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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 31 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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 6 and 13 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.
Claim 6 recites “including multiple layers of absorbent material” and “the multiple layers of absorbent material.” Claim 2, a claim from which claim 6 depends recites “multiple sheets of absorbent material.” The scope of claim 6 is not clear because it appears the applicant has used two different terms to identify the same element, which muddles the record. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to recite these portions of claim 6 as “including multiple sheets of absorbent material” and “the multiple sheets of absorbent material,” respectfully, and will be examined on the merits as such.
Claim 6 also recites “form an easier egress and ingress for carts rolling across the floor mat.” The scope of the claim is not clear because there is no information regarding what structure is required to form an easier egress/ingress relative to a more difficult egress/ingress, and there is no information for what degree of difficulty/ease is required for how one skilled in the art would differentiate between an easy egress/ingress compared to a more difficult egress/ingress. It is additionally noted; it appears this portion of the claim fails to imply or impart any additional structure to the claimed floor mat.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the absorbent layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no reference to “an absorbent layer” earlier in the claims which may have given the limitation in question proper antecedent basis. To further prosecution, the examiner is going to interpret the intent of the applicant was to have this portion of the claim recite "the absorbent material" which does have proper antecedent basis (see claim 2), and will be examined on the merits as such.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2013/0174392 (hereinafter “Chua”).Regarding claim 1 Chua teaches an absorbent layer (disposable, absorptive floor mat) 103 for use in medical scenarios (abstract and paragraphs [0001] – [0004]). Chua teaches the absorbent layer 103 comprises multiple layers of material (body including layers) including a first layer 113 comprising a non-woven sheet layer of absorbent material (having an absorbent front surface) (paragraph [0028]), a second layer 114 comprising an absorbent or superabsorbent material (paragraph [0029]), and a third layer 115 comprising a thin film sheet, for example a polyethylene sheeting (having an impervious bottom surface) (paragraphs [0030] and [0031], and Figure 1), which corresponds to a body including layers formed of different materials. Chua teaches edges of the absorbent layer 103 may be folded to form a multilayered edge extending around the perimeter of the absorbent layer 103 (Figures 5-7, and paragraphs [0038] – [0039]), which corresponds to an edge surrounding a perimeter of the body, wherein the edge is a reinforced edge.Regarding claim 2 In addition, Chua teaches each of the first layer 113 and the second layer 114 of the absorbent layer 103 comprise absorbent materials (paragraphs [0028] – [0029]), which corresponds to the body includes multiple sheets of absorbent material. Alternatively, Chua teaches two absorbent layers being present in the absorbent layer 103 (paragraph [0042]).Regarding claim 4 In addition, Chua teaches the folded edges of the absorbent layer 103 may be stitched and the absorbent materials of the layers are permitted to swell and seal the holes made by the stitches, which prevents the leakage and fluid retention problems present in prior art designs (paragraphs [0042] – [0043]), which corresponds to the edge being an impervious edge.Regarding claim 5 In addition, Chua teaches the folded edges includes overlapping corners (Figures 3-7, and paragraphs [0035] – [0039]).Regarding claim 6 In addition, Chua teaches each of the first layer 113 and the second layer 114 of the absorbent layer 103 comprise absorbent materials (paragraphs [0028] – [0029]), which corresponds to the body includes multiple sheets/layers of absorbent material. Regarding the edge of the multiple layers of absorbent material, in general, a limitation is inherent if it is the “natural result flowing from” the explicit disclosure of the prior art. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharms., Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Therefore, although the prior art does not explicitly disclose “the multiple layers of absorbent material including the edge form an easier egress and ingress for carts rolling across the floor mat,” the claimed function is deemed to be inherent to the structure in the prior art since the Chua reference teaches an invention with an identical and/or substantially identical structure and/or chemical composition as the claimed invention. See MPEP §2112.Regarding claim 8 In addition, Chua teaches the folded edges include the first, second, and third layers 113, 114, 115 and stitching 802 applied therethrough (paragraph [0041]). The material of the second layer 114 and/or the stitching 802 corresponds to the edge is formed of a different material than the front surface (defined as being the first layer 113) and the bottom surface (defined as being the third layer 115). Chua also teaches the first layer 113 (front surface) is formed of a different material than the third layer 115 (bottom surface) (paragraphs [0028] and [0030]).Regarding claim 9 In addition, Chua teaches the edge prevents fluid leakage (paragraphs [0021] and [0029]), which corresponds to a fluid control edge.Regarding claim 10 In addition, Chua teaches the