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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 113650377 A) in view of McMahan (US 20110240212 A1), herein McMahan.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (CN 113650377 A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claim 1, Jiang teaches an anti-fatigue mat [Title, lines 14-15]. The mat comprises anon-slip bottom layer, a recycled sponge layer, an LDPE moisture-proof layer, a cold gel layer, a cloth fixing layer and a covering layer [lines 56-65, 114-116, 194-207]. The edge of the mat has a beveled angle of 35-50 ° [lines 95-98, 233-236 ]. Jiang does not expressly teach that the gel is polyurethane.
McMahan an anti-fatigue mat with a gel layer [Title, Abstract]. McMahan teaches the solid gel is a polyurethane gel [0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the polyurethane gel of McMahan as the gel of Jiang. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one known gel for another for similar applications and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 2, Jiang further teaches the cover layer is a jacquard fabric (i.e. woven fabric) [lines 203-207].
In regards to claim 3, Modified Jiang discloses the claimed invention except for the shape of the gel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the gel in the shape of a snake, since it has been held that the configuration was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration claimed was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 3 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 3 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a gel layer having a snake shape. The reference suggests such a product as a change in shape is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regards to claim 5, Jiang further teaches the anti-skid layer is SBR rubber [lines 56-65].
In regards to claim 9, Claim 9 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 9 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a surface layer, a gel layer, a recycled sponge layer and an anti-skid layer. The reference suggests such a product.
Claims 4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 113650377 A) in view of McMahan (US 20110240212 A1), herein McMahan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan (CN 114176363A).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of (CN 114176363 A). The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
In regards to claim 4, modified Jiang does not expressly teach wherein the recycled sponge layer is formed by mixing smashed recycled sponge with cloth and/or recycled pure sponge with glue and drying the same.
Yan teaches an environmentally friendly anti-fatigue health pad made of recycled sponge [lines 13-18]. The recycled layer is made by pulverizing the reclaimed sponge into sponge particles then mixing the particles with glue then shaping and drying then layer [lines 43-58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the recycled sponge layer of Yan as the recycled sponge layer of Jiang. One would have been motivated to do so as it would have been the simple substitution of one known recycled sponge layer for another for similar applications and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 4 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 4 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply recycled sponge layer that comprises particles or sponge mixed joined together with glue.
In regards to claim 6, Claim 6 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 6 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply recycled sponge layer that is glued to the gel and anti-skid layer.
Jiang teaches the gel and anti-skid layer are each attached to the recycled sponge layer but does not expressly teach the layers are glued [lines 194-207, 249-254, 261-272].
Yan further teaches that in mats with multiple-layer it is known to apply glue between the layers [lines 60-69, 191-197]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have glued the gel and anti-skid layers to the recycled sponge layer as taught by Yan. One would have been motivated to do so as Yan teaches the use of glue is a conventionally known method for joining the layers and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to claim 8, Claim 8 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 8 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply recycled sponge layer made of sponge particles, the layer of modified Jiang teaches such as layer. It is noted that no level of iron is required by claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 113650377 A) in view of McMahan (US 20110240212 A1), herein McMahan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yan (CN 114176363A) and Skaja et al. (US 20100293814 A1), herein Skaja.
In regards to claim 7, Modified Jiang does not teach the recycle sponge layer comprises particles of size of 5-25 meshes and glue in an amount of 2%-10% by weight.
Yan teaches an environmentally friendly anti-fatigue health pad made of recycled sponge [lines 13-18]. The recycled layer is made by pulverizing the reclaimed sponge into sponge particles then mixing the particles with glue then shaping and drying then layer [lines 43-58].
Yan further teaches the diameter of the reclaimed sponge particles is 1 to 3 mm [lines 166-177]. The glue is a PU glue [lines 166-170]. Yan does not teach the weight percent of the glue that is present based on the recycled sponge.
Skaja teaches articles of manufacture having at least a portion prepared using recycled material, including but not limited recycled rubber or other polymeric materials including mats [Abstract, 0057]. The recycled material is a granulated material, the granules specifically being joined together using a binder material, such as a polyurethane, preferably a moisture cure, single component polyurethane binder [Abstract]. The PU binder comprises up to about 20% by volume of the granulated materials, such as foams, and binder [0006, 0039]. This overlaps the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added the binding glue of modified Yan at the level taught by Skaja. One would have been motivated to do so as Skaja teaches this is a conventionally known range for binding foam particles and thus one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 7 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply recycled sponge layer of sponge particles having a particle size of 5-25 meshes joined together with a PU glue. The modified reference teaches such a structure.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include: McMahan et al. (US 10582793 B1), McMahan et al. (US 10849450 B1), and Sabry (US 20120288663 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A COLLISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1019. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9 am-5 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/ELIZABETH COLLISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights