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 .
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Claim 1 recites, “A carpet, comprising a face layer, an adhesive anti-slip layer, and an extension layer… …specifically, the face layer and the adhesive anti-slip layer are detachably connected through the extension layer as follows: one end of the face extension layer is connected to the face layer; the face extension layer is folded downwardly along the side edge of the adhesive anti-slip layer and is detachably connected to aside or bottom of the adhesive anti-slip layer or the adhesive anti-slip layer extension layer so as to wrap the adhesive anti-slip layer; and alternatively, one end of the adhesive anti-slip layer extension layer is connected to a bottom edge of the adhesive anti-slip layer; and the adhesive anti-slip layer extension layer is folded upwardly along the side edge of the adhesive anti-slip layer and is detachably adhered to the face layer or the face extension layer so as to wrap the adhesive anti-slip layer…” The scope of the claim is unclear and therefore indefinite as to whether “specifically, the face layer and the adhesive anti-slip layer are detachably connected through the extension layer as follows…” is a limitation to the claims or is merely suggestive of a preferred embodiment. The Examiner will interpret the text following “specifically,”, as reproduced above, as a preferred embodiment.
Claim 2 recites, “sheet-like” and “block-like” in lines 1-3. To what degree must the elastic layer and buffer layer resemble a sheet or block to be considered “sheet-like” or “block-like”? The Examiner will interpret any resemblance to a sheet or block as meeting the claim limitation.
Claim 3 recites, “wherein the adhesion by the accessory with the hook and the accessory with the loop structure is specifically implemented as follows…” in lines 1-2. The term, “specifically implemented” renders the scope of the claim unclear and therefore indefinite as to whether the specific implementation is a limitation to the claim or merely suggestive of a preferred embodiment.
Claim 3 recites, “a fabric with the loop structure/a fabric with the hook structure” in lines 3-9. It is not clear what is meant by “a fabric with the loop structure/a fabric with the hook structure” and “the fabric with the hook structure/the fabric with the loop structure” in these lines. It is not clear what the forward slash indicates in the claim and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Is the face extension layer provided with a fabric with the loop structure or a fabric with the hook structure or both? Is a fabric with the loop structure and a fabric with the hook structure both required? The Examiner will interpret any of these readings as meeting the claim limitation.
Claim 3 recites, “a fabric with a single-sided/two-sided hook structure/the fabric with the loop structure” in lines 11-12 and “a fabric with a single-sided/two-sided hook structure/the fabric with the hook structure” in lines 13-14. It is not clear what the forward slash indicates in the claim and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Does the claim require the face extension layer provided with one of each of a fabric with a single-sided hook structure, a two-sided hook structure, or a loop structure or would a fabric with a single-sided hook structure read on the claim? Similarly, does the claim require the adhesive anti-slip layer is provided with one of each of a fabric with a single-sided loop structure, a two-sided loop structure, or a hook structure or would a fabric with a single-sided loop structure read on the claim? The Examiner will interpret any of these readings as meeting the claim limitation.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein the connection by the snap fastener is specifically implemented as follows…” in lines 1-2. The term, “specifically implemented” renders the scope of the claim unclear and therefore indefinite as to whether the specific implementation is a limitation to the claim or merely suggestive of a preferred embodiment.
Claim 5 recites, “a stud/socket” and “upper/lower surface of the adhesive anti-slip layer extension layer” in lines 3-14. It is not clear what the forward slash indicates in the claim and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Does the claim require the face extension layer is provided with both a stud and a socket or only one of a stud or a socket? Does the claim require both the upper surface and the lower surface of the adhesive anti-slip layer extension layer to possess a stud and a socket? Or would only one of the upper or lower surfaces possessing one of a stud and a socket meet the claim limitation? The Examiner will interpret any of these readings as meeting the claim limitation.
Claim 6 recites, “wherein the connection by the washable adhesive sticker is specifically implemented as follows…” in lines 1-2. The term, “specifically implemented” renders the scope of the claim unclear and therefore indefinite as to whether the specific implementation is a limitation to the claim or merely suggestive of a preferred embodiment.
Claim 6 recites, “upper/lower surface” in lines 6-11. It is not clear what the forward slash indicates in the claim and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Does the claim require both the upper and lower surface of the face extension layer to include a washable adhesive sticker or would one of the upper and lower surfaces including the washable adhesive sticker meet the limitation? The Examiner will interpret any of these readings as meeting the claim limitation.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above and are rejected for the same rationale.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by St. Amant et al. (US 2024/0315476A1) (St. Amant).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 10
St. Amant teaches a mat comprising a cover detachably fastened to a base pad. Given that the mat is mounted on a floor, it follows the mat corresponds to a carpet. The cover is made of a durable, machine-washable fabric material while the base pad is made of rubber or similar material. The base pad possesses a top and a bottom surface having a non-slip surface. Given the top surface is non-slip, the top surface frictionally grips the bottom surface of the cover. Therefore, the top surface of the base pad attaches itself to the bottom surface of the cover and the base pad corresponds to an adhesive anti-slip layer. The bottom surface of the base pad possesses a pattern, corresponding to an anti-slip structure, to provide a non-slip surface. Given the base pad acts as a buffer between the cover and the floor, it follows the base pad includes a buffer layer. The cover and base pad are detachably connected using fasteners such as metal fabric snaps made up of male and female halves or hook and loop material. The fasteners are located at side edges of the cover and base pad as shown in FIGs. 2-3. The fasteners correspond to the extension layer. Since the fasteners work by placing one of the fasteners, such as one of the male or female halves of the snap or one of the hook or loop material, on the bottom surface of the cover and the other fastener on the top surface of the base pad, it follows the fastener attached to the cover corresponds to the face extension layer and the fastener attached to the base pad corresponds to the adhesive anti-slip layer extension layer. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0007-0008], [0012], [0015-0018], [0020-0023], [0025-0026], [0028], [0030], [0037], and FIG. 2-3.
Regarding claim 2
St. Amant teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As shown in FIGs. 6A-6B, the buffer layer comprises one of a sheet-like buffer layer.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN110393413B) (Cao) in view of St. Amant et al. (US 2024/0315476) (St. Amant).
It is noted that when utilizing CN110393413B, the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2021/0393064A1 which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the citations with respect to CN110393413B are found in US 2021/0393064A1.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6
Cao teaches a detachable carpet including a carpet surface and an anti-slip mat. The carpet surface includes a surface layer and a bottom three-dimensional mesh fabric structure layer. The surface corresponds to the face layer. The anti-slip mat includes a bottom anti-slip and water-repellent layer and an upper bonding layer. The anti-slip and water-repellent layer includes a sheet-like buffer layer, as shown in FIG. 1A-1C. The anti-slip and water-repellent layer corresponds to an adhesive anti-slip layer. The upper bonding layer includes a plurality of protrusions. The protrusions of the upper bonding layer are inserted into the meshes of the three-dimensional mesh fabric of the carpet surface so that the carpet surface and the anti-slip mat are used in combination. The periphery of the three-dimensional mesh fabric layer of the carpet surface includes a washable double-sided adhesive tape to strengthen the bonding between the carpet surface and the anti-slip mat. The upper bonding layer corresponds to the extension layer. The upper bonding layer is located at side edges of the surface layer and the anti-slip and water-repellent layer, as shown in FIGs. 1A-1C. The carpet surface, including the surface layer, and the anti-slip mat are detachably connected through the bonding layer and three-dimensional mesh fabric. The three-dimensional mesh fabric corresponds to a face layer extension layer. The bonding layer corresponds to an anti-slip and water-repellent layer extension layer. The detachable adhesion is implemented by an adhesion by a washable adhesive tape. The washable adhesive tape is placed on the lower surface of the three-dimensional fabric and adhered to the upper surface of the upper bonding layer, corresponding to a connection portion of an upper surface of the adhesive anti-slip layer extension layer. The washable adhesive tape corresponds to a washable adhesive sticker. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0002], [0009-0010], [0023-0024], [0044-0048], FIGs. 1A-1C and claims 1 and 10.
Cao does not explicitly teach the presence of an anti-slip structure on the bottom of the anti-slip and water-repellent layer.
With respect to the difference, St. Amant teaches a mat comprising a cover detachably fastened to a base pad. The cover is made of a durable, machine-washable fabric material while the base pad is made of rubber or similar material. The base pad possesses a top and a bottom surface having a non-slip surface. The bottom surface of the base pad possesses a pattern, corresponding to an anti-slip structure, to provide a non-slip surface. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0001], [0006-0012], [0028], and FIG. 4.
St. Amant and Cao are analogous art as they are both drawn to detachable anti-slip floor coverings.
In light of the motivation as provided by St. Amant, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the bottom of the anti-slip and water-resistant layer of Cao with a pattern as taught by St. Amant, in order to produce a non-slip surface on the bottom of the anti-slip and water-resistant layer and therefore ensure the bottom of the carpet possesses anti-slip properties.
Regarding claim 3
Cao in view of St. Amant teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, including the use of washable tape. Since Cao in view of St. Amant fulfills the requirements of claim 1 by teaching the presence of a washable adhesive tape, it follows the requirements of claim 3 are met, since either washable adhesive tape or a hook structure meets the claim requirements of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4
Cao in view of St. Amant teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, including the use of washable tape. Since Cao in view of St. Amant fulfills the requirements of claim 1 by teaching the presence of a washable adhesive tape, it follows the requirements of claim 4 are met, since either washable adhesive tape or a hook structure meets the claim requirements of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5
Cao in view of St. Amant teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, including the use of washable tape. Since Cao in view of St. Amant fulfills the requirements of claim 1 by teaching the presence of a washable adhesive tape, it follows the requirements of claim 5 are met, since either washable adhesive tape or snap fastener meets the claim requirements of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7
Cao teaches the limitation of claim 1 above. Given the washable adhesive tape adheres the carpet surface to the anti-slip mat and given the carpet surface includes the surface layer and the anti-slip mat includes the anti-slip and water-resistant layer, it follows the lower surface of the surface layer is adhered to the upper surface of the anti-slip and water-resistant layer through the washable adhesive tape.
Regarding claim 8
Cao in view of St. Amant teaches the limitation of claim 1 above. Cao further teaches the surface layer is a woven face layer. Paragraph [0022].
Regarding claim 10
Cao in view of St. Amant teaches the limitations of claim 1 above. Given Cao teaches the anti-slip and water-repellent layer includes a sheet-like buffer layer, as shown in FIG. 1A-1C, and given Cao in view of St. Amant teaches the bottom surface of the anti-slip and water-repellent layer is patterned to produce a non-slip surface, it follows the bottom of the sheet-like buffer layer possesses an anti-slip bottom.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 and being unpatentable over Cao et al. (CN110393413B) (Cao) in view of St. Amant et al. (US 2024/0315476) (St. Amant), as applied in claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2016/0368239) (Lu).
Regarding claim 9
Cao in view of St. Amant teaches all the limitations of claim 1. However, Cao in view of St. Amant does not explicitly teach the thickness of the surface layer.
With respect to the difference, Lu teaches a detachable anti-slip floor mat comprising a top surface made of leather, carpet, flannelette and any other suitable material. The top surface possesses a thickness from 1-3 mm. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0012-0019], [0020], [0036], and [0045-0046].
Lu and Cao in view of St. Amant are analogous art as they are both drawn to detachable anti-slip floor coverings.
In light of the disclosure of Lu, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the inventio to ensure the surface layer of Cao in view of St. Amant possesses a thickness of 1-3 mm, in order to ensure the surface layer is easily replaced when it get dirty or worn by long-term treading, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Relevant Prior Art
Kohantab (US 2017/0191274) is noted as relevant prior art. Kohantab teaches flooring having at least one replaceable section. The floor utilizes removable-type attachment means including hook and loop fasteners, snap closure, and double-sided table. See, e.g., abstract and paragraph [0041].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE X NISULA whose telephone number is (571)272-2598. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:00.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/C.X.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights