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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19, as filed on 07/18/2024, are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Objections
Claims listed below are objected to because of the following informalities (appropriate correction is required):
Claim 8, line 2 amend: “comprise at least one of” to ---consisting of at least one of---.
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by US 20140237718 A1 (Burch).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Burch discloses a workout mat for user alignment (mat 10, Figure 1A) comprising: a mat having a top surface (first surface 11), a bottom surface (“second surface”; bottom), a length (sides 16 and 18), a width (first end and second end 13, 14), and a depth (“a thickness of at least approximately 0.1 inches, up to approximately 1.0 inches” Paragraph 64; mat 10 has a depth between the first and second surfaces); and
wherein the mat top surface displays an alignment indication (See Figure 1A for indication lines) comprising:
a first set of indications defining alignment regions wherein the indications are proportional oblong shapes in a series of descending size wherein the largest oblong is proximate a medial portion of the mat and the smallest oblong is proximate a lateral portion of the mat (Figure 1A: Annotated; highlighted lines follow indicia);
a second set of indications defining alignment regions wherein the indications are proportional oblong shapes in a series of descending size wherein the largest oblong is proximate the medial portion of the mat and the smallest oblong is proximate a lateral portion of the mat (Figure 1A: Annotated);
PNG
media_image1.png
431
833
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1A: Annotated
and wherein the first set of indications mirrors the second set of indications and a medial length-oriented region is defined in the medial space between the first set of indications and the second set of indications (see Figure 1A wherein the spacing between the lengthwise sections of the indications is the medial space along a medial area of the mat 10; wherein the first and second indications are symmetrical about a medial line).
Regarding Claim 2, Burch further discloses the workout mat of claim 1, wherein the oblong shapes of the first set of indications and the second set of indications each comprise one lengthwise side and two opposing widthwise sides (see Figure 1A: Annotated wherein each of said lines includes a lengthwise side parallel to all other lengthwise sides and wherein each of said lengthwise sides includes two opposing widthwise sides at obtuse angles).
Regarding Claim 3, Burch further discloses the workout mat of claim 2, wherein the lengthwise side is parallel to the lengthwise edge of the mat (each of said lengthwise sides are parallel to each other and parallel to the sides 16, 18).
Regarding Claim 4, Burch further discloses the workout mat of claim 2, wherein the two opposing widthwise sides define an obtuse angle therebetween (see Figure 1A: Annotated wherein the widthwise sides are obtuse to each other).
Regarding Claim 6, Burch further discloses the workout mat of claim 1, wherein the first and the second set of indications defining alignment regions comprise a set of boundary lines (see Figure 1A: Annotated wherein each set of indications define boundary lines).
Regarding Claim 7, Burch further disclose the workout mat of claim 6, wherein the set of boundary lines are of variable weight (“Further, the different weights, thicknesses, darkness, colors, etc. of the lines, shapes, designs and/or symbols can also be varied from those specifically illustrated in the Figures” Paragraph 25; said lines have different weights and thus the sets of indications have different weights).
Regarding Claim 8, Burch further discloses the workout mat of claim 1, wherein the first and the second set of indications defining alignment regions comprise a variation in color (“color, positioning and spacing of the longitudinal lines 28 and the transverse lines 30 can be varied” Paragraph 33).
Regarding Claim 9, Burch further discloses the workout mat of claim 8, wherein the regions are defined by a difference in gradient color (“a color pattern such that the waves 76 are colored consecutively from near the first end 13 and toward the second end 14 as violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange and red” Paragraph 62; consecutive coloration is a color gradient).
Regarding Claim 10, Burch further discloses the workout mat of claim 1, wherein one or more of alignment region is omitted from the first or second set of indications (see Figure 1A wherein there are additional lines not included in the sets of indications within the alignment regions.
Regarding Claim 11, Burch further discloses the workout mat of claim 1, wherein the first set of alignment regions and the second set of alignment regions each contain 4-10 oblong shapes (see Figure 1A wherein each alignment region contains 5 oblong shapes).
