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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of” in claim 1, line 10; “means” in claim 15, line 2; and “means of” on lines 10 and 12 of claim 18
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 and 12-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3, and 14-18 of copending Application No. 18/947,155 where the matching of claims is shown in the table below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obviously directed to the same patentable invention, as shown in the table below, and allowance thereof would be improper.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
Copening 18/947,155
1. A floor mat assembly (8) for a vehicle (14), the floor mat assembly (8) comprising: - a floor covering (12); - a first hook-and-loop element (18) having a base plate (88); - a counter plate (38) which is at least partly disposed on the floor covering (12); - a floor mat (10); and - a second hook-and-loop element (20) which is at least partly disposed on a bottom side (22) of the floor mat (10); wherein the second hook-and-loop element (20) is connected to the first hook-and-loop element (18) by means of a hook-and-loop connection (36), and wherein a connection system connects the base plate (88) and the counter plate (38) to one another, the connection system (16) having an elastic connecting device (90), the connecting device (90) extending between mutually facing sides (60, 74) of the base plate (88) and of the counter plate (38).
1. A foot mat arrangement (8) for a vehicle (14), the foot mat arrangement (8) comprising: - a floor covering (12); - a first hook-and-loop element (18) that is connected to the floor covering (12); -a foot mat (10); - a second hook-and-loop element (20) which is at least partially arranged on an underside (22) of the foot mat (10); wherein the second hook-and-loop element (20) is connected to the first hook-and- loop element (18) by a hook-and-loop connection (36), wherein the floor covering (12), the first hook-and-loop element (18), the foot mat (10) and the second hook-and-loop element (20) are made of the same mono-material.
3. (Previously Presented) The foot mat arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the first hook-and-loop element (18) has a base plate (88), wherein a counter plate (38) of the foot mat arrangement (8) is at least partially arranged on the floor covering (12), wherein a connection system (16) connects the base plate (88) and the counter plate (38) to one another, wherein the connection system (16) has an elastic connection device (90), and wherein the connection device (90) extends between mutually facing sides (60, 74) of the base plate (88) and the counter plate (38).
12. The floor mat assembly according to claim 11, wherein the connecting device (90) is at least partly formed between the top side (28) of the floor covering (12) and the bottom side (22) of the floor mat (10).
14. The foot mat arrangement according to claim 13, wherein the connection device (90) is at least partially formed between the upper side (28) of the floor covering (12) and the underside (22) of the foot mat (10).
13. The floor mat assembly according to claim 1, wherein the elastic connecting device (90) has an elastic film hinge (84), and wherein the elastic film hinge (84) connects the counter plate (38) and the base plate (88) to one another.
15. The foot mat arrangement according to claim 3, wherein the elastic connection device (90) has an elastic film hinge (84), and wherein the elastic film hinge (84) connects the counter plate (38) and the base plate (88) to one another.
14. The floor mat assembly according to claim 1, wherein the counter plate (38) and/or the first hook-and-loop element (18) has a support projection (82) which protrudes from an associated surface (60, 74) of the counter plate (38) or of the first hook-and-loop element (18).
16. The foot mat arrangement according to claim 3, wherein the counter plate (38) and/or the first hook-and-loop element (18) has a support projection (82) which protrudes from the respective surface (60, 74) of the counter plate (38) or the first hook-and-loop element (18).
15. The floor mat assembly according to claim 1, wherein the counter plate (38) has a noise protection means (94).
17. The foot mat arrangement according to claim 3, wherein the counter plate (38) is formed with noise protection (94).
16. A vehicle (14) having the floor mat assembly (8) according to claim 1.
18. A vehicle (14) having the foot mat arrangement (8) according to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 17 are 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.
Claims 18-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The recitation in claim 2 of the floor mat assembly of claim 1 including a locking element and a locking portion where the elastic connecting device has a locking element is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Weber US 5,384,939 discloses a floor mat (see title) including a base plate (4; Fig. 1) and a carrier plate (5; Fig. 1) as well as a first releasable fastener portion of the base plate and a second releasable fastener portion on the bottom of floor mat (3; Fig. 1). However, the base plate and carrier plate are fixedly connected by a fastener rather than by way of an elastic connecting device extending between mutually facing sides of the base plate and counter plate and there is no locking element on an elastic connecting device.
The recitation in claim 9 of the floor mat assembly of claim 1 where the floor covering has a reach through opening so that the connection system reaches through the reach through opening is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Weber US 5,384,939, the closest prior art of record, discloses a floor mat (see title) including a base plate (4; Fig. 1) and a carrier plate (5; Fig. 1) as well as a first releasable fastener portion of the base plate and a second releasable fastener portion on the bottom of floor mat (3; Fig. 1). However, the base plate and carrier plate are fixedly connected by a fastener rather than by way of an elastic connecting device extending between mutually facing sides of the base plate and counter plate and there is no reach through opening in a floor covering.
The recitation in claim 11 of the floor mat assembly of claim 1 where the counter plate is fastened to the top side of the floor covering by a material bond is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Weber US 5,384,939, the closest prior art of record, discloses a floor mat (see title) including a base plate (4; Fig. 1) and a carrier plate (5; Fig. 1) as well as a first releasable fastener portion of the base plate and a second releasable fastener portion on the bottom of floor mat (3; Fig. 1). However, the base plate and carrier plate are fixedly connected by a fastener rather than by way of an elastic connecting device extending between mutually facing sides of the base plate and through opening in a floor covering and the counter plate is not fastened to the top side of the floor covering by a material bond.
The recitation in claim 17 of the floor mat assembly of claim 1 where the counter plate is firmly connected to a floor is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Weber US 5,384,939, the closest prior art of record, discloses a floor mat (see title) including a base plate (4; Fig. 1) and a carrier plate (5; Fig. 1) as well as a first releasable fastener portion of the base plate and a second releasable fastener portion on the bottom of floor mat (3; Fig. 1). However, the base plate and carrier plate are fixedly connected by a fastener rather than by way of an elastic connecting device extending between mutually facing sides of the base plate and counter plate so that the requirements of claim 1 are not met.
The recitation in claim of a method for producing a floor mat assembly having a floor covering, a first hook-and-loop element having a base plate, a counter plate disposed on the floor covering, floor mat, and a second hook-and-loop element disposed on the bottom side of the floor mat, wherein the base plate and the counter plate are connected to one another by means of a connection system having an elastic connecting device and wherein the elastic connecting device extends between mutually parallel, mutually facing sides of the base plate and of the counter plate is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Weber US 5,384,939, the closest prior art of record, discloses a floor mat (see title) including a base plate (4; Fig. 1) and a carrier plate (5; Fig. 1) as well as a first releasable fastener portion of the base plate and a second releasable fastener portion on the bottom of floor mat (3; Fig. 1). However, the base plate and carrier plate are fixedly connected by a fastener rather than by way of an elastic connecting device extending between mutually facing sides of the base plate and counter plate.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weber US 5,384,939 discloses a floor mat (see title) including a base plate (4; Fig. 1) and a carrier plate (5; Fig. 1) as well as a first releasable fastener portion of the base plate and a second releasable fastener portion on the bottom of floor mat (3; Fig. 1). However, the base plate and carrier plate are fixedly connected by a fastener rather than by way of an elastic connecting device extending between mutually facing sides of the base plate and counter plate as required by current claims 1 and 18.
Baily et al. US 6,238,765 discloses a floor mat (30; Fig. 4) with nibs (44, 46; Fig. 4) for selectively securing the floor mat to a floor board (20; Fig. 4). However, the is no carrier plate or a first hook and loop fastener on a base plate as required by current claims 1 and 18.
Richards US 4,012,544 discloses a mat with a hook and loop fastening arrangement (38, 40; Fig. 2). However, there is no carrier plate or an elastic connecting device as required by current claims 1 and 18.
Reuben US 4,748,063 discloses a floor mat (15; Fig. 1) with protrusions (15e; Fig. 5) that selectively interlock with protrusions (20b; Fig 4) on carpet (14; Fig. 4). However, there is no carrier plate or an elastic connecting device as required by current claims 1 and 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
