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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/22/24 and 6/21/24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group, I, claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 3/12/26 is acknowledged. Claim 18 is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the barrier layer of a first tile extending from an edge thereof and overhanging at least some of the ceilings associated with absorbing members of an adjacent tile as recited in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cormier et al., US 2020/0141132.
Regarding claim 1:
Cormier discloses a progressive load-distributing and absorbing system that is subjected to an applied load, the system comprising:
one or more multi-tier, hat-shaped absorbing members (20 in Fig. 1), at least some of the absorbing members having
a basal portion (24) with a thickness (T) made of a material selected from the group consisting of thermoplastic polyurethane (para. 0047 and 0057);
a curvilinear wall (26) extending upwardly from the basal portion, the curvilinear wall defining a number (N) of tiers (2 tiers) that telescopingly cooperate in response to and resist the applied load, at least some of the tiers being characterized by a curvilinear wall section having a height (23), an average thickness (T), an angle of inclination (θ), a shoulder having a length (25), and a radius portion between the shoulder and the wall section of an adjacent tier, the radius portion having a radius (refer to Fig. 1, there is a radius between the shoulder and the adjacent tier);
PNG
media_image1.png
235
821
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the tiers having a compliant region, an intermediate region, and a protective region,
the compliant region having one or more compliant tiers that at least partially absorb forces initially resulting from the applied load, the compliant tiers lying in an upper portion of an absorbing member;
the protective region lying below the intermediate region and having one or more protective tiers extending below the intermediate region, the protective tiers deflecting substantially after the compliant tiers have absorbed the forces initially resulting from the applied load;
wherein the shoulders form transition regions between the protective, intermediate and compliant regions and provide transition zones between a relatively soft resistance offered by the protective region and a relatively stiff resistance presented by the compliant region (para. 0045),
PNG
media_image2.png
196
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the tiers in the protective region deflect after the tiers in the compliant region; and
a ceiling portion that lies above an uppermost compliant tier;
wherein the curvilinear wall portions return to their pre-impact configuration and strength after the applied load is removed (para. 0067, it is a resilient material of TPU that remains unblemished before, during and after impact events).
PNG
media_image3.png
442
550
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
Cormier discloses further including a barrier layer (18 and 12) below which the absorbing members are positioned, so that after the load is applied to the barrier layer, the absorbing members react by a deflection mode that is characterized by an initial absorption by the compliant region followed by a stiffer resistance progressively presented by the intermediate and protective regions.
Regarding claims 6 and 7:
Cormier discloses wherein the barrier layer is ceramic or wood (claim 6 of Cormier) and the foundation is concrete (claim 7).
Regarding claims 8 and 9:
Cormier discloses wherein at the some of the compliant regions have a footprint with a shape that is a circle (Fig. 5) and the protective regions have a footprint also with a circle (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10:
Cormier discloses further including one or more tiles of absorbing members (Figs 2 and 3) wherein a barrier layer of a first tile extends from an edge thereof and overhangs at least some of the ceilings associated with absorbing members of an adjacent tile.
Regarding claim 11:
Cormier discloses wherein groups of tiles are conjoined (Figs. 2 and 3), at least some of the absorbing members having a load-attenuation characteristic such that within the group, there is a user-determinable force attenuation property that may be uniform within the group (claim 13 of Cormier).
Regarding claim 12:
Cormier discloses wherein a group of conjoined tiles has an energy absorption characteristic that differs from another group of conjoined tiles, so that tiles that underlie a first installation site may present a different footfall than a group of tiles that underlie another installation site (implied by para. 0044, tuning of characteristic for various applications).
Regarding claims 13 and 17:
Cormier discloses wherein the barrier layer includes a surface of a floor located in a senior living facility (claim 20 of Cormier).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cormier et al., US 2020/0141132.
Regarding claim 15:
Cormier does not expressly disclose multiple tiers in the protective region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a plurality of tiers in the protective region, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In the case above, it was found that while the addition of multiple plies had undoubtedly made it stronger, it is not the type of innovation for which a patent monopoly is to be granted.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior art of record to Cormier et al., US 2020/0141132 does not disclose differences in thickness between regions (claim 3 through 5) nor differences between draft angles (claim 14). Modifying Cormier to have the claimed features would require improper hindsight reasoning and reconstruction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p MT.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633