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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims filed on 6/24/26, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/24/26. These drawings are unacceptable.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 11 (page 15) contains a signature.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The amendment filed 6/24/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Paragraph [0004] now states “or functional inserts” which appears to be new matter.
Paragraph [0028] states “or functional inserts” and “or functional inserts, such as, but not limited to, decorative chains, light strips, or dust-proof nets, thereby providing users with additional DIY customization options” which appear to be new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 now states “or functional inserts” which appears to be new matter.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.”
Additionally, Claims 2-10 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Claim 2 states “two foot pads” and “a foot pad” which are generally unclear, the Examiner recommends it should state “two multifunctional foot pads” and “a multifunctional foot pad” for reasons of clarity.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the foot pad" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the foot pad" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the foot pad" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
Per Applicant Response, dated 6/24/26, the term "thin edge" is strictly defined as an edge whose thickness is substantially less than its height and length (FIGS. 7 and 8).
The Applicant is reminded the term “substantially” is often used in conjunction with another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention. It is a broad term (MPEP § 2173.05(b)(III)(D)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 grooves having a substantially rectangular shape with rounded corners (220, 240) (e.g., first and second recesses) are provided on a top surface of the thin pad, the groove having a bottom surface that protrudes from an underside of the foot pad body such that a lower surface of the groove bottom is groove-shaped, the groove on the top surface of the thin pad is configured to receive and secure various ornaments or functional inserts (120a, 120b) (e.g., shoe cleaning pads) (para 29, figs 6-7, 16-20).
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/or functional inserts, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2-10 and the term “thin” under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph; the applicant contends term is used in the context of a conventional automotive foot pad as clearly shown in FIGS. 1 - 11. This is not persuasive since term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification and drawings do not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of thickness of the multifunctional foot pad, unless the Applicant is stating all conventional automotive foot pads (i.e., floor mats) are to be considered “thin” which would appear to mean the term holds no claritive value, and it is recommended it be deleted.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins in view of Onishi, Applicant contends the present invention solves a completely different problem: providing a multifunctional, modular foot pad that allows a user to easily combine a base foot pad body with various matching foot pads or ornaments through a continuous peripheral groove-and-boss structure, thereby enabling DIY customization, style transformation, and formation of an integrated foot pad having two convex grooves. Hawkins as modified by Onishi suggests or would have otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention the structure of the foot pad of the instant claims (see 35 USC § 103 above). The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights