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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on June 15, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11-15, and 18-20 are amended; claims 6 and 7 are canceled; claims 21 and 22 are new; resulting in claims 1-5 and 8-22 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/15/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation in line 3 reciting “forming an exterior of mat” should be amended to recite --forming an exterior of the mat-- in order to clearly refer back to the previously-recited mat set forth in the preamble of the claim.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation reciting “the top layer is suede” is redundant in view of the newly added limitation in claim 18 reciting “a top layer comprised of a moisture absorptive synthetic suede material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-17 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation in lines 5-6 reciting “a second layer fixedly connected to a side of the first layer opposite the top surface” is indefinite because the phrase “the first layer” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
In particular, claim 12 sets forth that the exercise mat comprises a top layer and a second layer, such that the “first layer” recited in line 5 appears to intend to refer back to the previously-recited “top layer”. Absent further clarification from the Applicant, the claim will be interpreted as such for the purpose of applying prior art.
Regarding claims 13-17, the claims are rejected based on their dependency on claim 12.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation reciting “the bottom surface is comprised of rubber” is indefinite because the phrase “the bottom surface” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
In particular, claim 18 was amended to change the phrase “a bottom surface” to “a bottom-most exterior surface” in line 8, such that claim 18 no longer provides proper antecedent basis for the limitation in claim 19. For the purpose of examination, the limitation in claim 19 will be interpreted as requiring that the previously-recited bottom-most exterior surface is comprised of rubber.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khadri (US 2024/0058643, previously cited).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 10, Khadri teaches a multilayered mat designed for use as an exercise mat, wherein the mat comprises a top layer (7a; first layer) of absorbent facing fabric which forms an exterior of the exercise mat, a second layer (7b) made from a material capable of wicking, a third layer (7c) having a protective barrier property to prevent liquid flow, a cushioning fourth layer (7d; second layer) for comfort, and a bottom anti-skid surface (7e) having a special anti-skid coating (third layer, tacky coating) to prevent the mat from skidding on the surface ([0022], see Fig. 7 reproduced below). The third layer therefore comprises a material having a sufficiently high coefficient of friction to limit the movement of the mat relative to the environmental surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Khadri teaches that the method for integrating the multiple layers is by means of applying heat and adhesive to attach the first three layers, by means of stitching, and coating the bottom layer with silicone [0022]. The cushioning layer (7d; second layer) is therefore positioned below and permanently connected to and coextensive with the top layer (7a; first layer), wherein each of the layers are fixedly coupled to one another. Due to the use of flexible and resilient materials, the multilayered mat taught by Khadri is considered to be flexibly manipulable between first and second expanded and compact configurations as claimed. As shown in Fig. 1, the facing fabric of the top layer is smooth and continuous at the upper surface thereof [0016].
Regarding claim 8, Khadri teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the facing fabric (first layer) may be made from a blend of thermoplastic polyurethane polyester and rayon [0016].
Regarding claim 11, Khadri teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. As noted above, the bottom anti-skid coating (7e) can be interpreted as a third layer which is coupled to the cushioning fourth layer (7d). Alternatively, the cushioning fourth layer and anti-skid coating can be taken together to correspond to the claimed second layer which defines the bottom surface of the mat.
Regarding claim 12, Khadri teaches a multilayered mat designed for use as an exercise mat, wherein the mat comprises a top layer (7a) of absorbent facing fabric which forms an exterior of the exercise mat, a second layer (7b) made from a material capable of wicking, a third layer (7c) having a protective barrier property to prevent liquid flow, a cushioning fourth layer (7d) for comfort, and a bottom anti-skid surface (7e) having a special anti-skid coating to prevent the mat from skidding on the surface ([0022], Fig. 7).
The cushioning fourth layer (7d) and the bottom anti-skid coating can be taken together to correspond to the claimed second layer which is fixedly connected to a side of the top layer opposite the top surface and which is formed of a resiliently deformable material. The bottom surface is defined by the anti-skid coating and is therefore capable of selective interfacing with an environmental surface to limit movement of the mat relative to the environmental surface. As shown in Figs. 1-2, the cushioning layer is coextensive with the top layer, wherein the facing fabric of the top layer is smooth and continuous at the top surface thereof. Due to the use of flexible and resilient materials, the multilayered mat taught by Khadri is considered to be flexibly manipulable between first and second expanded and compact configurations as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Khadri teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above and further teaches that the bottom anti-skid coating is made of silicone dots or any other similar material that has the functionality of making it non-slidable on the surface it is used on [0017]. The second layer including the cushioning layer and the anti-skid coating therefore comprises rubber, e.g., as a silicone elastomer.
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 5, 17, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khadri (US 2024/0058643, previously cited) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Dandapure et al. (US 2012/0240336, newly cited).
Regarding claims 5, 17, 21, and 22, Khadri teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12 above. Although Khadri teaches that that the exercise may is positioned on a hard floor surface to provide a more comfortable experience during yoga poses or stretching exercises, wherein the bottom layer has a thickness to provide cushioning, and wherein a thicker pad makes the exercise mat too cumbersome to transport easily ([0002]-[0003], [0006]), the reference does not expressly teach a thickness of the first layer, the second layer, or the total thickness of the mat.
However, in the analogous art of exercise mats, Dandapure et al. teaches an exercise mat which may be placed on a flat surface by a user to provide cushioning, grip, support, or stability, allowing the user to more easily perform yoga or other exercises [0005]. Similar to Khadri, Dandapure et al. teaches that the exercise mat (100) comprises a top layer (210) which absorbs or wicks away moisture, a middle layer (220) which provides structural integrity or cushioning, and a bottom layer (230) which provides friction and/or traction to prevent the mat from sliding during use ([0008]-[0010], Fig. 2). Dandapure teaches that the thickness of the exercise mat can be within the range of 2.0 to 7.0 mm, wherein the top layer may be 0.35 to 0.95 mm thick, the middle layer may be 0.2 to 2.0 mm thick, and the bottom layer may be 1.5 to 5.5 mm thick, although the thicknesses may vary in other embodiments to achieve different flexibility or cushioning requirements for the exercise mat ([0006]-[0010]).
When the top layer is taken to correspond to the claimed first layer or top layer and the middle and bottom layers together correspond to the claimed second layer, the combined thickness of the first and second layers is within the range of 2.05 to 8.45 mm, which overlaps the ranges of claims 5 and 17. The thickness of 0.35 to 0.95 mm for the top layer is so close to the claimed range of 1 to 4 mm in claim 22 that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap, lie inside, or are sufficiently close to ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayered mat taught by Khadri by setting the thicknesses of the first layer and the second layer and the total thickness of the mat within the claimed ranges, as suggested by Dandapure et al., in order to achieve the desired balance of flexibility and cushioning properties for a particular intended application of the mat. With respect to the limitation in claim 21 reciting “so as to be readily washable in a washing machine”, it is noted that the mat taught by Khadri having the thicknesses specified by Dandapure et al. would be capable of being washed in a washing machine, thus satisfying the claimed limitation.
Claims 9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khadri (US 20240058643, previously cited) as applied to claims 8 and 12 above, and further in view of Hsieh (US 2021/0237393, previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Khadri teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. As noted above, Khadri teaches that the facing fabric (first layer) may be made from a blend of thermoplastic polyurethane polyester and rayon ([0016]), thus corresponding to the claimed synthetic fibers, but the reference does not expressly teach that the synthetic fibers may comprise polyester and nylon.
However, in the analogous art of exercise mats, Hsieh teaches a slip resistant exercise mat comprising a fabric layer (10) as a top layer and an elastic slip resistant layer (20) as a bottom layer ([0019], Figs. 1-2). Similar to Khadri, Hsieh teaches that the upper surface of the fabric layer (10) is a sweat absorbing surface (122) which is used to absorb sweat left by an individual during exercise [0019]. Hsieh teaches that the fabric layer may be made of suede, nylon, Tetron, cotton, or other fabric [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise mat taught by Khadri by using a blend of synthetic fibers including polyester and nylon as the material of the facing fabric, as suggested by Khadri and Hsieh, given the art-recognized suitability of such materials for use as a sweat absorbing top layer for such exercise mats.
Regarding claim 14, Khadri teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above and further teaches that the bottom anti-skid coating is made of silicone dots or any other similar material that has the functionality of making it non-slidable on the surface it is used on [0017]. The second layer including the cushioning layer and the anti-skid coating therefore comprises rubber, e.g., as a silicone elastomer.
Although Khadri teaches that the top layer can comprise polymer fibers or natural fibers, a non-woven fabric, a woven fabric, leather, a recycled fabric, or the like ([0010], [0031]), such that the top layer may be formed of a synthetic textile material, the reference does not expressly teach the synthetic textile material of the top layer being a synthetic suede.
