DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 02/25/2025 . Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1-11 are rejected.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
CONCLUSION.--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 3, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention. The claims recite the relative term “about”, which causes the claims to be indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(b). Appropriate correction is required.
In view of the above rejections the respective claims are rejected as best understood on prior art as follows:
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 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 of this title, 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 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2006/0216468 to Jeon in view of US Patent 5,282,283 to Atkin.
Claim 1. Jeon discloses: A mat for protecting a floor or substrate from an aerosol spray product being applied to a human, the mat comprising: a body having a horizontal general upper surface (Jeon Fig. 4 #100);
Jeon does not disclose, however Atkin teaches: a left foot image and a right foot image disposed on the general upper surface of the body to be spaced apart from each other, each of the left foot image and the right foot image being a mesa elevated above the general upper surface, the left foot image adapted to receive a left foot of a human to be sprayed, the right foot image adapted to receive a right foot of the human to be sprayed (Atkin, Figs. 1, 6). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine provide the mat of Jeon with the foot mats of Atkin for the purpose of further protecting a floor from urine in the situation discussed by Atkin and seen in Atkin Fig. 6. Furthermore, doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results.
Jeon further discloses: wherein the body is created by injecting a molten polymer into a mold having a surface, the left foot image and the right foot image being created by forming a left foot depression and a right foot depression in the mold surface (Jeon discloses “a molding material injected into the…mold” in paragraph [0006]). Examiner notes that Applicant’s claim recites a method of manufacture in an apparatus claim, in certain cases mixed statutory classes cause a claim to be indefinite, however in the instant case, MPEP §2173.05(p) states, “a product-by-process claim, which is a product claim that defines the claimed product in terms of the process by which it is made, is proper”. Regarding creating depressions in a mold, this is the well known procedure for creating a mold and a molded product by an injection molded process; see at least Jeon Fig. 2, #21b.
Claim 3. The mat of Claim 1, wherein the mesas of the right foot image and the left foot images are elevated by about 0.01 inches above the general upper surface of the body (Atkin does not disclose the height of foot images, however, the claimed thickness would have been obvious matter of design choice since Applicant has not disclosed that the height solves any stated problems or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the height disclosed by Atkin, or any other desired height).
Claim 4. The mat of Claim 1, wherein the mesas of the right foot image and the left foot image are engraved with a coarser texture than a texture used to engrave the general upper surface of the body (Atkin column 1 line 63 teaches “The top side of the mat preferably provides a slip resistant surface”).
Claim 5. The mat of Claim 1, wherein the molten polymer is a thermoplastic elastomer (Jeon discloses the use of “soft PVC (polyvinyl chloride) or raw rubber (hereinafter referred to as a molding material)” in paragraph [0004]).
Claim 6. See rejection of claim 1, above. Regarding foot images being placed at distances being greater than or equal to about 5 inches from the mat edge, although no specific dimensions are given for the mat of Jeon, it would have been obvious to provide a mat of the claimed size, or any desired size, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component and a change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237, (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, providing at least five inches around the foot portions of Atkin would have provided a sufficient size to protect a floor in the use case of Atkin, and therefore would have been obvious to provide.
Claim 7. Jeon discloses: wherein the front margin, rear margin, left margin and right margin of the general upper surface of the body are bounded by an upstanding peripheral wall surrounding the general upper surface of the body, the peripheral wall having an upper end upwardly spaced from the general upper surface of the body, an outer flange downwardly and outwardly extending from the upper end of the peripheral wall (see at least Jeon Fig. 5 at approximately reference character #212).
Claim 8. Jeon and Atkin teach the claimed invention as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Regarding “an upstanding peripheral wall joined to the peripheral margin and extending upwardly therefrom to an upper end; and an outer flange extending outwardly and downwardly from the upper end of the peripheral wall to an outer edge of the outer flange,” see at least Jeon Fig. 5 at approximately reference character #212. Regarding “a lower surface of the outer edge of the outer flange being downwardly displaced from the floor plane, whereby in use the outer edge of the outer flange will be placed in an interference fit with the floor or substrate,” see Jeon Fig. 5 which discloses skid proof bosses #130. Jeon does not disclose a skid proof boss located at an outer edge of the outer flange #212, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one there in order to prevent the edge of the mat from slipping.
Claim 9. The mat Claim 8, wherein the body has a general upper surface, an inwardly facing surface of the peripheral wall being joined to the general upper surface with an upwardly concavely curved transition having a radius of at least about 0.5 inches (Jeon discloses a curved transition, but is silent as to the radius of curvature; however, the radius of curvature, based on the size of the overall mat, is on the order of 0.5 inches; moreover, the radius of curvature would have been obvious matter of design choice since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific radius of curvature solves any stated problems or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the dimensions disclosed by Jeon).
Claim 10. The mat of Claim 8, wherein the mat is injection-molded of a thermoplastic elastomer (Jeon discloses the use of “soft PVC (polyvinyl chloride) or raw rubber (hereinafter referred to as a molding material)” in paragraph [0004]).
Claim 11. Jeon discloses: wherein a lower surface of the peripheral wall and a lower surface of the outer flange form a downwardly facing hollow channel, the mat body further including a plurality of spaced-apart support ribs, each support rib downwardly extending from the lower surface of the peripheral wall and the lower surface of the outer flange to the floor plane (see ribs in at least Fig. 1 at #14.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2006/0216468 to Jeon and US Patent 5,282,283 to Atkin, in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0166195 to Chen.
Claim 2. The mat of Claim 1, wherein the left foot depression and the right foot depression are created by laser etching the surface of the mold (Atkin does not disclose the use of laser etching, however the technique of laser etching is well known in the art of injection molding as taught by Chen in paragraph [0036]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a laser to etch the mold of Jeon since doing so would have simply been the use of a known technique with a known device (the injection mold of Jeon) to yield predictable and obvious results.
Discussion of art not cited in rejections
Regarding Applicant’s claim 3, which requires foot images that are elevated by 0.01 inches, Examiner notes that this is comparable to the thickness of paint or some other form of indicia. US Patent Application Publication 2009/0191528 to Davey and US Patent Application Publication 2011/0111926 to Goranson both disclose footprint indicia or markings that appear to read on such a thickness.
Discussion of allowable subject matter
Applicant’s claimed invention is not allowable over the prior art, as discussed in the above rejection. However inclusion of specific structural details (for example the shape, size, location, and configuration of each of the structures seen in the figures) could help to differentiate over the prior art. Additionally, those structural details combined with language ("[structures]...configured to...[provide some functionality]"), with reasoning as to the criticality and functionality of those specific recited structures and claimed structural configurations could help to indicate non-obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights