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 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.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 1 recites “the surface of a marine vehicle” in line 16. It appears that claim 1 should recite “a surface of a marine vehicle” in line 16.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim lacks punctuation after the word “another” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champion (US Patent Application No. 2013/0280475) in view of Pickren et al. (US Patent Application No. 2020/0254716).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5 and 6, Champion teaches a marine deck pad (floor mat arrangement) (page 1, paragraph [0001], page 4, paragraph [0036]) comprising a first layer having an exposed upper surface and a bottom surface opposite the upper surface (page 1, paragraph [0004], page 2, paragraph [0018]), the first layer comprising a first foam material (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]); a second surface layer having an upper surface facing the bottom surface of the first layer and a bottom surface opposite the upper surface of the second layer (page 1, paragraph [0004], page 2, paragraph [0018]), the second layer comprising a foam (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]).
Champion does not disclose wherein the first foam has a density of between about 7.5 lbs/ft3 and about 9.5 lbs/ft3 and the second foam has a density that is greater than the first density and is between about 8 lbs/ft3 and about 12.9 lbs/ft3. However, Champion does teach wherein the foam layers may vary in density from each other (page 3, paragraph [0024]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in density involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the densities of the foam layers of Champion in order to provide resistance to compression (Champion, page 3, paragraph [0025]).
Champion fails to teach wherein the pad comprises a plurality of snap couplers, each comprising a first portion including a body portion extending entirely through the first layer and the second layer between the exposed upper surface of the first layer and the bottom surface of the second layer and a flanged portion extending outwardly from the body portion where the flanged portion abuts the exposed upper surface of the first layer; and a second portion releasably connected with the first portion of the snap coupler, where the second portion of the snap coupler is attached to the surface of a marine vehicle. However, Pickren et al. teach a marine floor arrangement (page 1, paragraph [0002], page 3, paragraph [0039]) comprising one or more layers of foam (page 3, paragraph [0027]) and a plurality of snap couplers (page 3, paragraph [0027]), each comprising a first portion including a body portion extending entirely though a first layer and a second layer between an exposed upper surface of the first layer and the bottom surface of the second layer (page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043], Fig. 2A) and a flanged portion extending outwardly from the body portion where the flanged portion abuts the exposed upper surface of the first layer (page 4, paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043], Fig. 2A) and a second portion releasably connected with the first portion of the snap coupler (page 2, paragraphs [0017], [0018], page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraph [0043]), where the second portion of the snap coupler is attached to the surface of a marine vehicle (page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the snap couplers of Pickren et al. in the first and second layer of Champion in order to make a removable traction mat (Pickren et al., page 2, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Champion teaches wherein the first foam comprises an EVA foam (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]), wherein the second foam comprises an EVA foam (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Champion teaches wherein the upper surface of the first layer includes non-skid (anti-slip) surface (page 1, paragraph [0004], page 2, paragraph [0019]), wherein the upper surface of the first layer is textured (page 2, paragraphs [0021], [0022]).
Regarding claim 9, Champion teaches a marine deck pad (floor mat arrangement) (page 1, paragraph [0001], page 4, paragraph [0036]) comprising a first layer having an exposed upper surface and a bottom surface opposite the upper surface (page 1, paragraph [0004], page 2, paragraph [0018]), the first layer comprising a first foam material (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]); a second surface layer having an upper surface facing the bottom surface of the first layer and a bottom surface opposite the upper surface of the second layer (page 1, paragraph [0004], page 2, paragraph [0018]), the second layer comprising a foam (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]).
Champion does not disclose wherein the first foam has a density of between about 7.5 lbs/ft3 and about 9.5 lbs/ft3 and the second foam has a density that is greater than the first density and is between about 8 lbs/ft3 and about 12.9 lbs/ft3. However, Champion does teach wherein the foam layers may vary in density from each other (page 3, paragraph [0024]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in density involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the densities of the foam layers of Champion in order to provide resistance to compression (Champion, page 3, paragraph [0025]).