However, in the analogous art of exercise mats, Hsieh teaches a slip resistant exercise mat comprising a fabric layer (10) as a top layer and an elastic slip resistant layer (20) as a bottom layer ([0019], Figs. 1-2). Similar to Khadri, Hsieh teaches that the upper surface of the fabric layer (10) is a sweat absorbing surface (122) which is used to absorb sweat left by an individual during exercise [0019]. Hsieh teaches that the fabric layer may be made of suede, nylon, Tetron, cotton, or other fabric [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise mat taught by Khadri by selecting a synthetic suede as the synthetic textile material of the top layer, as suggested by Hsieh, given the art-recognized suitability of both suede and synthetic textiles for use as a sweat absorbing top layer for such exercise mats.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Khadri in view of Hsieh teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above, but the combination of references does not expressly teach that a corner region extending between the first and second ends of the top layer and the second layer is oriented at an angular offset relative to the first end.
It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise mat taught by Khadri to have any shape, such as a shape in which a corner region is oriented at a 45 degree angle as claimed, in order to provide the exercise mat with the desired aesthetic appearance. It is well settled that features relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khadri (US 20240058643, previously cited) in view of Hsieh (US 2021/0237393, previously cited).
Regarding claim 18, Khadri teaches a multilayered mat designed for use as an exercise mat, wherein the mat comprises a top layer (7a) of absorbent facing fabric which forms an exterior of the exercise mat, a second layer (7b) made from a material capable of wicking, a third layer (7c) having a protective barrier property to prevent liquid flow, a cushioning fourth layer (7d) for comfort, and a bottom anti-skid surface (7e) having a special anti-skid coating to prevent the mat from skidding on the surface ([0022], Fig. 7).
The cushioning fourth layer (7d) and the bottom anti-skid coating can be taken together to correspond to the claimed second layer which is permanently connected to a side of the top layer opposite the top surface and which is formed of a resiliently deformable material. The bottommost exterior surface of the mat is defined by the anti-skid coating and is therefore capable of selectively engaging with an environmental surface to limit movement of the mat relative to the environmental surface. As shown in Figs. 1-2, the cushioning layer is coextensive with the top layer, wherein the facing fabric of the top layer is smooth and continuous at the top surface thereof. Due to the use of flexible and resilient materials, the multilayered mat taught by Khadri is considered to be flexibly manipulable between first and second expanded and compact configurations as claimed.
Although Khadri teaches that the top layer can comprise polymer fibers or natural fibers, a non-woven fabric, a woven fabric, leather, a recycled fabric, or the like ([0010], [0031]), such that the top layer may be formed of a synthetic textile material, the reference does not expressly teach the synthetic material of the top layer being a synthetic suede.
However, in the analogous art of exercise mats, Hsieh teaches a slip resistant exercise mat comprising a fabric layer (10) as a top layer and an elastic slip resistant layer (20) as a bottom layer ([0019], Figs. 1-2). Similar to Khadri, Hsieh teaches that the upper surface of the fabric layer (10) is a sweat absorbing surface (122) which is used to absorb sweat left by an individual during exercise [0019]. Hsieh teaches that the fabric layer may be made of suede, nylon, Tetron, cotton, or other fabric [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise mat taught by Khadri by selecting a synthetic suede as the synthetic textile material of the top layer, as suggested by Hsieh, given the art-recognized suitability of both suede and synthetic textiles for use as a sweat absorbing top layer for such exercise mats.
Regarding claim 19, Khadri in view of Hsieh teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 above, and Khadri further teaches that the bottom anti-skid coating is made of silicone dots or any other similar material that has the functionality of making it non-slidable on the surface it is used on [0017]. The second layer including the cushioning layer and the anti-skid coating therefore comprises rubber, e.g., as a silicone elastomer. As explained above with respect to claim 18, Khadri does not expressly teach that the top layer is suede, and Hsieh is relied upon to render obvious this feature of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, Khadri in view of Hsieh teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 above, but the combination of references does not expressly teach that a corner region extending between the first and second ends of the top layer and the second layer is oriented at an angular offset relative to the first end.
It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exercise mat taught by Khadri in view of Hsieh to have any shape, such as a shape in which a corner region is oriented at a 30-60 degree angle as claimed, in order to provide the exercise mat with the desired aesthetic appearance. It is well settled that features relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(I).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 14 and 19 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response filed June 15, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 3, 7, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to claims 3 and 9 and by the cancellation of claim 7 in the response filed June 15, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of the remarks with respect to amended claims 1, 12, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Morris et al. and Hsieh are withdrawn, and new rejections based on Khadri are presented in the office action above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sharkey (US 2017/0095690) teaches a foldable and rollable portable yoga mat (Abstract, Figs. 1-11). Sharkey teaches that typical yoga mat overall thicknesses range from about 0.125 inches to about 0.35 inches, where the mat overall thickness may exceed the 0.35 inch dimension when intended for use on a hard surface [0023].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights