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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on January 4, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN-20240017379.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
In addition, the present application does not properly claim priority to the foreign application set forth above. For application filed on or after September 16, 2012, the claim for foreign priority must be presented in an application data sheet. It appears applicant attempted to comply with this requirement. However, instead of stating that the application was from China, they stated the “Country” of the foreign application is “United States” (see Figures below).
PNG
media_image1.png
337
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
169
712
media_image2.png
Greyscale
If the application being examined is an original application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) (other than a design application), the claim for priority must be presented during the pendency of the application, and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior foreign application. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(1). If the application being examined is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the claim for priority must be made within the time limit set forth in the PCT and Regulations under the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.55(d)(2). Any claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) not presented within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55 is considered to have been waived. If a claim for foreign priority is presented after the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.55, the claim may be accepted if the claim properly identifies the prior foreign application and is accompanied by a grantable petition under 37 CFR 1.55(e) to accept an unintentionally delayed claim for priority and the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (m)(2).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. See Specification filed 11/28/2024, Page 1 which includes CN209404341U.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the door mat being “foldable” as recited in claims 1-4, the anti-cracking layer (3) being fixedly connected to a side edge of the door mat body (1) recited in claim 1 (see rejection under 112b below), and “a contact layer (4) fixedly connected with the top end of the door mat body (1) recited in claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following as described in the specification:
Paragraph [0015] of the PG Pub. States that Figure 2 is a front view of the present invention, however, it appears to be missing a section and a groove when compared to Figure 1.
At least in paragraph [0020] of the PG Pub. it says that Figs. 1-4 show a foldable and storable water-absorbing door mat. However, it is unclear from Figures 1 and 2 how the mat would be capable of being foldable, especially when having a third section, and the groove widths being so small.
At least in paragraph [0020] of the PG Pub. it is described that contact layer 4 is fixedly connected with the top end of the door mat body 1. However, as clearly shown in Figure 2 there are at least 3 layers of unknown materials between a top layer 4 and door mat body 1.
At least in paragraph [0020] of the PG Pub. describes that the water absorption grooves 2 are provided on a top end of the door mat body 1, however, it appears from Figures 1 and 2 that the grooves are above a top end/surface the door mat body1, and not on the door mat body 1.
At least in paragraph [0020] of the PG Pub. it is described that cracking layer 3 is fixedly connected to a side edge of the door mat body and both sides of interior of each of the water absorption grooves; however Figure 2 does not show the cracking layer 3 fixed to a side edge of the door mat body 1, it appears that the figure attempted to show it fixed to a top surface of the door mat body 1, but the bottom line of the cracking layer 3 is non-existent.
At least in paragraph [0027] of the PG Pub. the “water absorption layer 6” is explained, and it describes that excess water in the water absorption groove 2 of the door mat can be completely absorbed, however it is unclear from the drawings how this would happen since cracking layer 3 is preventing this from happening as described in paragraph [0028].
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it has more than 150 words. 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).
In addition to the drawing objections set forth above, the disclosure is also objected to as being incomprehensible which has made it difficult to perform a reasonable search and application of the prior art by the examiner. For example, the following items are not understood:
At least in paragraph [0027] of the PG Pub. the “water absorption layer 6” is explained, and it describes that excess water in the water absorption groove 2 of the door mat can be completely absorbed, however it is unclear from the drawings how this would happen since cracking layer 3 is preventing this from happening as described in paragraph [0028]. Similarly, paragraph [0031] describes that water that enters the water absorption grooves 2 are absorbed by the water absorption layer 6. How can both things happen if they are mutually exclusive?
Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure so that the examiner may make a proper comparison of the invention with the prior art.
Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Multiple paragraphs do not end with a period. See for example paragraphs [0026], [0027], [0029] of the PG Pub.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “an anti-cracking layer (3) are”, which is presumed to be - -an anti-cracking layer (3) [[are]] is - -. Claims 2-4 depend of claim 1 and are therefore objected to accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 requires that a contact layer (4), which is described in paragraph [0031] as the surface as the layer on which the user stands (i.e. the top most layer) is fixedly connected with the top end of the door mat body (1), but as best understood from the drawings and written specification (see for example Figure 2), these two elements are spaced apart. Thus, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Claims 2-4 depend of claim 1, and are therefore rejected accordingly.
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.
Claims 1-4 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. See MPEP 2111.01-IV and/or 2173.05(a).
The term “side edge” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “a top surface,” (as best understood from the drawings) while the accepted meaning is “a boundary or line where two surfaces meet on the side of an object.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For examination purposes, as best understood, as long as the “anti-cracking layer is connected to any portion of the door mat body, it is presumed to meet the limitations. See important note below.
The term “fixedly connected” in claim 1 in the recitation “a contact layer (4) is fixedly connected with the top end of the door mat body (1)” is used by the claim to mean “indirectly connected,” while the accepted meaning is “attached to each other.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For examination purposes, as best understood the term is presumed to not require direct contact/connection between the contact layer and the mat body. See important note below.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The above interpretations are made in order to be able to search and address the limitations as best understood, it is not confirmation that the applicant has support for the interpreted limitation. Applicant must ensure they have support in the originally filed specification before making any amendments. No new matter should be entered.
Claims 2-4 depend of claim 1, and are therefore rejected accordingly.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai, Jian-Hua CN209404341(see attached translation) in view of Lin – US PG Pub. 20170291059 and (alternative rejection) Giannopoulos et al. – US PG Pub. 20080233336; hereinafter Dai, Lin and Giannopoulos, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Dai discloses a foldable and storable water-absorbing door mat (see at least paragraph [0007] “The purpose of this invention is to provide a foldable diatomaceous earth foot mat, which has the advantage of being foldable and can be stored…”), comprising a door mat body (1), wherein a plurality of water absorption grooves (2) are provided on a top end of the door mat body at equal distances (see Figures 1-2), the plurality of water absorption grooves divide the door mat body into a plurality of pieces (see Figures 1-2), a contact layer (4) is fixedly connected with the top end of the door mat body (see Figure 1), and the mat body comprises a composite layer (adhesive layer between layers 4 and 3; see paragraph [0014] “the massage block and the diatomaceous earth pad are fixedly connected by adhesive”), a water absorption layer (3), a waterproof layer (combination of layers 5 and 6), a base layer (7) and an anti-slip layer (8).
However, Dai does not disclose an anti-cracking layer is fixedly connected to a side edge of the door mat body and both sides of interior of each of the water body absorbing grooves. Lin, directed to a foldable pad (see Figure 1), and explicitly teaches in Figure 5 the use of a layer (162), which would correspond to the claimed anti-cracking layer. Layer (162) of Dai is fixedly connected to a side edge (see rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112b for interpretation) and both sides of interior of each of the water body absorbing grooves (16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Dai by incorporating an anti-cracking layer is fixedly connected to a side edge of the door mat body and both sides of interior of each of the water body absorbing grooves in view of the teachings of Lin in order to enhance the strength of the grooves and thereby extend the life of the mat.
Assuming applicant disagrees that the adhesive between layers 4 and 3 could be considered a composite layer, Giannopoulos teaches the fact that it is old and well known in the art that the primary backing of a carpet can be made of an SBS (styrene-butadiene-styrene), see at least Paragraph [0052]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Dai by including an SBS layer as part of the mat body, in view of the teachings of Giannopoulos, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purposes supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07), and such material is clearly disclosed in Giannopoulos.
Regarding claim 3, Dai as modified discloses the foldable and storable water-absorbing door mat according to claim 1, wherein the composite layer (as set forth in claim 1 either the adhesive layer of Dai or the SBS layer, as modified) is fixed on a surface of the water absorption layer (3), the water absorption layer (3) is fixed on a surface of the waterproof layer (combination of 5 and 6), the waterproof layer (combination of 5 and 6) is fixed on a surface of the base layer (7), and the base layer is fixed on an upper surface of the anti-slip layer (8).
Regarding claim 4, Dai as modified discloses the foldable and storable water-absorbing door mat according to claim 1, wherein a width of each of the water absorption grooves is less than 8 mm (see Paragraph [0025] “The circulation groove is 6mm wide”).
Claim(s) 2 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai, Jian-Hua CN209404341(see attached translation) in view of Lin – US PG Pub. 20170291059 and (alternative rejection) Giannopoulos et al. – US PG Pub. 20080233336 and further in view of Beckenhauer – WO2021231231; hereinafter Dai, Lin, Giannopoulos and Beckenhauer, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Dai as modified discloses the foldable and storable water-absorbing door mat according to claim 1, wherein the contact layer (4) comprises a plurality of diatom pieces (see at least paragraph [0025] “A diatomaceous earth pad 4…”, wherein diatomaceous is interpreted as containing diatoms), and a thickness of the contact layer is less than 9mm (see paragraph [0025] “the diatomaceous earth pad 4 is 2.5 mm thick”).
However, Dai as modified does not explicitly disclose the lava stone pieces and volcanic rock pieces. First, it is noted that lava stones are a type of volcanic rock. Secondly, it is known to use lava roc in combination with diatomaceous earth. See for example the reference to Beckenhauer that teaches the use of a combination of lava rock and diatomaceous earth for the purposes of absorbing humidity. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Dai by incorporating lava stone pieces (which are volcanic rock pieces) into the contact layer, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purposes supports a prima facie obviousness determination (see MPEP 2144.07), and such material combination is clearly disclosed by Beckenhauer for the purpose of absorbing humidity.
Conclusion
NOTE: It is not immediately clear whether the present application can be amended to clarify the issues discussed above without raising new matter concerns, particularly because the originally filed disclosure appears to contain internal inconsistencies, does not describe certain elements shown in the figures, and may not fully disclose the structural relationship among different elements. Although Applicant may file an amendment in the present application, Applicant may also wish to consider whether a continuation-in-part application would better accommodate the necessary revisions.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Natural foaming used for skid proof purposes: CN101301160, CN114645389, CN222080227
Use of diatomaceous earth and lava stones and/or volcanic rocks for absorbing water/moisture/humidity: JP3246866, TW M647342
Mats using SBS: US20080280095, US2012030172 (as an alternate to PVC in flooring materials), KR20180079785
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORLANDO E AVILES whose telephone number is (571)270-5531. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-3:30PM.
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, Jonathan C. Teixeira Moffat can be reached at (571)272-4390. 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.
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights