DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “6-9feet” is a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a formed polymeric material,” and the claim also recites “a foamed polypropylene or a foamed ethylene vinyl acetate” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. Similarly, the recitations which follow “preferably” and “preferable” in claims 8, 9 and 16 are indefinite.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-7, 10-15 and 17 are rejected because of their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zingg (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2004/0197146).
Zingg discloses a mat (10) including a polymeric foam sheet of material (claim 2, for example). The sheet has edges and is optionally at least .75 inch thick (paragraph 43, for example). There are means for attaching the material to the ground (29, Figure 7, for example).
Regarding claim 2, there are raised portions on at least the top surface (Figure 3, for example).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, handles (29) meets the recitation of slots and through openings, respectively.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, because the material and thickness are as claimed, the mat would naturally have a similar flexural strength.
Regarding claim 10, see Figure 4, for example.
Regarding claim 11, a plurality of mats is placed on ground.
Regarding claim 16, the step of being carried by a person is deemed to be inherent in order to place the mat(s) discussed by Zingg.
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 3-8, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zingg, as applied above.
Claim 3 is deemed to be met. Further, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to position slots in mats for the purpose of being gripped by a user. For at least this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an additional slot.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Zingg broadly teaches a polymer and broadly leaves the materials to one skilled in the art. The examiner takes Official notice that the materials of each of claims 4 and 5 are well known to use in mats. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used either of these materials in order to suit a particular substrate, since both are well known.
Further regarding claims 6 and 7, it is standard practice to use strengths best suited to an intended application. For this reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the mat to have a flexural strength as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Zingg discloses the width but not the claimed length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any length best suited to a particular area. Relative dimensions are not a patentably distinguishing feature in this instance.
Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made as many tracks as desired. This is a duplication of steps which cannot patentably distinguish a product or process.
Regarding claim 15, it is well known to drive vehicles on mats. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have driven any desired equipment on the mats, since ground cover mats are often subject to vehicular loading.
Further regarding claim 16, it is well known to carry mats and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have carried a mat in order to properly position it at its intended use position.
Regarding claim 17, Zingg discloses rolling but not folding. The examiner takes Official notice that it is well known to fold mats. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have folded a mat as desired in order to transport the mat as desired. There is no patentable distinction between rolling and folding, as both are common.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach polymeric mats.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571 272-0547. 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.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights