., grooves are generally concave), so the structure of claim 1 would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. The Examiner recommends further clarifying the groove is formed by a protruding portion from the lower surface.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claims 1-10 are rejected for the use of the term of foot pad(s) for more than one foot pad creating general unclearness within the claims. The Examiner recommends further clarification to what foot pad is being referred, e.g., a or the first foot pad and a or the second foot pad, to remove any confusion.
The term “thin” in claims 6 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the required thickness of the edge to be considered “thin.”
Claim 8 is rejected because it states “a circle of inverted epsilon-shaped boss,” but also states “a boss in a middle” and “two bosses on side edges;” so it would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art if the boss in the middle and/or one or both of the two bosses on side edges refers to the circle of inverted epsilon-shaped boss; or the circle of inverted epsilon-shaped boss is a separate boss apart from the from the boss in the middle and/or one or both of the two bosses on side edges.
Claim 9 is rejected because it states “a circle of inverted epsilon-shaped boss,” but also states “a boss in a middle,” “a longer boss,” and “another boss;” so it would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art if the boss in the middle, the longer boss, and/or another boss refers to the circle of inverted epsilon-shaped boss; or the circle of inverted epsilon-shaped boss is a separate boss apart from the boss in the middle, the longer boss, and/or another boss.
Claim 10 is rejected because it states “a circle of inverted epsilon-shaped boss,” but also states “a boss in a middle,” “a longer boss,” and “another boss;” so it would have been unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art if the boss in the middle, the longer boss, and/or another boss refers to the circle of inverted epsilon-shaped boss; or the circle of inverted epsilon-shaped boss is a separate boss apart from the boss in the middle, the longer boss, and/or another boss.
Examiner note: It appears from the drawings and instant specification that in claims 8-10 that the multiple use of “boss” might be referring to multiple parts of the same boss, but the claim language does not make that clear. However, the claims will be examined accordingly.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 2014/0223684 A1) in view of Onishi et al (JP 2002166773 A).
Hawkins teaches a floor mat system (i.e., multifunctional foot pad) comprising a foot pad body (140) (e.g., base mat), wherein the foot pad body is a rectangular thin pad and rectangular convex grooves (220, 240) (e.g., first and second recesses) are provided on a top surface of the thin pad, the lower surfaces of the groove bottoms of the groove are groove-shaped, the groove on the top surface of the thin pad can match and be combined with various foot pads or ornaments (120a, 120b) (e.g., shoe cleaning pads) (para 29, figs 6-7).
Hawkins fails to suggest an opening of the lower surface is provided on a bottom surface of the foot pad; wherein two foot pads are combined into a whole to form a foot pad having two convex grooves; wherein two foot pads are combined into a whole to form a foot pad having two convex grooves; and wherein a matching and connection manner of a foot pad or an ornament matching the groove on the top surface of the foot pad is that a circle of boss fitting the groove in size is arranged on the foot pad or the ornament, and the boss is inserted into the groove on the top surface of the foot pad.
Onishi teaches in floor mats the use of bosses (e.g., connection tools) used to connect multiple floor mats at protruding portions; wherein the floor mats have openings on the lower surface of the bottom of the pads; and convex grooves; wherein the connecting tool has a top portion and lower portions that extend downward to connect the floor mats; and the connecting tools efficiently prevent the separation of floor mats (page 6; fig 6f).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the floor mats of Onishi with the floor mat system of Hawkins for floor mat systems with connecting tools efficiently prevent the separation of additional floor mats (i.e., wherein two foot pads are combined into a whole to form a foot pad having two convex grooves) and/or the separation of multiple foot pads used in the same floor mat body (i.e., wherein a matching and connection manner of a foot pad or an ornament matching the groove on the top surface of the foot pad is that a circle of boss fitting the groove in size is arranged on the foot pad or the ornament, and the boss is inserted into the groove on the top surface of the foot pad).
The limitations “having a round corner, “a circle of rectangular convex groove, “side edge of the groove is upward tapered,” “circle of boss fitting,” “T-shaped boss,” “tapered inner side surface,” “downward tapered,” “tapered outer side surface,”, “inverted epsilon-shaped boss,” “two bosses,” “longer boss,” “another boss on an inner side is shorter,” and “another boss on an outer side is shorter” are that of size and shape limitations.
It is noted that a change in size, scale, proportionality and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); In Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner V. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the floor mat system of Hawkins as modified by Onishi with the dimensions (i.e., size and shapes of the foot pad body, grooves, foot pads, ornaments, and bosses) based on the prior art's intended application as in the present invention.
Additional motivation would be provided to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to adjust the size and shapes of the foot pad body, grooves, foot pads, ornaments, and bosses to insure to combine and efficiently prevent the separation of additional floor mats.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783