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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2017/0107725 to Jones et al. cited in previous Office action (herein Jones).
Regarding claim 1¸ Jones teaches a modular mat (abstract) having a first layer and a second layer (paragraph 0042) corresponding to the external sheets recited in the instant claims. Jones teaches that the mat can be made of polypropylene (paragraph 0041). Jones teaches that the inner surfaces of the first and second layers include integral reinforcing structures that can be ribs in any suitable configuration, e.g. transverse, (paragraph 0051) such that the reinforcing structure of the first and second layer correspond and match (paragraph 0052). Jones teaches that the first and second layers can be joined together via glue or welding (paragraph 0048). Jones also teaches that the mat is provided with fitting receivers (paragraph 0057) corresponding to the eyelets recited in the instant claims wherein the fitting receivers are formed along the edges of the mat (paragraph 0058).
Jones is silent as to the size and the distance from the edge of the fitting receivers; however, such dimensions amount to a mere change in size or proportion thereby rendering the claimed limitations obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Response to Amendment
In view of Applicant’s amendments filed 4 June 2026, previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are hereby withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are set forth above.
Applicant's arguments filed 4 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention includes two external sheets that are integral with the joining transverse sections while the mat of Jones is made of two separate mats that are affixed together (Remarks, pages 1-2). As discussed above, the first and second layers of Jones can be affixed via welding which would result in the first and second layers being integrally joined via the reinforcing structures. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider the two structures to be substantially the same, i.e. a top and bottom sheet integrally joined via intermediate structures.
Applicant argues that the first and second layers of Jones are mechanically joined via cam fittings, and therefore Jones does not teach the claimed integral structure (Remarks, page 2). As discussed above, Jones teaches that the first and second layers can be joined via welding or glue (paragraph 0048). The cams referred to by Applicant are used to join adjacent mats and not the first and second layers of a single mat (paragraphs 0057-0058).
Applicant argues that the fitting receivers of Jones do not teach the claimed eyelets or perforations because they are part of a cam lock system and not simple holes for receiving ties (Remarks, pages 2-3). Applicant has provided no showing of evidence that the fitting receivers of Jones which are holes in the first and second layers operate in a fundamentally different manner than the claimed eyelets or perforations. Given the broad definitions of “eyelet” and “perforation”, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect any hole to meet the limitations.
Applicant argues that the claimed eyelets are specifically configured to receive zip ties whereas the fitting receivers of Jones are configured to receive heavy duty locking pins; therefore, the mat of Jones is incompatible with the lightweight protection that the claimed invention is intended to provide (Remarks, page 3). Applicant has provided no showing of evidence demonstrating how the claimed holes are specifically configured to receive zip ties such that the fitting receivers of Jones would not also be capable of receiving zip ties. Furthermore, lightweight protection is merely an intended function of the claimed invention and does not actually further limit the structure itself.
Applicant argues that the claimed structure is critical to achieving a number of benefits such as compression resistance and impact absorption (Remarks, page 4). Applicant has provided no showing of evidence demonstrating the criticality of any part of the claimed invention. The arguments of counsel do not take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 2145(I).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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, Maria V 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights