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 .
Examiner Notes
Claims 30-50 are currently pending of which claims 37-48 has been withdrawn. Claims 49 and 50 are newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 30-36 in the reply filed on 04/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/07/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Losio et al. (US 2014/0302271).
Regarding claim 30, Losio discloses an anti-fatigue mat (0001) comprising a covering (4), gel layer (5), and elastomeric layer (6). The cover layer comprising a plurality of deformations which protrude towards the center of the gel layer over a distance of between 1% and 20% of the total thickness of the gel layer (Fig. 5).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to have optimized the deformation distance as Losio teaches the finishing or surface grain provides the desired aesthetic characteristics to the mat (0036) see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.
The deformations defining a cushioned surface which comprises a plurality of cushion pads (10) wherein a thickness and an equivalent diameter of the cushion pads are related according to a ratio of between 1:20 and 10:20 (Fig. 1).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to have optimized the ratio of thickness of the deformations to equivalent diameter of the cushion pads as Losio teaches the finishing or surface grain provides the desired aesthetic characteristics to the mat (0078) see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.
Regarding claim 31, Losio teaches the cushioned surface visible on an exterior of the cover layer (Fig. 1, 2, and 4).
Claim 32-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Losio as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Schuette et al. (WO03042269A1).
Regarding claim 32, Losio discloses the limitations of claim 31 as discussed above. Losio further teaches the elastomeric layer (6) comprises a polyurethane elastomer (0054), however does not teach that the PU is foamed.
Schuette, in the analogous field of polyurethanes for floor mats (page 8, paragraph 5), teaches a polyurethane foam formed by reacting an isocyanate component with a polyol component (page 4, paragraphs 6-7).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the PU elastomer of Losio to comprise a PU foam as taught by Schuette, providing a PU having good processability and mechanical properties (page 3, paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 33, Schuette does not expressly teaches the weight ratio between the isocyanate and polyol components. However, Schuette teaches that an important parameter for mixing PU is the ratio between the isocyanate component and the polyol component, since it has a significant influence on the over mechanical properties (page 2, paragraph 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the weight ratio of isocyanate and polyol for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 34, Losio teaches the gel layer comprising a polyurethane gel (0040).
Regarding claim 35, Losio teaches that the gel components result from reaction of polyols and polyisocyanates (0005) however does not teach an weight ratio as claimed. However, Schuette teaches that an important parameter for mixing PU is the ratio between the isocyanate component and the polyol component, since it has a significant influence on the over mechanical properties (page 2, paragraph 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the weight ratio of isocyanate and polyol for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 36, Losio teaches the covering comprising polyurethane based fabric (0032).
Claim 49-50 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Losio in view of Schuette as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Fernandez (US 2010/0237082).
Regarding claim 49, modified Losio discloses the limitations of claim 36 as discussed above. Losio does not provide suitable thicknesses for the substrate or gel layers.
Fernandez, in the analogous field of floor mats (0002), teaches an anti-fatigue mat comprising a resilient gel layer disposed on a layer of foam (0009). Fernandez teaches that the gel layer and foam layer may be any thickness from 0.5 mm to 30 cm and that the gel and foam layer may be the same thickness of different thicknesses (0037). Thus, Fernandez teaches embodiments overlapping the claimed thickness ratio.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the gel and substrate layers of Losio to have thicknesses in the ranges as taught by Fernandez, preventing fatigue in a user standing for long periods (0039).
Regarding claim 50, Losio teaches that the substrate and cover encapsulated the gel layer (Fig. 5).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights