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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 24 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 19 remain pending in the application. Claim 21 is a new claim commensurate with claim 1 and therefore is under consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 13 – 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mowers (US 2016/0145878 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Mowers discloses a threshold to be installed between two flooring materials (“transition” 1: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0009] – [0063]), the threshold comprising:
a vertical body portion having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the second side surface having a concave area to receive an edge of a flooring material, the concave area forming an overhang on the second side surface, the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang (“post”, “wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0025], [0027]); and
a ramp portion extending from the first side surface, the ramp portion having a decreasing thickness from the vertical body portion to a distal end of the ramp portion (“tail” 17: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0023] – [0027]).
While Mowers considers their vertical body portion to be “devoid” of an overhang (e.g. ¶ [0022]), the examiner observes the structure of Mowers’ vertical body portion still provides an overhang within the scope of the claims and the instant specification.
More specifically, Mowers discloses the vertical body portion having a “radius carpet tile side” 11 (abbreviated “RC”) and “height of nose” 27 of “cap” 13 (abbreviated “HL”) for the vertical body portion (e.g. Fig. 6; Table 1; ¶ [0026]), provided below for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
856
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given RC and the “radius of cap” 13 (RP) are defined by a radius, these features are understood to as arcs of a circle. Accordingly, a concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang is described. The examiner has sketched below these circles (not to any particular scale) in order to better understand the curved surface and how a width of the overhang is calculated from the parameters Mowers discloses.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
In the above sketch, Mowers’ RC defines the circle on the left, and Mowers’ RP defines the circle on the right. Furthermore, the horizontal dashed line goes through the RP circle center, and the diagonal dashed line connects said horizontal dashed line with the point where the two circles meet, this meeting point being where the “cap” 13 of Mowers’ vertical body portion transitions to the “carpet-facing side” 11, which also serves as the defining point for the right vertical dashed line. The left vertical dashed line corresponds to the edge of the “carpet-facing side” 11 at its lowermost point. Thus, the distance between the two vertical dashed lines will be understood as the claimed width (abbreviated “w”).
From these reference points, the dashed lines form a right triangle having sides of length HL (in the vertical) and RC – w (in the horizontal, observing the radius of the right circle also connects with the left vertical dashed line) with a hypotenuse of RC. Therefore, by Pythagorean theorem,
H
L
2
+
(
R
C
-
w
)
2
=
R
C
2
Rearranging for w,
R
C
-
w
2
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
w
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
=
w
While non-limiting, Mowers discloses RC of 0.485 to 0.627 inches and HL of 0.203 to 0.255 inches. Evaluating values of w using each combination of values for RC and HL Mowers discloses yields a range of 0.033 to 0.072 inches. The instant specification discloses overhangs having a width encompassing this range (corresponding to width W3: e.g. Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0041], [0067]).
Accordingly, while Mowers may not consider their vertical body portion as having an overhang, the descriptions Mowers provides of the vertical body portion define the same as having an overhang per the instant specification.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 13, Mowers discloses the vertical body portion has a first edge between the top surface and the first side surface and a second edge between the top surface and the second side surface, and wherein the top surface of the vertical body portion is curved between the first edge of the vertical body portion and the second edge of the vertical body portion (“cap” 13: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022], [0024] – [0026]).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 14, Mowers discloses the first edge of the vertical body portion is rounded and the second edge of the vertical body portion is rounded (e.g. Fig. 1, 4, 6, 8).
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations of claim 13, Mowers discloses the first side surface does not include an overhang (“flat”: e.g. ¶ [0024]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolle (DE 20017532 U1, referencing a machine translation thereof provided with the Office Action mailed 25 September 2025) in view of Mowers (US 2016/0145878 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stolle discloses an aircraft (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0027]) comprising:
a subfloor (“floor panels”, “floor slabs” 3: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0015], [0018], [0021]);
first flooring material on the subfloor, the first flooring material having a first edge (“rubber floor” 4: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0015], [0017], [0018], [0022]);
second flooring material on the subfloor, the second flooring material having a second edge (“carpet” 8: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0010], [0014], [0015], [0017], [0018], [0026]); and
a threshold at least partially between the first flooring material and the second flooring material (“transition profile” 1: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0013] – [0015], [0017] – [0019]), the threshold including:
a vertical body portion having a top surface (“grooved surface”), a bottom surface opposite the top surface (facing the “floor slabs” 3), a first side surface (side surface with “undercut” 9), and a second side surface opposite the first side surface (side surface with “opposite” “undercut” 9), and an overhang on the second side surface (as formed by the “opposite” “undercut” 9), the vertical body portion having a concave area extending into the second side surface (the “opposite” “undercut” 9), wherein the second edge of the second flooring material extends into the concave area (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0013] – [0015], [0017] – [0019]); and
a ramp portion extending from the first side surface, the ramp portion having a decreasing thickness from the vertical body portion to a distal end of the ramp portion, the ramp portion positioned between a portion of the first flooring material and the subfloor (“slope” 2: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0010], [0020]).
Although Stolle is not explicit as to the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang, this feature would have been obvious in view of Mowers.
The examiner observes Stolle does not limit their vertical body portion to configurations like those shown in Fig. 1. Rather, Stolle describes the overhang as providing a form-fit with a carpet surface (e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0014], [0017]). Accordingly, so long as Stolle’s functions are provided, substitutions for the shape of the concave area can be changed, particularly when there are additional advantages to confer.
Mowers discloses a threshold to be installed between two flooring materials (“transition” 1: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0009] – [0063]), the threshold comprising:
a vertical body portion having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the second side surface having a concave area to receive an edge of a flooring material, the concave area forming an overhang on the second side surface, the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang (“post”, “wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0025], [0027]); and
a ramp portion extending from the first side surface, the ramp portion having a decreasing thickness from the vertical body portion to a distal end of the ramp portion (“tail” 17: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0023] – [0027]).
While Mowers considers their vertical body portion to be “devoid” of an overhang (e.g. ¶ [0022]), the examiner observes the structure of Mowers’ vertical body portion still provides an overhang within the scope of the claims and the instant specification.
More specifically, Mowers discloses the vertical body portion having a “radius carpet tile side” 11 (abbreviated “RC”) and “height of nose” 27 of “cap” 13 (abbreviated “HL”) for the vertical body portion (e.g. Fig. 6; Table 1; ¶ [0026]), provided below for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
856
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given RC and the “radius of cap” 13 (RP) are defined by a radius, these features are understood to as arcs of a circle. Accordingly, a concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang is described. The examiner has sketched below these circles (not to any particular scale) in order to better understand the curved surface and how a width of the overhang can be calculated from the parameters Mowers discloses.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
In the above sketch, Mowers’ RC defines the circle on the left, and Mowers’ RP defines the circle on the right. Furthermore, the horizontal dashed line goes through the RP circle center, and the diagonal dashed line connects said horizontal dashed line with the point where the two circles meet, this meeting point being where the “cap” 13 of Mowers’ vertical body portion transitions to the “carpet-facing side” 11, which also serves as the defining point for the right vertical dashed line. The left vertical dashed line corresponds to the edge of the “carpet-facing side” 11 at its lowermost point. Thus, the distance between the two vertical dashed lines will be understood as the claimed width (abbreviated “w”).
From these reference points, the dashed lines form a right triangle having sides of length HL (in the vertical) and RC – w (in the horizontal, observing the radius of the right circle also connects with the left vertical dashed line) with a hypotenuse of RC. Therefore, by Pythagorean theorem,
H
L
2
+
(
R
C
-
w
)
2
=
R
C
2
Rearranging for w,
R
C
-
w
2
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
w
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
=
w
While non-limiting, Mowers discloses RC of 0.485 to 0.627 inches and HL of 0.203 to 0.255 inches. Evaluating values of w using each combination of values for RC and HL Mowers discloses yields a range of 0.033 to 0.072 inches. The instant specification discloses overhangs having a width encompassing this range (corresponding to width W3: e.g. Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0041], [0067]).
Accordingly, while Mowers may not consider their vertical body portion as having an overhang, the descriptions Mowers provides of the vertical body portion define the same as having an overhang per the instant specification.
Additionally, Mowers Fig. 8 shows a form-fitting nature of the vertical body portion (“fit snugly”: e.g. ¶ [0060]) consistent with Stolle’s requirements (see also, e.g., Mowers’ ¶ [0023] regarding ease of traversal). Mowers in particular states there is an easing in traversing the transition from carpet to tiles in such a manner that jolts are prevented, e.g. as may occur from wheeled carts and foot stubbing (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Stolle’s concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang as Mowers suggests, the motivation being to prevent jolts from wheeled carts or foot stubbing.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 in view of Stolle and Mowers, Mowers discloses the overhang has a width of, e.g., 0.033 to 0.072 inches (e.g. Fig. 6; Table 1; ¶ [0026]).
Given the purpose of Mowers’ threshold is to ease traversing the transition from carpet to tiles in such a manner that jolts are prevented, e.g. as may occur from wheeled carts and foot stubbing (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0023]), it is understood that at least Mowers’ range is advantageous for this purpose. However, Mowers also suggests other dimensions can be used depending on the particular tile and carpet used (e.g. ¶ [0026]), so widths outside the range above can also be reasonably considered useful with a similar advantage.
Additionally, both Stolle (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0010], [0014], [0015], [0017], [0018], [0026]) and Mowers (e.g. Fig. 8; ¶ [0024]) have their respective second side surfaces facing carpet, so Mowers’ suggestions properly apply to Stolle’s disclosure.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stolle’s overhang to have a width of less than 0.100 inches, e.g. 0.033 to 0.072 inches, as Mowers’ suggests, the motivation being to prevent jolts such as those which occur from wheeled carts and foot stubbing.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Stolle discloses the threshold is a monolithic structure (due to watertight properties needed when joined to the “floor panels” 3: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0010], [0011]).
Regarding claim 5, although Stolle is not explicit as to the vertical body portion having a first edge between the top surface and the first side surface and a second edge between the top surface and the second side surface, and wherein the top surface of the vertical body portion is curved between the first edge of the vertical body portion and the second edge of the vertical body portion, this feature would have been obvious in view of Mowers.
Mowers discloses a threshold to be installed between two flooring materials (“transition” 1: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0009] – [0063]), the threshold comprising:
a vertical body portion having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the second side surface having a concave area at the bottom surface to receive an edge of a flooring material, the concave area forming an overhang on the second side surface (“post”, “wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0025], [0027]); and
wherein the vertical body portion has a first edge between the top surface and the first side surface and a second edge between the top surface and the second side surface, and wherein the top surface of the vertical body portion is curved between the first edge of the vertical body portion and the second edge of the vertical body portion (“cap” 13: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0027]).
Mowers seeks to make a threshold which is less noticeable between tile and carpets, which is desirable from the standpoint of reducing a feel of difference between flooring surfaces, which has further benefit in the form of preventing jolts such as from wheeled carts and foot stubbing (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0012], [0013], [0023]). This is considered particularly relevant to Stolle as Stolle discloses rubber floor tiles (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0015], [0017], [0018], [0022]) and carpet (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0010], [0014], [0015], [0017], [0018], [0026]) respectively as the first and second flooring materials. Further relevance to Mowers’ benefits is observed since Stolle also considers the movement of trolleys over the threshold (e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0011], [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stolle’s vertical body portion to have a first edge between the top surface and the first side surface and a second edge between the top surface and the second side surface, and wherein the top surface of the vertical body portion is curved between the first edge of the vertical body portion and the second edge of the vertical body portion as Mowers suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to reduce the noticeability of change between one floor surface to another and therefore also prevent jolts from carts and foot stubbing.
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 5, Mowers discloses the first edge of the vertical body portion is rounded and the second edge of the vertical body portion is rounded (“cap” 13: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Stolle discloses the aircraft further includes an adhesive layer between the bottom surface of the threshold and the subfloor (“microfilm adhesive tape” 6: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0015], [0018], [0024]).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 7, Stolle discloses the adhesive layer is double-sided tape (“microfilm adhesive tape” 6 adheres to both the “transition profile” 1and the “floor panels”, “floor slabs” 3: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0015], [0018], [0024])
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Stolle discloses the aircraft further includes an adhesive layer between the first flooring material and a top surface of the ramp portion (“microfilm adhesive tape” 6: e e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0015], [0018], [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Stolle discloses the aircraft further includes a sealant between the first edge of the first flooring material and the first side surface of the vertical body portion (“sealing seam/sealing compound” 10: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0027]).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Stolle discloses the first flooring material is a mat and the second flooring material is carpet (“rubber floor” 4 and “carpet” 8, respectively: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0014], [0015], [0017], [0018], [0022], [0026]).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, Stolle discloses the second edge of the carpet is edge treated (e.g. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Stolle discloses a threshold to be installed between two flooring materials (“transition profile” 1: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0013] – [0015], [0017] – [0019]), the threshold including:
a vertical body portion having a top surface (“grooved surface”), a bottom surface opposite the top surface (facing the “floor slabs” 3), a first side surface (side surface with “undercut” 9), and a second side surface opposite the first side surface (side surface with “opposite” “undercut” 9), the second side surface having a concave area extending into the second side surface to receive an edge of a flooring material, the concave area forming an overhang on the second side surface (the “opposite” “undercut” 9: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0013] – [0015], [0017] – [0019]); and
a ramp portion extending from the first side surface, the ramp portion having a decreasing thickness from the vertical body portion to a distal end of the ramp portion (“slope” 2: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0010], [0020]).
Although Stolle is not explicit as to the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang, this feature would have been obvious in view of Mowers.
The examiner observes Stolle does not limit their vertical body portion to configurations like those shown in Fig. 1. Rather, Stolle describes the overhang as providing a form-fit with a carpet surface (e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0014], [0017]). Accordingly, so long as Stolle’s functions are provided, substitutions for the shape of the concave area can be changed, particularly when there are additional advantages to confer.
Mowers discloses a threshold to be installed between two flooring materials (“transition” 1: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0009] – [0063]), the threshold comprising:
a vertical body portion having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the second side surface having a concave area to receive an edge of a flooring material, the concave area forming an overhang on the second side surface, the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang (“post”, “wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0025], [0027]); and
a ramp portion extending from the first side surface, the ramp portion having a decreasing thickness from the vertical body portion to a distal end of the ramp portion (“tail” 17: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0023] – [0027]).
While Mowers considers their vertical body portion to be “devoid” of an overhang (e.g. ¶ [0022]), the examiner observes the structure of Mowers’ vertical body portion still provides an overhang within the scope of the claims and the instant specification.
More specifically, Mowers discloses the vertical body portion having a “radius carpet tile side” 11 (abbreviated “RC”) and “height of nose” 27 of “cap” 13 (abbreviated “HL”) for the vertical body portion (e.g. Fig. 6; Table 1; ¶ [0026]), provided below for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
856
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given RC and the “radius of cap” 13 (RP) are defined by a radius, these features are understood to as arcs of a circle. Accordingly, a concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang is described. The examiner has sketched below these circles (not to any particular scale) in order to better understand the curved surface and how a width of the overhang can be calculated from the parameters Mowers discloses.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
In the above sketch, Mowers’ RC defines the circle on the left, and Mowers’ RP defines the circle on the right. Furthermore, the horizontal dashed line goes through the RP circle center, and the diagonal dashed line connects said horizontal dashed line with the point where the two circles meet, this meeting point being where the “cap” 13 of Mowers’ vertical body portion transitions to the “carpet-facing side” 11, which also serves as the defining point for the right vertical dashed line. The left vertical dashed line corresponds to the edge of the “carpet-facing side” 11 at its lowermost point. Thus, the distance between the two vertical dashed lines will be understood as the claimed width (abbreviated “w”).
From these reference points, the dashed lines form a right triangle having sides of length HL (in the vertical) and RC – w (in the horizontal, observing the radius of the right circle also connects with the left vertical dashed line) with a hypotenuse of RC. Therefore, by Pythagorean theorem,
H
L
2
+
(
R
C
-
w
)
2
=
R
C
2
Rearranging for w,
R
C
-
w
2
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
w
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
=
w
While non-limiting, Mowers discloses RC of 0.485 to 0.627 inches and HL of 0.203 to 0.255 inches. Evaluating values of w using each combination of values for RC and HL Mowers discloses yields a range of 0.033 to 0.072 inches. The instant specification discloses overhangs having a width encompassing this range (corresponding to width W3: e.g. Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0041], [0067]).
Accordingly, while Mowers may not consider their vertical body portion as having an overhang, the descriptions Mowers provides of the vertical body portion define the same as having an overhang per the instant specification.
Additionally, Mowers Fig. 8 shows a form-fitting nature of the vertical body portion (“fit snugly”: e.g. ¶ [0060]) consistent with Stolle’s requirements (see also, e.g., Mowers’ ¶ [0023] regarding ease of traversal). Mowers in particular states there is an easing in traversing the transition from carpet to tiles in such a manner that jolts are prevented, e.g. as may occur from wheeled carts and foot stubbing (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Stolle’s concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang as Mowers suggests, the motivation being to prevent jolts from wheeled carts or foot stubbing.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 13, the vertical body portion Mowers discloses for improving Stolle has a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the second side surface having a concave area at the bottom surface to receive an edge of a flooring material, the concave area forming an overhang on the second side surface (“post”, “wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0025], [0027]); and
wherein the vertical body portion has a first edge between the top surface and the first side surface and a second edge between the top surface and the second side surface, and wherein the top surface of the vertical body portion is curved between the first edge of the vertical body portion and the second edge of the vertical body portion (“cap” 13: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0027]).
Mowers seeks to make a threshold which is less noticeable between tile and carpets, which is desirable from the standpoint of reducing a feel of difference between flooring surfaces, which has further benefit in the form of preventing jolts such as from wheeled carts and foot stubbing (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0012], [0013], [0023]). This is considered particularly relevant to Stolle as Stolle discloses rubber floor tiles (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0015], [0017], [0018], [0022]) and carpet (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0010], [0014], [0015], [0017], [0018], [0026]) respectively as the first and second flooring materials. Further relevance to Mowers’ benefits is observed since Stolle also considers the movement of trolleys over the threshold (e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0011], [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stolle’s vertical body portion to have a first edge between the top surface and the first side surface and a second edge between the top surface and the second side surface, and wherein the top surface of the vertical body portion is curved between the first edge of the vertical body portion and the second edge of the vertical body portion as Mowers suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to reduce the noticeability of change between one floor surface to another and therefore also prevent jolts from carts and foot stubbing.
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 14, Mowers discloses the first edge of the vertical body portion is rounded and the second edge of the vertical body portion is rounded (“cap” 13: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0027]).
Regarding claim 18, Stolle discloses a method of installing flooring materials and a threshold in an aircraft (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0027]), the method comprising:
adhering a first portion of a first flooring material to a subfloor in the aircraft (“microfilm adhesive tape” 6 adheres “rubber floor” 4 to “floor panels”, “floor slabs” 3: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0015], [0017], [0018], [0021], [0022], [0024]);
adhering the threshold to the subfloor near a first edge of the first flooring material (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶ [0015]), the threshold including:
a vertical body portion having a top surface (“grooved surface”), a bottom surface opposite the top surface (facing the “floor slabs” 3), a first side surface (side surface with “undercut” 9), and a second side surface opposite the first side surface (side surface with “opposite” “undercut” 9), the vertical body portion having a concave area extending into the second side surface at the bottom surface (the “opposite” “undercut” 9: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0013] – [0015], [0017] – [0019]); and
a ramp portion extending from the first side surface, the ramp portion having a decreasing thickness from the vertical body portion to a distal end of the ramp portion (“slope” 2: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0010], [0020]);
adhering a second portion of the first flooring material on top of the ramp portion of the threshold such that the first edge of the first flooring material is adjacent the first side surface of the vertical body portion (“microfilm adhesive tape” 6 adheres “rubber floor” 4 to the “transition profile” 1: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0015], [0017], [0018], [0021], [0022], [0024]); and
adhering a second flooring material to the subfloor and tucking a second edge of the second flooring material into the concave area of the threshold, the overhang disposed above a portion of the second flooring material (“carpet” 8 is tucked into an “undercut” 9 of the “transition profile” 1: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0013] – [0015], [0017] – [0019], [0026]).
Although Stolle is not explicit as to the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang, this feature would have been obvious in view of Mowers.
The examiner observes Stolle does not limit their vertical body portion to configurations like those shown in Fig. 1. Rather, Stolle describes the overhang as providing a form-fit with a carpet surface (e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0014], [0017]). Accordingly, so long as Stolle’s functions are provided, substitutions for the shape of the concave area can be changed, particularly when there are additional advantages to confer.
Mowers discloses a threshold to be installed between two flooring materials (“transition” 1: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0009] – [0063]), the threshold comprising:
a vertical body portion having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the second side surface having a concave area to receive an edge of a flooring material, the concave area forming an overhang on the second side surface, the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang (“post”, “wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0025], [0027]); and
a ramp portion extending from the first side surface, the ramp portion having a decreasing thickness from the vertical body portion to a distal end of the ramp portion (“tail” 17: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0023] – [0027]).
While Mowers considers their vertical body portion to be “devoid” of an overhang (e.g. ¶ [0022]), the examiner observes the structure of Mowers’ vertical body portion still provides an overhang within the scope of the claims and the instant specification.
More specifically, Mowers discloses the vertical body portion having a “radius carpet tile side” 11 (abbreviated “RC”) and “height of nose” 27 of “cap” 13 (abbreviated “HL”) for the vertical body portion (e.g. Fig. 6; Table 1; ¶ [0026]), provided below for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
856
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given RC and the “radius of cap” 13 (RP) are defined by a radius, these features are understood to as arcs of a circle. Accordingly, a concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang is described. The examiner has sketched below these circles (not to any particular scale) in order to better understand the curved surface and how a width of the overhang can be calculated from the parameters Mowers discloses.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
In the above sketch, Mowers’ RC defines the circle on the left, and Mowers’ RP defines the circle on the right. Furthermore, the horizontal dashed line goes through the RP circle center, and the diagonal dashed line connects said horizontal dashed line with the point where the two circles meet, this meeting point being where the “cap” 13 of Mowers’ vertical body portion transitions to the “carpet-facing side” 11, which also serves as the defining point for the right vertical dashed line. The left vertical dashed line corresponds to the edge of the “carpet-facing side” 11 at its lowermost point. Thus, the distance between the two vertical dashed lines will be understood as the claimed width (abbreviated “w”).
From these reference points, the dashed lines form a right triangle having sides of length HL (in the vertical) and RC – w (in the horizontal, observing the radius of the right circle also connects with the left vertical dashed line) with a hypotenuse of RC. Therefore, by Pythagorean theorem,
H
L
2
+
(
R
C
-
w
)
2
=
R
C
2
Rearranging for w,
R
C
-
w
2
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
w
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
=
w
While non-limiting, Mowers discloses RC of 0.485 to 0.627 inches and HL of 0.203 to 0.255 inches. Evaluating values of w using each combination of values for RC and HL Mowers discloses yields a range of 0.033 to 0.072 inches. The instant specification discloses overhangs having a width encompassing this range (corresponding to width W3: e.g. Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0041], [0067]).
Accordingly, while Mowers may not consider their vertical body portion as having an overhang, the descriptions Mowers provides of the vertical body portion define the same as having an overhang per the instant specification.
Additionally, Mowers Fig. 8 shows a form-fitting nature of the vertical body portion (“fit snugly”: e.g. ¶ [0060]) consistent with Stolle’s requirements (see also, e.g., Mowers’ ¶ [0023] regarding ease of traversal). Mowers in particular states there is an easing in traversing the transition from carpet to tiles in such a manner that jolts are prevented, e.g. as may occur from wheeled carts and foot stubbing (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Stolle’s concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang as Mowers suggests, the motivation being to prevent jolts from wheeled carts or foot stubbing.
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 18, Stolle discloses the method further includes adding a sealant between the first edge of the first flooring material and the first side surface of the vertical body portion of the threshold (“sealing seam/sealing compound” 10: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0027]).
Claims 13 – 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law (GB 2,276,317 A) in view of Mowers.
Regarding claim 13, Law discloses a threshold to be installed between two flooring materials (“trim” to be installed between two “floorcoverings”, e.g. “trim” 1: e.g. the lone drawing; pp. 1 – 5), the threshold comprising:
a vertical body portion having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the second side surface having a concave area to receive an edge of a flooring material, the concave area forming an overhang on the second side surface (collectively formed by a “riser” and a “binder” which form a “downwardly curved and pointed edge” to extend over one of the “floorcoverings”, e.g. “riser” 3 and “binder” 4 forming “edge” 9: e.g. the lone drawing; pp. 1 – 5); and
a ramp portion extending from the first side surface, the ramp portion having a decreasing thickness from the vertical body portion to a distal end of the ramp portion (“base portion” whose thickness “tapers” and is covered with the other of the “floorcoverings”, e.g. “base portion” 2: e.g. the lone drawing; pp. 1 – 5).
For convenience, Law’s drawing is annotated below to show correspondence to the claimed features. A dotted line is drawn through the threshold to show a boundary between the vertical body portion and the ramp potion
PNG
media_image2.png
412
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Vertical body portion Ramp portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second side surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concave area)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bottom surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First side surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Distal end)]
Although Law is not explicit as to the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang, this feature would have been obvious in view of Mowers.
Mowers discloses a threshold to be installed between two flooring materials (“transition” 1: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0009] – [0063]), the threshold comprising, in relevant part:
a vertical body portion having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the second side surface having a concave area to receive an edge of a flooring material, the concave area forming an overhang on the second side surface, the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang (“post”, “wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0025], [0027]).
While Mowers considers their vertical body portion to be “devoid” of an overhang (e.g. ¶ [0022]), the examiner observes the structure of Mowers’ vertical body portion still provides an overhang within the scope of the claims and the instant specification.
More specifically, Mowers discloses the vertical body portion having a “radius carpet tile side” 11 (abbreviated “RC”) and “height of nose” 27 of “cap” 13 (abbreviated “HL”) for the vertical body portion (e.g. Fig. 6; Table 1; ¶ [0026]), provided below for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
856
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given RC and the “radius of cap” 13 (RP) are defined by a radius, these features are understood to as arcs of a circle. Accordingly, a concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang is described. The examiner has sketched below these circles (not to any particular scale) in order to better understand the curved surface and how a width of the overhang can be calculated from the parameters Mowers discloses.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
In the above sketch, Mowers’ RC defines the circle on the left, and Mowers’ RP defines the circle on the right. Furthermore, the horizontal dashed line goes through the RP circle center, and the diagonal dashed line connects said horizontal dashed line with the point where the two circles meet, this meeting point being where the “cap” 13 of Mowers’ vertical body portion transitions to the “carpet-facing side” 11, which also serves as the defining point for the right vertical dashed line. The left vertical dashed line corresponds to the edge of the “carpet-facing side” 11 at its lowermost point. Thus, the distance between the two vertical dashed lines will be understood as the claimed width (abbreviated “w”).
From these reference points, the dashed lines form a right triangle having sides of length HL (in the vertical) and RC – w (in the horizontal, observing the radius of the right circle also connects with the left vertical dashed line) with a hypotenuse of RC. Therefore, by Pythagorean theorem,
H
L
2
+
(
R
C
-
w
)
2
=
R
C
2
Rearranging for w,
R
C
-
w
2
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
w
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
=
w
While non-limiting, Mowers discloses RC of 0.485 to 0.627 inches and HL of 0.203 to 0.255 inches. Evaluating values of w using each combination of values for RC and HL Mowers discloses yields a range of 0.033 to 0.072 inches. The instant specification discloses overhangs having a width encompassing this range (corresponding to width W3: e.g. Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0041], [0067]).
Accordingly, while Mowers may not consider their vertical body portion as having an overhang, the descriptions Mowers provides of the vertical body portion define the same as having an overhang per the instant specification.
Additionally, Mowers Fig. 8 shows a form-fitting nature of the vertical body portion (“fit snugly”: e.g. ¶ [0060]) consistent with Law’s requirements (see also, e.g., Law’s pp. 1 and 4 regarding ease of traversal by mitigating accidents). Mowers in particular states there is an easing in traversing the transition from carpet to tiles in such a manner that jolts are prevented, e.g. as may occur from wheeled carts and foot stubbing (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Law’s concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang as Mowers suggests, the motivation being to prevent jolts from wheeled carts or foot stubbing.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 13, the vertical body portion Mowers discloses for improving Law has a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the second side surface having a concave area at the bottom surface to receive an edge of a flooring material, the concave area forming an overhang on the second side surface (“post”, “wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0025], [0027]); and
wherein the vertical body portion has a first edge between the top surface and the first side surface and a second edge between the top surface and the second side surface, and wherein the top surface of the vertical body portion is curved between the first edge of the vertical body portion and the second edge of the vertical body portion (“cap” 13: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0027]).
Mowers seeks to make a threshold which is less noticeable between tile and carpets, which is desirable from the standpoint of reducing a feel of difference between flooring surfaces, which has further benefit in the form of preventing jolts such as from wheeled carts and foot stubbing (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0012], [0013], [0023]). This is considered particularly relevant to Law as Law discloses floor tiles and carpet (e.g. pp. 1 – 5) respectively as the first and second flooring materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Law’s vertical body portion to have a first edge between the top surface and the first side surface and a second edge between the top surface and the second side surface, and wherein the top surface of the vertical body portion is curved between the first edge of the vertical body portion and the second edge of the vertical body portion as Mowers suggests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to reduce the noticeability of change between one floor surface to another and therefore also prevent jolts from carts and foot stubbing.
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 14, Mowers discloses the first edge of the vertical body portion is rounded and the second edge of the vertical body portion is rounded (“cap” 13: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0027]).
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations of claim 13, Law discloses the first side surface does not include an overhang (e.g. the lone drawing).
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 12, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law in view of Mowers.
Regarding claim 1, Law discloses
a subfloor (implied due per use of a “trim”, e.g. “trim” 1, to connect two adjacent “floorcoverings”: e.g. pp. 1 – 5);
first flooring material on the subfloor, the first flooring material having a first edge (a first of the two adjacent “floorcoverings”: e.g. pp. 1 – 5);
second flooring material on the subfloor, the second flooring material having a second edge (a second of the two adjacent “floorcoverings”: e.g. pp. 1 – 5); and
a threshold at least partially between the first flooring material and the second flooring material (the “trim”, e.g. “trim” 1: e.g. the lone drawing; pp. 1 – 5), the threshold including:
a vertical body portion having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, a second side surface opposite the first side surface, and an overhang on the second side surface, the vertical body portion having a concave area extending into the second side surface, wherein the second edge of the second flooring material extends into the concave area, the overhang extending over the second edge of the second flooring material (collectively formed by a “riser” and a “binder” which form a “downwardly curved and pointed edge” to extend over one of the “floorcoverings”, e.g. “riser” 3 and “binder” 4 forming “edge” 9: e.g. the lone drawing; pp. 1 – 5); and
a ramp portion extending from the first side surface, the ramp portion having a decreasing thickness from the vertical body portion to a distal end of the ramp portion, the ramp portion positioned between a portion of the first flooring material and the subfloor (“base portion” whose thickness “tapers” and is covered with the other of the “floorcoverings”, e.g. “base portion” 2: e.g. the lone drawing; pp. 1 – 5).
For convenience, Law’s drawing is annotated below to show correspondence to the claimed features. A dotted line is drawn through the threshold to show a boundary between the vertical body portion and the ramp potion
PNG
media_image2.png
412
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Vertical body portion Ramp portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second side surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concave area)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bottom surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First side surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Distal end)]
Although Law is not explicit as to the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang, this feature would have been obvious in view of Mowers.
Mowers discloses a threshold to be installed between two flooring materials (“transition” 1: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0009] – [0063]), the threshold comprising, in relevant part:
a vertical body portion having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the second side surface having a concave area to receive an edge of a flooring material, the concave area forming an overhang on the second side surface, the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang (“post”, “wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0025], [0027]).
While Mowers considers their vertical body portion to be “devoid” of an overhang (e.g. ¶ [0022]), the examiner observes the structure of Mowers’ vertical body portion still provides an overhang within the scope of the claims and the instant specification.
More specifically, Mowers discloses the vertical body portion having a “radius carpet tile side” 11 (abbreviated “RC”) and “height of nose” 27 of “cap” 13 (abbreviated “HL”) for the vertical body portion (e.g. Fig. 6; Table 1; ¶ [0026]), provided below for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
856
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given RC and the “radius of cap” 13 (RP) are defined by a radius, these features are understood to as arcs of a circle. Accordingly, a concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang is described. The examiner has sketched below these circles (not to any particular scale) in order to better understand the curved surface and how a width of the overhang can be calculated from the parameters Mowers discloses.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
In the above sketch, Mowers’ RC defines the circle on the left, and Mowers’ RP defines the circle on the right. Furthermore, the horizontal dashed line goes through the RP circle center, and the diagonal dashed line connects said horizontal dashed line with the point where the two circles meet, this meeting point being where the “cap” 13 of Mowers’ vertical body portion transitions to the “carpet-facing side” 11, which also serves as the defining point for the right vertical dashed line. The left vertical dashed line corresponds to the edge of the “carpet-facing side” 11 at its lowermost point. Thus, the distance between the two vertical dashed lines will be understood as the claimed width (abbreviated “w”).
From these reference points, the dashed lines form a right triangle having sides of length HL (in the vertical) and RC – w (in the horizontal, observing the radius of the right circle also connects with the left vertical dashed line) with a hypotenuse of RC. Therefore, by Pythagorean theorem,
H
L
2
+
(
R
C
-
w
)
2
=
R
C
2
Rearranging for w,
R
C
-
w
2
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
w
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
=
w
While non-limiting, Mowers discloses RC of 0.485 to 0.627 inches and HL of 0.203 to 0.255 inches. Evaluating values of w using each combination of values for RC and HL Mowers discloses yields a range of 0.033 to 0.072 inches. The instant specification discloses overhangs having a width encompassing this range (corresponding to width W3: e.g. Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0041], [0067]).
Accordingly, while Mowers may not consider their vertical body portion as having an overhang, the descriptions Mowers provides of the vertical body portion define the same as having an overhang per the instant specification.
Additionally, Mowers Fig. 8 shows a form-fitting nature of the vertical body portion (“fit snugly”: e.g. ¶ [0060]) consistent with Law’s requirements (see also, e.g., Law’s pp. 1 and 4 regarding ease of traversal by mitigating accidents). Mowers in particular states there is an easing in traversing the transition from carpet to tiles in such a manner that jolts are prevented, e.g. as may occur from wheeled carts and foot stubbing (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Law’s concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang as Mowers suggests, the motivation being to prevent jolts from wheeled carts or foot stubbing.
Although Law is not explicit as to an aircraft comprising the above features, Law does not limit the use to any particular application (general use in stores and buildings is mentioned but not limited: e.g. p. 1). Rather, Law notes the threshold is useful wherever there is accident mitigation is beneficial (e.g. pp. 1, 4). Mowers also discloses this feature of their threshold, noting particular use where wheeled carts can travel, e.g. food service carts (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0023]). Stolle describes aircraft as an environment where trolleys, i.e. carts, are used for this purpose and thresholds are used between flooring materials (e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0009], [0010]). Therefore, Law, Mowers, and Stolle collectively describe applications where the same benefits are had and thus equivalent to one another
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to provide an aircraft with a subfloor, first and second flooring materials, and a threshold having the features Law and Mowers suggest, the motivation being to prevent accidents at the transition between the first and second flooring materials.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, as noted in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 in view of Law and Mowers, Mowers discloses the overhang has a width of, e.g., 0.033 to 0.072 inches (e.g. Fig. 6; Table 1; ¶ [0026]).
Given the purpose of Mowers’ threshold is to ease traversing the transition from carpet to tiles in such a manner that jolts are prevented, e.g. as may occur from wheeled carts and foot stubbing (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0023]), it is understood that at least Mowers’ range is advantageous for this purpose. However, Mowers also suggests other dimensions can be used depending on the particular tile and carpet used (e.g. ¶ [0026]), so widths outside the range above can also be reasonably considered useful with a similar advantage.
Additionally, both Stolle (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0010], [0014], [0015], [0017], [0018], [0026]) and Mowers (e.g. Fig. 8; ¶ [0024]) have their respective second side surfaces facing carpet, so Mowers’ suggestions properly apply to Stolle’s disclosure.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Stolle’s overhang to have a width of less than 0.100 inches, e.g. 0.033 to 0.072 inches, as Mowers’ suggests, the motivation being to prevent jolts such as those which occur from wheeled carts and foot stubbing.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Law discloses the threshold is a monolithic structure (“extrusion”: e.g. the lone drawing; p. 3). Mowers is similarly descriptive (e.g. ¶ [0063]).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Law discloses the vertical body portion has a first edge between the top surface and the first side surface and a second edge between the top surface and the second side surface, and wherein the top surface of the vertical body portion is curved between the first edge of the vertical body portion and the second edge of the vertical body portion (e.g. the lone drawing).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 5, Law discloses the first edge of the vertical body portion is rounded and the second edge of the vertical body portion is rounded (e.g. the lone drawing).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Stolle discloses the aircraft further includes an adhesive layer between the bottom surface of the threshold and the subfloor (“microfilm adhesive tape” 6: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0015], [0018], [0024]). Similar features can thus be used with the threshold Law and Mowers disclose to be useful in making the aircraft.
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 7, Stolle discloses the adhesive layer is double-sided tape (“microfilm adhesive tape” 6 adheres to both the “transition profile” 1and the “floor panels”, “floor slabs” 3: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0015], [0018], [0024]). Similar features can thus be used with the threshold Law and Mowers disclose to be useful in making the aircraft.
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Law further includes an adhesive layer between the first flooring material and a top surface of the ramp portion (e.g. as provided in “channels”, e.g. “channels” 7: e.g. the lone drawing; pp. 2, 4, 5).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Stolle discloses the aircraft further includes a sealant between the first edge of the first flooring material and the first side surface of the vertical body portion (“sealing seam/sealing compound” 10: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0027]). Similar features can thus be used with the threshold Law and Mowers disclose to be useful in making the aircraft.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Law discloses the first flooring material is a mat and the second flooring material is carpet (e.g. pp. 1 – 5).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, Stolle discloses the second edge of the carpet is edge treated (e.g. Fig. 1). Similar features can thus be used with the threshold Law and Mowers disclose to be useful in making the aircraft.
Regarding claim 18, Law discloses a method of installing flooring materials and a threshold, the method comprising:
adhering a first portion of a first flooring material to a subfloor (implied due per use of a “trim”, e.g. “trim” 1, to connect two adjacent “floorcoverings”: e.g. pp. 1 – 5);
adhering the threshold to the subfloor near a first edge of the first flooring material (the “trim”, e.g. “trim” 1: e.g. the lone drawing; pp. 1 – 5), the threshold including:
a vertical body portion having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, a second side surface opposite the first side surface, and an overhang on the second side surface, the vertical body portion having a concave area extending into the second side surface at the bottom surface (collectively formed by a “riser” and a “binder” which form a “downwardly curved and pointed edge” to extend over one of the “floorcoverings”, e.g. “riser” 3 and “binder” 4 forming “edge” 9: e.g. the lone drawing; pp. 1 – 5); and
a ramp portion extending from the first side surface, the ramp portion having a decreasing thickness from the vertical body portion to a distal end of the ramp portion (“base portion” whose thickness “tapers” and is covered with the other of the “floorcoverings”, e.g. “base portion” 2: e.g. the lone drawing; pp. 1 – 5);
adhering a second portion of the first flooring material on top of the ramp portion of the threshold such that the first edge of the first flooring material is adjacent the first side surface of the vertical body portion (e.g. through “channels”, e.g. “channels” 7, containing adhesive: e.g. the lone drawing; pp. 1 – 5); and
adhering a second flooring material to the subfloor and tucking a second edge of the second flooring material into the concave area of the threshold (implied due per use of a “trim”, e.g. “trim” 1, to connect two adjacent “floorcoverings”: e.g. pp. 1 – 5), the overhang disposed above a portion of the second flooring material (so “binder” 4 “grips” the edge of the adjacent “floorcovering”: e.g. pp. 2 – 4).
For convenience, Law’s drawing is annotated below to show correspondence to the claimed features. A dotted line is drawn through the threshold to show a boundary between the vertical body portion and the ramp potion
PNG
media_image2.png
412
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Vertical body portion Ramp portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second side surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Concave area)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Top surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bottom surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First side surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Distal end)]
Although Law is not explicit as to the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang, this feature would have been obvious in view of Mowers.
Mowers discloses a threshold to be installed between two flooring materials (“transition” 1: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0009] – [0063]), the threshold comprising, in relevant part:
a vertical body portion having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the second side surface having a concave area to receive an edge of a flooring material, the concave area forming an overhang on the second side surface, the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang (“post”, “wall” 3: e.g. Fig. 1 – 8; ¶¶ [0022] – [0025], [0027]).
While Mowers considers their vertical body portion to be “devoid” of an overhang (e.g. ¶ [0022]), the examiner observes the structure of Mowers’ vertical body portion still provides an overhang within the scope of the claims and the instant specification.
More specifically, Mowers discloses the vertical body portion having a “radius carpet tile side” 11 (abbreviated “RC”) and “height of nose” 27 of “cap” 13 (abbreviated “HL”) for the vertical body portion (e.g. Fig. 6; Table 1; ¶ [0026]), provided below for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
856
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given RC and the “radius of cap” 13 (RP) are defined by a radius, these features are understood to as arcs of a circle. Accordingly, a concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang is described. The examiner has sketched below these circles (not to any particular scale) in order to better understand the curved surface and how a width of the overhang can be calculated from the parameters Mowers discloses.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
In the above sketch, Mowers’ RC defines the circle on the left, and Mowers’ RP defines the circle on the right. Furthermore, the horizontal dashed line goes through the RP circle center, and the diagonal dashed line connects said horizontal dashed line with the point where the two circles meet, this meeting point being where the “cap” 13 of Mowers’ vertical body portion transitions to the “carpet-facing side” 11, which also serves as the defining point for the right vertical dashed line. The left vertical dashed line corresponds to the edge of the “carpet-facing side” 11 at its lowermost point. Thus, the distance between the two vertical dashed lines will be understood as the claimed width (abbreviated “w”).
From these reference points, the dashed lines form a right triangle having sides of length HL (in the vertical) and RC – w (in the horizontal, observing the radius of the right circle also connects with the left vertical dashed line) with a hypotenuse of RC. Therefore, by Pythagorean theorem,
H
L
2
+
(
R
C
-
w
)
2
=
R
C
2
Rearranging for w,
R
C
-
w
2
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
w
=
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
R
C
-
R
C
2
-
H
L
2
=
w
While non-limiting, Mowers discloses RC of 0.485 to 0.627 inches and HL of 0.203 to 0.255 inches. Evaluating values of w using each combination of values for RC and HL Mowers discloses yields a range of 0.033 to 0.072 inches. The instant specification discloses overhangs having a width encompassing this range (corresponding to width W3: e.g. Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0041], [0067]).
Accordingly, while Mowers may not consider their vertical body portion as having an overhang, the descriptions Mowers provides of the vertical body portion define the same as having an overhang per the instant specification.
Additionally, Mowers Fig. 8 shows a form-fitting nature of the vertical body portion (“fit snugly”: e.g. ¶ [0060]) consistent with Law’s requirements (see also, e.g., Law’s pp. 1 and 4 regarding ease of traversal by mitigating accidents). Mowers in particular states there is an easing in traversing the transition from carpet to tiles in such a manner that jolts are prevented, e.g. as may occur from wheeled carts and foot stubbing (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0023]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Law’s concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang as Mowers suggests, the motivation being to prevent jolts from wheeled carts or foot stubbing.
Although Law is not explicit as to installing the flooring materials and a threshold comprising the above features in an aircraft, and particularly to a subfloor in the aircraft, Law does not limit the use to any particular application (general use in stores and buildings is mentioned but not limited: e.g. p. 1). Rather, Law notes the threshold is useful wherever there is accident mitigation is beneficial (e.g. pp. 1, 4). Mowers also discloses this feature of their threshold, noting particular use where wheeled carts can travel, e.g. food service carts (e.g. ¶¶ [0005], [0023]). Stolle describes aircraft as an environment where trolleys, i.e. carts, are used for this purpose and thresholds are used between flooring materials (e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0009], [0010]). Therefore, Law, Mowers, and Stolle collectively describe applications where the same benefits are had and thus equivalent to one another
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to install the flooring materials and the threshold Law and Mowers disclose in an aircraft with a subfloor, first and second flooring materials, and a threshold having the features Law and Mowers suggest, the motivation being to prevent accidents at the transition between the first and second flooring materials.
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 18, Stolle further includes adding a sealant between the first edge of the first flooring material and the first side surface of the vertical body portion of the threshold (“sealing seam/sealing compound” 10: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0027]). Similar features can thus be used with the threshold Law and Mowers disclose to be useful in making the aircraft..
Regarding claim 21, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Law discloses the first side surface does not include an overhang (e.g. the lone drawing).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolle and Mowers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urban (US 2013/0104481 A1).
Regarding claim 3, although Stolle is not explicit as to the threshold being constructed of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), this feature would have been obvious in view of Urban.
As a material for the threshold, Stolle notes aluminum and other metals can be used (e.g. ¶ [0013]) but does not explicitly limit the threshold to being made from these metals. Urban notes TPU is an equivalent to metals such as aluminum for thresholds (equivalency noted for “shim devices” 10: e.g. ¶ [0024]). Given vertical strength is a concern for both Urban (e.g. ¶ [0020]) and Stolle (due to the weight trolleys traversing thereover: e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0011], [0014]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have observed an equivalence of materials can be made, and thus substitution of one for the other.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for Stolle’s threshold to be constructed of TPU as Urban suggests, the rationale being that substitution of a metal like aluminum for TPU is known to those of ordinary skill in the art and amounts no predictable results. MPEP § 2143, I, B.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawand Mowers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urban.
Regarding claim 3, although Law is not explicit as to the threshold being constructed of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), this feature would have been obvious in view of Urban.
As a material for the threshold, Law notes aluminum and other metals can be used (e.g. p. 3) but does not explicitly limit the threshold to being made from these metals. Urban notes TPU is an equivalent to metals such as aluminum for thresholds (equivalency noted for “shim devices” 10: e.g. ¶ [0024]). Given vertical strength is a concern for both Urban (e.g. ¶ [0020]) and Law (due to the weight trolleys traversing thereover: e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0011], [0014]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have observed an equivalence of materials can be made, and thus substitution of one for the other.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for Law’s threshold to be constructed of TPU as Urban suggests, the rationale being that substitution of a metal like aluminum for TPU is known to those of ordinary skill in the art and amounts no predictable results. MPEP § 2143, I, B.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowers as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Urban.
Regarding claim 16, although Mowers is not explicit as to the threshold being constructed of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), this feature would have been obvious in view of Urban.
As a material for the threshold, Mowers notes polyvinyl chloride may be used (e.g. ¶ [0027]) but does not explicitly limit the threshold to being made from these metals. Urban notes TPU is an equivalent to polyvinyl chloride for thresholds (equivalency noted for “shim devices” 10: e.g. ¶ [0024]). Given vertical strength is a concern for both Urban (e.g. ¶ [0020]) and Mowers (due to the wheeled carts traversing thereover: e.g. ¶ [0005]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have observed an equivalence of materials can be made, and thus substitution of one for the other.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for Mowers’ threshold to be constructed of TPU as Urban suggests, the rationale being that substitution of polyvinyl chloride for TPU is known to those of ordinary skill in the art and amounts no predictable results. MPEP § 2143, I, B.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Law and Mowers as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Urban.
Regarding claim 16, although Law is not explicit as to the threshold being constructed of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), this feature would have been obvious in view of Urban.
As a material for the threshold, Law notes aluminum and other metals can be used (e.g. p. 3) but does not explicitly limit the threshold to being made from these metals. Urban notes TPU is an equivalent to metals such as aluminum for thresholds (equivalency noted for “shim devices” 10: e.g. ¶ [0024]). Given vertical strength is a concern for both Urban (e.g. ¶ [0020]) and Law (due to the weight trolleys traversing thereover: e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0011], [0014]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have observed an equivalence of materials can be made, and thus substitution of one for the other.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for Law’s threshold to be constructed of TPU as Urban suggests, the rationale being that substitution of a metal like aluminum for TPU is known to those of ordinary skill in the art and amounts no predictable results. MPEP § 2143, I, B.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stolle and Mowers as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Urban.
Regarding claim 16, although Stolle is not explicit as to the threshold being constructed of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), this feature would have been obvious in view of Urban.
As a material for the threshold, Stolle notes aluminum and other metals can be used (e.g. ¶ [0013]) but does not explicitly limit the threshold to being made from these metals. Urban notes TPU is an equivalent to metals such as aluminum for thresholds (equivalency noted for “shim devices” 10: e.g. ¶ [0024]). Given vertical strength is a concern for both Urban (e.g. ¶ [0020]) and Stolle (due to the weight trolleys traversing thereover: e.g. ¶¶ [0010], [0011], [0014]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have observed an equivalence of materials can be made, and thus substitution of one for the other.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for Stolle’s threshold to be constructed of TPU as Urban suggests, the rationale being that substitution of a metal like aluminum for TPU is known to those of ordinary skill in the art and amounts no predictable results. MPEP § 2143, I, B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7 – 11, filed 24 December 2025, with respect to:
(I) the rejections of claims 1, 4, 7 – 13, and 18 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Stolle;
(II) the rejections of claims 13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Law; and
(III) the rejections of claims 3 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Stolle and Urban; and
(IV) the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Law and Urban;
have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mowers as a secondary reference.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7 – 11, filed 24 December 2025, with respect to:
(V) the rejections of claims 13 – 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Mowers;
(VI) the rejections of claims 2, 5, 6, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Stolle and Mowers; and
(VII) the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Mowers and Urban have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts patentability of the claims on the basis that the cited references do not teach a threshold including a vertical body portion having a top surface, a bottom surface opposite the top surface, a first side surface, a second side surface opposite the first side surface, and an overhang on the second side surface, the vertical body portion has a concave area extending into the second side surface, the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang.
The examiner observes Mowers addresses these features, contrary to Applicant’s assertions. Accordingly, the following discussion of Mowers applies to all of (I) through (VII) above.
While the examiner acknowledges Mowers considers their threshold to be “devoid” of an overhang (e.g. ¶ [0022]), such a description does not take away from the fact Mowers provides a structure within the purview of an overhang as outlined in the claims and the instant specification.
As noted in the rejections, Mowers discloses the second side surface is defined by a curved surface, notably through the definition of a radius of curvature for a “top curved portion” and “bottom curved portion” (e.g. ¶ [0024]). Accordingly, a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang exists. Moreover, the dimensions Mowers discloses for this overhang are within those of the instant specification (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶¶ [0041], [0067]) and claim 2.
Accordingly, Mowers provides the necessary features to anticipate or render obvious the claims, alone or in combination with the remaining cited art herein.
Conclusion
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 ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights