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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a second Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-12, as amended 21 JUL. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. US 12031336 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations in the present case are contained within the claims of the issued patents.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 9-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler US 7043792 B2 in view of Walens et al. US 10208489 B2 (Walens).
As per claim 1 Kessler teaches a mat (mats 29, FIG. 1) assembly comprising:
a center section (center section, FIG. 1) having a peripheral portion,
the center section (center section, FIG. 1) comprising a sponge layer (ribs 50, FIG. 4; these are recognized as a sponge layer because they provide cushioning) and a top layer (carpet sections 63, FIG. 4; note two sections encompassed by brackets at 63),
a center portion of each of the top layer (carpet sections 63, FIG. 4; note two sections encompassed by brackets at 63) and the sponge layer (ribs 50, FIG. 4; these are recognized as a sponge layer because they provide cushioning) secured together (see elements secured together as broadly claimed, FIG. 1; also “When assembled together” [0031]),
a plurality of ramps (outer frame members 68, FIG. 1),
each ramp having an inclined top portion (see upper surface 110, FIG. 4),
a bottom portion (see bottom of 68, FIG. 4),
one end of the inclined top portion (see upper surface 110, FIG. 4) terminating at a free end (see “free end” proximate 116, 113, 68, right side, FIG. 4) of the ramp,
the free end (see “free end” proximate 116, 113, 68, right side, FIG. 4) extending longitudinally along the ramp (see FIG. 1),
the ramp having a plurality of channels (seal receiving recesses 119 and 122, FIG. 4) extending longitudinally along the ramp, adjacent channels (seal receiving recesses 119 and 122, FIG. 4) of the plurality of channels (seal receiving recesses 119 and 122, FIG. 4) separated by a member extending between the inclined top portion (see upper surface 110, FIG. 4) and bottom portion (see bottom of 68, FIG. 4) of the ramp, the ramp also having opposing end portions.
Kessler teaches the location of a connecting element being between an underside portion of the top layer and an upper surface portion of the subjacent cushioning layer (see patches 65, FIG. 4) fails to explicitly disclose:
a connecting flange,
the connecting flange positioned between an underside portion of the top layer and an upper surface portion of the sponge layer, each of which being in the peripheral portion of the center section,
the connecting flange, underside portion and upper surface portion attached together to form an integral connection between each ramp and the center section, and the end portions of adjacent ramps configured to be attached together.
Walens teaches the flange extending from a ramp as claimed capable of being integrated into the ramp of Kessler, specifically:
a connecting flange (engagement flange 74, FIG. 8),
the connecting flange (engagement flange 74, FIG. 8) positioned between an underside portion of the top layer and an upper surface portion of the sponge layer each of which being in the peripheral portion of the center section,
the connecting flange (engagement flange 74, FIG. 8), underside portion and upper surface portion attached together to form an integral connection between each ramp and the center section (see “flange 74 is optionally provided extending generally horizontally… for engagement with the outer periphery of the floor panels” 6:24-67), and the end portions of adjacent ramps configured to be attached together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Kessler by including the engagement flange extending from the ramp to a position between the two layers as taught by Walens in order to securely position the ramp.
As per claim 3 Kessler in view of Walens teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Kessler further discloses at least one end portion of at least two of the ramps (outer frame members 68, FIG. 1) is angled (see “angled” at lower left corner of FIG. 1 proximate reference characters 161, 116, 161) with respect to a longitudinal axis of the ramp, the angled end portions attached together by a bonding of the end portions or by use fasteners, or a combination thereof.
As per claim 9 Kessler in view of Walens teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Kessler further discloses the top plate has protrusions (sculptured upper surface 59, FIG. 4) extending from an upper surface thereof for slip resistance.
As per claim 10 Kessler in view of Walens teaches the limitations according to claim 1, and Kessler further discloses each ramp has protrusions (raised projections 116, FIG. 4) extending from an upper surface thereof for slip resistance.
As per claim 11 Kessler in view of Walens teaches the limitations according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose:
each ramp is an extruded polymer.
Walens further discloses an obvious mass produced material, specifically: each ramp is an extruded polymer (see "plexiglass" 3:62; note: The method of forming the device —extruded— is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. (Product by Process 2113)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Kessler in view of Walens by substituting the polymer as taught by Walens in order to produce a uniquely shaped member with a known low-cost material.
As per claim 12 Kessler in view of Walens teaches the limitations according to claim 1 and Kessler further discloses a method of covering a floor surface with a cushioned mat, the improvement comprising covering the floor surface (floor 23, FIG. 4) with the mat assembly of claim 1.
Claim 2 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler in view of Walens as applied to claim 1 Above and further in view of Luxton et al. US 7900294 B2 (Luxton)
As per claim 2 and 8 Kessler in view of Walens teaches the limitations according to claim 1 but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
a plurality of corner connectors, each corner connector having opposing side faces, each opposing side face configured to attach to an adjacent end portion of one of the plurality of ramps; and
each opposing side face of each corner connector includes a plurality of tree connectors, each tree connector configured to engage one of the channels in the ramp.
Luxton teaches these corner connectors engaged as claimed, specifically:
a plurality of corner connectors (ramp 10, FIG. 6), each corner connector having opposing side faces, each opposing side face configured to attach to an adjacent end portion of one of the plurality of ramps; and
each opposing side face of each corner connector includes a plurality of tree connectors (end connectors 78, FIG. 5), each tree connector configured to engage one of the channels in the ramp.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Kessler in view of Walens by substituting the corner members as taught by Luxton in order to isolate the linear sections allowing a single linear section to be replaced if damaged. This would be beneficial because if either a single corner or linear section were damaged, a smaller piece would require replacing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-7 will be allowable once a timely filed terminal disclaimer is approved and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter remain as previously detailed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 JUL. 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the argument:
In actuality, the invention of Kessler and that of claim 1 are entirely different as the mat assembly of claim 1 uses the connecting flange of each ramp to interface with the two parts of the center section to form the mat assembly. This kind of attachment is nowhere to be found in Kessler. Thus, there is no basis to allege to Kessler can support an obviousness rejection, used alone, or with either or both of Luxton and Walens.
the Examiner submits the claims have been reconsidered and a new combination has been shown to render obvious the invention.
Regarding Applicant’s supposition that “claim 1 is not anticipated by Kessler” Examiner first notes an anticipatory reference under Section 102 would refer to prior art that discloses all elements of a claimed invention, but the instant rejection under Section 103 refers to a determination that the claimed invention is obvious in light of prior art.
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 JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM.
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 D MATTEI can be reached on (571)270-3238. 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.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635