Champion fails to teach wherein the pad comprises a plurality of snap couplers, each comprising a first portion including a body portion extending entirely through the first layer and the second layer between the exposed upper surface of the first layer and the bottom surface of the second layer and a flanged portion extending outwardly from the body portion where the flanged portion abuts the exposed upper surface of the first layer; and a second portion releasably connected with the first portion of the snap coupler, where the second portion of the snap coupler is attached to the surface of a marine vehicle. However, Pickren et al. teach a marine floor arrangement (page 1, paragraph [0002], page 3, paragraph [0039]) comprising one or more layers of foam (page 3, paragraph [0027]) and a plurality of snap couplers (page 3, paragraph [0027]), each comprising a first portion including a body portion extending entirely though a first layer and a second layer between an exposed upper surface of the first layer and the bottom surface of the second layer (page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043], Fig. 2A) and a flanged portion extending outwardly from the body portion where the flanged portion abuts the exposed upper surface of the first layer (page 4, paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043], Fig. 2A) and a second portion releasably connected with the first portion of the snap coupler (page 2, paragraphs [0017], [0018], page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraph [0043]), where the second portion of the snap coupler is attached to the surface of a marine vehicle (page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the snap couplers of Pickren et al. in the first and second layer of Champion in order to make a removable traction mat (Pickren et al., page 2, paragraph [0018]).
The product-by-process limitation “the first layer and the second layer are roll laminated to one another” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the arrangement. The product itself does not depend on the process of making it. MPEP 2113. It can therefore be ascertained that the arrangement of Champion, as modified by Pickren et al., possesses the same characteristics as the Applicant’s claimed arrangement.
Regarding claim 10, Champion teaches wherein the arrangement further comprises a third layer located between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the third layer comprises a foam material (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]).
Regarding claim 11, Champion teaches wherein the arrangement further comprises a third layer located between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the third layer comprises a foam material (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]).
The product-by-process limitation “the first layer, the second layer and the third layer are roll laminated to one another” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the arrangement. The product itself does not depend on the process of making it. MPEP 2113. It can therefore be ascertained that the arrangement of Champion, as modified by Pickren et al., possesses the same characteristics as the Applicant’s claimed arrangement.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Champion teaches a marine deck pad (floor mat arrangement) (page 1, paragraph [0001], page 4, paragraph [0036]) comprising a first layer having an exposed first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (page 1, paragraph [0004], page 2, paragraph [0018]), the first layer comprising a first foam material (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]); a second layer having a first surface facing the second surface of the first layer and a second surface opposite the first surface of the second layer (page 1, paragraph [0004], page 2, paragraph [0018]) and configured to abut a surface of a marine vehicle (page 1, paragraph [0008], page 2, paragraph [0018]), the second layer comprising a foam (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]).
Champion does not disclose wherein the first foam has a first density and the second foam has a second density that is greater than the first density. However, Champion does teach wherein the foam layers may vary in density from each other (page 3, paragraph [0024]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in density involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the densities of the foam layers of Champion in order to provide resistance to compression (Champion, page 3, paragraph [0025]).
Champion fails to teach wherein the pad comprises a plurality of quick release couplers, each comprising a first portion extending entirely through the first and second layer and including an outwardly extending flanged portion abutting the first surface of the first layer; and a second portion of the quick release coupler configured to releasably couple with the first portion of the quick release coupler, where the second portion of the quick release coupler is configured to attach to the surface of the marine vehicle. However, Pickren et al. teach a marine floor arrangement (page 1, paragraph [0002], page 3, paragraph [0039]) comprising one or more layers of foam (page 3, paragraph [0027]) and a plurality of snap (quick release) couplers (page 3, paragraph [0027]), each comprising a first portion extending entirely through the one or more layers of foam (page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043], Fig. 2A) and including an outwardly extending flanged portion abutting a first surface of one of the layers of foam layer (page 4, paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043], Fig. 2A) and a second portion of the snap (quick release) coupler configured to releasably couple with the first portion of the snap (quick release) coupler (page 2, paragraphs [0017], [0018], page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraph [0043]), where the second portion of the snap (quick release coupler) is configured to attach to the surface of the marine vehicle (page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the snap (quick release) couplers of Pickren et al. in the first and second layer of Champion in order to make a removable traction mat (Pickren et al., page 2, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 14, Champion fails to teach wherein the first portion includes a first snap coupler portion having a body portion extending entirely through the first and second layer and the flange portion extending outwardly from the body portion, and wherein the second portion includes a second snap portion attached to the surface of the marine vehicle. However, Pickren et al. teach a marine floor arrangement (page 1, paragraph [0002], page 3, paragraph [0039]) comprising one or more layers of foam (page 3, paragraph [0027]) and a plurality of snap (quick release) couplers (page 3, paragraph [0027]), each comprising a first portion extending entirely through the one or more layers of foam (page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043], Fig. 2A) and including an outwardly extending flanged portion abutting a first surface of one of the layers of foam layer (page 4, paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043], Fig. 2A) and a second portion of the snap (quick release) coupler configured to releasably couple with the first portion of the snap (quick release) coupler (page 2, paragraphs [0017], [0018], page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraph [0043]), where the second portion of the snap (quick release coupler) is configured to attach to the surface of the marine vehicle (page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraph [0043]), wherein the first portion includes a first snap coupler portion having a body portion extending entirely through the one or more layers of foam (page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043], Fig. 2A) and the flange portion extending outwardly from the body portion (page 4, paragraphs [0040], [0042], [0043], Fig. 2A) and wherein the second portion includes a second snap portion attached to the surface of the marine vehicle (page 3, paragraph [0027], page 4, paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the snap (quick release) couplers of Pickren et al. in the first and second layer of Champion in order to make a removable traction mat (Pickren et al., page 2, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Champion teaches wherein the first foam comprises an EVA foam (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]) and wherein the second foam comprises an EVA foam (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]).
Regarding claim 17, Champion teaches wherein the first and second foam material are the same (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]).
Regarding claim 18, Champion teach wherein the first foam comprises an EVA foam (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]) and wherein the second foam comprises an EVA foam (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]).
Champion does not disclose wherein the first foam has a first density of between about 7.5 lbs/ft3 and about 9.5 lbs/ft3 and wherein the second foam has a density that is greater than the first density and is between about 8 lbs/ft3 and about 12.9 lbs/ft3. However, Champion does teach wherein the foam layers may vary in density from each other (page 3, paragraph [0024]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in density involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the densities of the foam layers of Champion in order to provide resistance to compression (Champion, page 3, paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, Champion does not disclose wherein the density of the first foam material is between about 8 lbs/ft3 and about 9 lbs/ft3, and wherein the density of the second foam material is between about 9.5 lbs/ft3 and about 10.5 lbs/ft3. However, Champion does teach wherein the foam layers may vary in density from each other (page 3, paragraph [0024]). Where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in density involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the densities of the foam layers of Champion in order to provide resistance to compression (Champion, page 3, paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Champion teaches wherein the first surface of the first layer includes non-skid (anti-slip) surface (page 1, paragraph [0004], page 2, paragraph [0019]), wherein the first surface of the first layer is textured (page 2, paragraphs [0021], [0022]).
Regarding claim 22, Champion teaches wherein the first surface of the first layer is textured (page 2, paragraphs [0021], [0022]).
The product-by-process limitation “the first and second layers are roll laminated to one another, and wherein the first surface of the first layer is textured as the first and second layers are laminated to one another” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the arrangement. The product itself does not depend on the process of making it. MPEP 2113. It can therefore be ascertained that the arrangement of Champion, as modified by Pickren et al., possesses the same characteristics as the Applicant’s claimed arrangement.
Regarding claim 23, the product-by-process limitation “the first and second layers are roll laminated to one another” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the arrangement. The product itself does not depend on the process of making it. MPEP 2113. It can therefore be ascertained that the arrangement of Champion, as modified by Pickren et al., possesses the same characteristics as the Applicant’s claimed arrangement.
Regarding claim 24, Champion teaches wherein the arrangement further comprises a third layer located between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the third layer comprises a foam material (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]).
Regarding claim 25, Champion teaches wherein the arrangement further comprises a third layer located between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the third layer comprises a foam material (page 2, paragraphs [0018], [0019]).
The product-by-process limitation “the first layer, second and third layers are roll laminated to one another” would not be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the arrangement. The product itself does not depend on the process of making it. MPEP 2113. It can therefore be ascertained that the arrangement of Champion, as modified by Pickren et al., possesses the same characteristics as the Applicant’s claimed arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 5/1/2026
Prosecution Insights