Regarding Claim 12, Burch further discloses the workout mat of claim 1, wherein the first set of alignment regions and the second set of alignment regions each contain 5-9 oblong shapes (see Figure 1A wherein each alignment region contains 5 oblong shapes).
Regarding Claim 17, Burch further discloses the workout mat of claim 1, wherein the mat is fabricated from one or more of polyurethane, polyvinyl butyral, rubber, latex, polyester and nylon or any suitable natural or synthetic thermoplastic elastomer (“mat 10 can be formed from and/or can include any suitable materials such as polyvinyl chloride, thermoplastic elastomer, rubber, rubber-like material, ethylene vinyl acetate, polymer environmental-friendly resin, cotton, microfiber, polyester, wool or a moisture absorbent fabric” Paragraph 63).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Burch in a second interpretation discloses a workout mat for user alignment (mat 10, Figure 1A) comprising: a mat having a top surface (first surface 11), a bottom surface (“second surface”; bottom), a length ( first and second ends 13, 14), a width (sides 16 and 18), and a depth (“a thickness of at least approximately 0.1 inches, up to approximately 1.0 inches” Paragraph 64; mat 10 has a depth between the first and second surfaces); and
wherein the mat top surface displays an alignment indication (See Figure 1A for indication lines) comprising:
a first set of indications defining alignment regions wherein the indications are proportional oblong shapes in a series of descending size wherein the largest oblong is proximate a medial portion of the mat and the smallest oblong is proximate a lateral portion of the mat (Figure 1A: Annotated; highlighted lines follow indicia);
a second set of indications defining alignment regions wherein the indications are proportional oblong shapes in a series of descending size wherein the largest oblong is proximate the medial portion of the mat and the smallest oblong is proximate a lateral portion of the mat (Figure 1A: Annotated);
PNG
media_image2.png
436
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1A: Annotated
and wherein the first set of indications mirrors the second set of indications and a medial length-oriented region is defined in the medial space between the first set of indications and the second set of indications (see Figure 1A wherein the spacing between the middle sections of the indications is the medial space along a medial area of the mat 10; wherein the first and second indications are symmetrical about a medial line).
Regarding Claim 5, Burch in the second interpretation further discloses the workout mat of claim 1, wherein the oblong shapes of the first set of indications and the second set of indications have rounded corners (see Figure 1A annotated wherein the oblong shapes have rounded corners forming a curved shape).
Regarding Claim 18, Burch in the second interpretation further discloses the workout mat of claim 1, each indication of the first and second sets of indications are spaced equally apart (see Figure 1A wherein the pairs of indicia of each set are equally spaced).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140237718 A1 (Burch) in view of US 20130224708 A1 (Martin).
Regarding Claim 13, Burch discloses the workout mat as substantially claimed, see above. Burch does not disclose wherein an imaging device is directed at the mat top surface alignment indication and user position in relationship to the mat top surface alignment indication, and wherein the imaging device is configured to recognize the first set of indications and second set of indications.
Martin teaches an analogous exercise mat in the same field of endeavor comprising:
workout mat for user alignment (sensory pad 110 in the form of a rubber mat) wherein an imaging device (camera 216 with controller 200; “may be used to connect controller 200 to sensor pad 110” Paragraph 23) is directed at the mat top surface alignment indication and user position in relationship to the mat top surface alignment indication, and wherein the imaging device is configured to recognize the first set of indications and second set of indications (“receiving, from a camera, a signal indicating whether the user touches a registered area of the camera's field of view corresponding to the visual indicator; and determining whether the user completes the movement based on analysis of the signal” Claim 13; the camera is direct at the user and the pad and configured to register movements of the user relative to the visual indicators).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the mat to include an imaging device directed at the mat top surface configured to recognize the indications, as taught by Martin, in order to register if the user is performing the correct movement based on analysis of the user relative to the indicia.
Regarding Claim 14, Burch discloses the workout mat as substantially claimed, see above. Burch does not disclose workout mat of claim 1, further configured to, in conjunction with alignment indications and/or alignment regions, determine user position.
Martin teaches an analogous exercise mat in the same field of endeavor comprising:
workout mat for user alignment (sensory pad 110 in the form of a rubber mat) wherein an imaging device (camera 216 with controller 200; “may be used to connect controller 200 to sensor pad 110” Paragraph 23) is directed at the mat top surface alignment indication and user position in relationship to the mat top surface alignment indication, and wherein the imaging device is configured to recognize the first set of indications and second set of indications (“receiving, from a camera, a signal indicating whether the user touches a registered area of the camera's field of view corresponding to the visual indicator; and determining whether the user completes the movement based on analysis of the signal” Claim 13; the camera is direct at the user and the pad and configured to register movements of the user relative to the visual indicators).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the mat to include an imaging device configured to determine user position with alignment indicia as taught by Martin, in order to register if the user is performing the correct movement based on analysis of the user relative to the indicia.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140237718 A1 (Burch) in view of US 20190383347 A1 (Van den Avont).
Regarding Claim 16, Burch discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Burch further discloses wherein the mat comprises a third layer for gripping (“surface of the mat 10 can be non-slip” Paragraph 63). Burch does not disclose wherein the depth of the mat is formed by a set of layers of more than one type of material, and wherein a first layer is configured to grip floor surfaces, a second layer is configured for cushioning or stability.
Avont teaches an analogous exercise mat in the same field of endeavor comprising a mat (mat 100) with a depth (see Figure 1) wherein the depth of the mat is formed by a set of layers of more than one type of material (foam and textiles, see below), and wherein a first layer is configured to grip floor surfaces (linear layer 120 formed of “ synthetic textile” Paragraph 55; see Figure 5 for structure of resistance 510 forming layer 120 configured to prevent slippage), a second layer is configured for cushioning or stability (damper layer 110; damper layer is configured to dampen which is considered cushioning), and a third layer for gripping (top layer 130 formed of “polystyrene foam” Paragraph 73).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the mat to include a first and second layer imposed below the third layer, as taught by Avont, in order to provide cushioning to the mat.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140237718 A1 (Burch) in view of US 20180353800 A1 (Calvaruso).
Regarding Claim 19, Burch discloses the invention as substantially claimed, see above. Burch does not disclose how the mat is formed not wherein the alignment indication is formed by one or more screen printing, digital printing, sublimation printing, laser printing, UV printing, engraving, embossing, addition of a raised surface element, cut outs that reveal another surface, additional surfaces applied with an adhesive or heat bonding.
Calvaruso teaches an analogous exercise device in the same field of endeavor comprising:
An exercise mat (exercise mat 10) with indicia (lines 30, 25B, 25A, 35A, 35B; see Figures 2 wherein the indicia are printed thereon), wherein the indicia are formed by digital printing (“wherein the indicia are formed on or in the mat by marking, printing, chemical etching, mechanical ablation, deposition or applying ink to a stencil providing the location of the indicia” Paragraph 16; see Figure 5 for computer doing the digital printer via a printer). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of making the indicia on the mat to include digital printing as taught by Calvaruso in order to print straight lines and reduce manufacturing errors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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:
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record over US 20140237718 A1 (Burch) fails to teach or render obvious the exercise mat in combination with all of the elements and structural and functional relationships as claimed and further including:
an output indicator associated with one or more alignment region, indication defining an alignment region, wherein at least one sensor input element is associated with at least one of the alignment regions.
The prior art of record does not disclose a controller and output indicator. It would not have been obvious for one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the device with a controller and sensor and then further modify the sensor to be directed towards individual alignment regions without improper hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-0063. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00am - 4:00pm 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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached on (571) 272-4966. 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 T MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3784