first layer 113 and the second layer 114 , of the absorbent layer 103, comprises an absorbent material (paragraphs [0021], [0028], and [0029]), which corresponds to the body being a fluid retention body.Regarding claim 11 In addition, Chua teaches the folded edge prevents leakage and an advantage of the invention includes an increased fluid collection capability along each edge due to the folded construction at its periphery (paragraphs [0042] – [0043]), which corresponds to the edge seals out the perimeter of the floor mat and directs excess fluid away from the perimeter to be retained by the body.Regarding claim 13 In addition, Chua teaches the absorbent/superabsorbent material of the second layer 114 can absorb 50 or 500 times their weight (paragraph [0029]), which corresponds to a standard weight absorbency based on dry weight, and falls within the claimed range.Regarding claim 14 In addition, claim 14 recites the intended use for the floor mat, i.e. the floor mat is a cart washer runner as in claim 13. It is submitted that, according to MPEP § 2111.02, intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner's position that the structure of the absorbent material 103 of Chua is capable of performing the intended use as claimed.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0266918 (hereinafter “Plasek”).Regarding claim 1 Plasek teaches a selectively repositionable mat (disposable, absorptive floor mat) for use in medical scenarios (abstract and paragraphs [0001] – [0002]). Plasek teaches the mat (body including layers formed of different materials) comprises a liquid absorbing layer (absorbent front surface) backed by a moisture impermeable backsheet (impervious bottom surface) having peripheral margins (an edge surrounding the perimeter of the body) being folded (edge being a reinforced edge) to permit repositionable attachment of the mat to an underlying surface (abstract and paragraph [0005]).Regarding claim 2 In addition, Plasek teaches the mat includes at least one (or one or more) absorbent or capillary action wicking layer (or liquid absorbing portions of a layer) (paragraphs [0005] and [0037]), which corresponds to the body includes multiple sheets of absorbent material.Regarding claim 3 In addition, Plasek teaches the use of pressure-sensitive adhesives to hold the mat in place relative to a substrate said mat is disposed thereon during normal use (abstract and paragraph [0002]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chua, as applied to claim 11, as further evidenced by an article titled “Polyethylene Sheeting | Polyethylene Rolls” by protectascreen.com (hereinafter “NPL”).Regarding claim 12 The limitations for claim 11 have been set forth above. As previously noted, Chua teaches the third layer 115 (bottom surface) comprises a polyethylene sheeting (paragraph [0030]). It is common knowledge that polyethylene sheeting is waterproof, as evidenced by NPL (bottom of page 4, under the “Choose options” heading).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0155298 (hereinafter “Konthieng”).Regarding claim 3 The limitations for claim 2 have been set forth above. In addition, Chua does not explicitly teach the third layer (bottom surface of the body) 115 includes an adhesive thereon. Konthieng teaches a disposable bodily fluid handling composite pad comprising an absorbent layer (absorbent front surface) and a bodily fluid impervious layer (impervious bottom surface) permanently attached together (abstract). Konthieng teaches the bodily fluid impervious layer (impervious bottom surface) prevents bodily fluids absorbed in the absorbent layer from migrating, and the bodily fluid impervious layer (impervious bottom surface) may be coated with a pressure-sensitive adhesive on the bottom thereof to prevent movement of the pad (paragraphs [0069] – [0070]). Chua and Konthieng are analogous inventions in the field of absorbent articles. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the bottom surface of the third layer (bottom surface of the body) 115 of Chua with the adhesive of Konthieng to prevent unwanted movement of the absorbent layer (disposable, absorptive floor mat) 103 relative to an underlying material.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0130842 (hereinafter “Kleman”).Regarding claim 7 The limitations for claim 4 have been set forth above. In addition, Chua does not explicitly teach more than one layer of absorbent material is dimple bonded. Kleman teaches a face mask comprising an absorbent element (abstract). Kleman teaches the face mask includes folds in the body portion, where the folds are held together by any type commonly known to those having ordinary skill in the art, including ultrasonic dimple bond adhesion (dimple bonded) (paragraph [0057]). Chua and Kleman are analogous inventions in the field of absorbent articles. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the first layer 113 and the second layer 114 (more than one layer of absorbent material) of Chua with the ultrasonic dimple bond adhesion (dimple bonded) of Kleman to hold the folded edge and adjacent layers in place.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0257097 teaches a floor mat comprising a liquid impervious base and an absorbent layer, useful in medical scenarios (abstract, and paragraphs [0002] – [0006]).
US 2006/0008617 teaches a floor mat comprising a liquid impermeable lower layer, a liquid absorbent middle layer, and a reinforcing edge (abstract and Figure 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN HANDVILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-5074. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, from 9 am to 4 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/BRIAN HANDVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
