DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention (“thus everyone can easily and conveniently perform assembly and safely and conveniently use a floor mat” and “can be more firmly and fixedly supported”).
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dendo (US 20130125341).
Regarding claim 1: Dendo discloses a floor mat hook for a vehicle (title; Fig. 40). Dendo discloses a base 17 used with a hook 6, 35 formed on one surface to hook a floor mat 11 and the other surface fixed to a floor carpet 2 (Fig. 40; [0109]). Dendo discloses that the base includes two fixing plates 7, 9 formed on a surface of the base on which the hook is not formed, installed to face each other with a predetermined space therebetween, and integrally formed to be spaced a predetermined distance from the surface of the base and rotated in opposite directions (Fig. 40; [0109]-[0111]). Dendo discloses a first hooking step 21 is formed by cutting a central portion of an edge of each of the fixing plates in contact with the base (Fig. 40; [0111]-[0112]). Dendo discloses second hooking steps 27 are formed on two edges of the fixing plate adjacent to the first hooking step (Fig. 40; [0111]-[0112]). Dendo discloses a first elastic step 10 and second elastic steps 10 are formed on the base and that the first elastic step is hooked on the first hooking step and the second elastic steps are hooked on the second hooking steps by rotating the fixing plate to a position parallel to the surface of the base (Fig. 40; [0111], [0139]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
Vehicle floor mats and their associated structure for attachment to the vehicle carpet are very well known in the art. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Dendo (US 20130125341), Parisi et al. (US 20090155015), Dresen-Rausch et al. (US 20170282772), Price et al. (US 10723252), Ford (US 20240198883), Anscher (US 5775859), Park et al. (US 20200164782), Johnson et al. (US 20130313854), Vogler et al. (US 11554705), Machida et al. (US 9669745), and Tago et al. (US 20110057423). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a vehicle, a vehicle mat, vehicle carpet, a mat having a base and hook, two fixing plates on the base opposite the hook, and spaced apart, first and second hooking steps, first and second elastic steps , and that the hooking/latching is through rotation. Thus, upon reviewing these cited publications, and their included references, it appears that the claimed subject matter might teach a generally known concept. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically recited structural and positional relationships of the recited second hooking steps and the second elastic steps. Specifically, the art does not disclose the detailed shape and operation/interaction of the edge portions and the attachment relationships of the mat and the remaining recited apparatus structure and the overall relationship to the vehicle. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural and positional relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
6/17/2026
Prosecution Insights