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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8 July 2026, per the request for continued examination filed 24 July 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 8 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 16, 18, and 19 remain pending in the application. Claims 22 and 23 are new claims commensurate with claim 1 and therefore are under consideration.
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 13 – 16 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 13, claim 13 is directed to a “threshold to be installed between two flooring materials” comprising a “first overhang extending over a first edge of the first flooring material” and a “second overhang extending over a second edge of the second flooring material”. Here, the examiner understands the “two flooring materials” in the preamble to be the “first flooring material” and “second flooring material” read together as a combination in the body of claim 13.
In the preamble, the phrase “to be installed” describes an intended use of the threshold rather than an actual construction where the threshold is installed between the two flooring materials. However, this contradicts the recitations of the first and second overhangs respectively extending over the first and second flooring materials as recited in the body of the claim. That is, the preamble is directed to the threshold and its intended use whereas the body of claim 13 is directed to a combination of the threshold with the flooring materials. Accordingly, clear 13 is unclear in that it cannot be determined whether the claim is directed to the combination or the sub-combination.
For purposes of assessment with respect to the prior art, the preamble recitation is considered controlling herein.
Regarding claims 14 – 16, each of claims 14 – 16 depends, directly or indirectly, on claim 13. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph. Accordingly, claims 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reasons as claim 13.
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 1, 4 – 6, 11, 13 – 15, 18, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US 3,696,461 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kelly discloses an aircraft (e.g. Col. 1, l. 56, to Col. 6, l. 14) comprising:
a subfloor (“deck”: e.g. Col. 1, ll. 59 – 60; Col. 4, ll. 13 – 16, 19 – 23, 30 – 37, 46 – 49; Col. 5, ll. 4 – 7);
first flooring material on the subfloor, the first flooring material having a first edge (a first one of a “permanent carpet” and a “removable carpet”: e.g. Fig. 2, 6; Col. 1, l. 56, to Col. 2, l. 3; Col. 3, ll. 8 – 11; Col. 4, l. 65, to Col. 5, l. 2);
second flooring material on the subfloor, the second flooring material having a second edge (the other of the “permanent carpet” and “removable carpet”: e.g. Fig. 2, 6; Col. 1, l. 56, to Col. 2, l. 3; Col. 3, ll. 8 – 11; Col. 4, l. 65, to Col. 5, l. 2); and
a threshold at least partially between the first flooring material and the second flooring material (“strip”, e.g. “member” 14, “saddle” 16: e.g. Fig. 1 – 7; Col. 4, l. 1, to Col. 5, l. 35), 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, a first overhang extending from the top surface on the first side surface, and a second overhang extending from the top surface on the second side surface, the vertical body portion having a concave area extending into the second side surface, the first overhang extending over the first edge of the first flooring material, the second overhang extending over the second edge of the second flooring material (e.g. Fig. 2, 4 – 7; Col. 4, l. 1, to Col. 5, l. 35); 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 (e.g. Fig. 2, 4 – 7).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kelly discloses the threshold is a monolithic structure (e.g. Fig. 2, 4 – 6).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kelly discloses the vertical body portion has a third edge between the top surface and the first side surface and a fourth edge between the top surface and the second side surface, and wherein the top surface of the vertical body portion is curved between the third edge of the vertical body portion and the fourth edge of the vertical body portion (e.g. Fig. 5, 6).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 5, Kelly discloses the third edge of the vertical body portion is rounded and the fourth edge of the vertical body portion is rounded (e.g. Fig. 5, 6).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kelly discloses the first flooring material is a mat and the second flooring material is carpet (as written, the term “mat” is not descriptive of any particular material, so the “permanent carpet” and “removable carpet” can each be considered a “mat”: e.g. Fig. 2, 6; Col. 1, l. 56, to Col. 6, l. 9).
Regarding claim 13, Kelly discloses a threshold (“strip”, e.g. “member” 14, “saddle” 16: e.g. Fig. 1 – 7; Col. 4, l. 1, to Col. 5, l. 35) to be installed between two flooring materials ( “permanent carpet” and a “removable carpet”: e.g. Fig. 2, 6; Col. 1, l. 56, to Col. 2, l. 3; Col. 3, ll. 8 – 11; Col. 4, l. 65, to Col. 5, l. 2), the threshold comprising:
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, a first overhang extending from the top surface on the first side surface, and a second overhang extending from the top surface on the second side surface, the first overhang extending over a first edge of the first flooring material, the second overhang extending over a second edge of the second flooring material, the second side surface having a concave area to receive the second edge of the second flooring material (e.g. Fig. 2, 4 – 7; Col. 4, l. 1, to Col. 5, l. 35); 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 (e.g. Fig. 2, 4 – 7).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, Kelly discloses the vertical body portion has a third edge between the top surface and the first side surface and a fourth edge between the top surface and the second side surface, and wherein the top surface of the vertical body portion is curved between the third edge of the vertical body portion and the fourth edge of the vertical body portion (e.g. Fig. 5, 6).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 14, Kelly discloses the third edge of the vertical body portion is rounded and the fourth edge of the vertical body portion is rounded (e.g. Fig. 5, 6).
Regarding claim 18, Kelly discloses a method of installing flooring materials and a threshold in an aircraft (e.g. Col. 1, l. 56, to Col. 6, l. 14), the method comprising:
adhering a first portion of a first flooring material to a subfloor in the aircraft (a first one of a “permanent carpet” and a “removable carpet” on a “deck”: e.g. Fig. 2, 6; Col. 1, l. 56, to Col. 2, l. 3; Col. 3, ll. 8 – 11; Col. 4, l. 65, to Col. 5, l. 2);
adhering the threshold to the subfloor near a first edge of the first flooring material (“strip”, e.g. “member” 14, “saddle” 16: e.g. Fig. 1 – 7; Col. 4, l. 1, to Col. 5, l. 35), 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, a first overhang extending from the top surface on the first side surface, and a second overhang extending from the top surface on the second side surface, the vertical body portion having a concave area extending into the second side surface, the concave area having a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the overhang (e.g. Fig. 2, 4 – 7; Col. 4, l. 1, to Col. 5, l. 35); 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 (e.g. Fig. 2, 4 – 7);
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 and the first overhang extends over the first edge (e.g. Fig. 2, 6; Col. 1, l. 56, to Col. 2, l. 3; Col. 3, ll. 8 – 11; Col. 4, l. 65, to Col. 5, l. 2); 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 second overhang disposed above a portion extending over the second edge of the second flooring material (the other of the “permanent carpet” and the “removable carpet” on a “deck”: e.g. Fig. 2, 6; Col. 1, l. 56, to Col. 2, l. 3; Col. 3, ll. 8 – 11; Col. 4, l. 65, to Col. 5, l. 2).
Regarding claim 22, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kelly discloses the concave area has a curved surface extending from the bottom surface to the second overhang (e.g. Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 23, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kelly discloses the first overhang extends over a first portion of the first flooring material, the first portion of the first flooring material including the first edge, wherein the second overhang extends over a second portion of the second flooring material, the second portion of the second flooring material including the second edge, and wherein a length of the first portion over which the first overhang extends is less than a length of the second portion of the second flooring material over which the second overhang extends (e.g. Fig. 6).
Claims 13 – 15 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.
With respect to the first overhang extending over a first edge of the first flooring material and the second overhang extending over a second edge of the second flooring material, the examiner observes claim 13 is directed to the threshold itself in the preamble rather than the actual installation of the threshold with respect to the two flooring materials. That is, “to be installed” as claim 13 recites differs from “installed”. Accordingly, patentable weight for the two flooring materials is only given to the extent that the threshold is capable of use with flooring materials as recited. Mowers’ threshold is structurally identical to that claimed and thus is understood to be the same as that claimed and can be used as recited (provided properly configured flooring materials are provided).
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 13, Mowers discloses the vertical body portion has a third edge between the top surface and the first side surface and a fourth edge between the top surface and the second side surface, and wherein the top surface of the vertical body portion is curved between the third edge of the vertical body portion and the fourth 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 third edge of the vertical body portion is rounded and the fourth edge of the vertical body portion is rounded (e.g. Fig. 1, 4, 6, 8).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, although Kelly is not explicit as to the second overhang having a width of less than 0.100 inches, Kelly discloses embodiments wherein the flooring materials are readily removed for replacement in the aircraft when the time is appropriate to replace (e.g. Col. 1, l. 56, to Col. 2, l. 50; Col. 5, l. 50, to Col. 6, l. 9). Accordingly, it would have been understood that a narrower overhang is easier to remove since the threshold provides less mechanical interference to remove and installation of new flooring material.
“[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. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for the second overhang to have a width of less than 0.100 inches in order to ease replacement of flooring material.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urban (US 2013/0104481 A1).
Regarding claim 3, although Kelly 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, Kelly discloses plastics are suitable (e.g. Col. 2, ll. 35 – 37) and would need to be able to withstand pedestrian traffic per conventional use of the threshold (e.g. Col. 1, ll. 9 – 19). Urban notes TPU is suitable for thresholds (equivalency noted for “shim devices” 10: e.g. ¶ [0024]). Given vertical strength is a concern for both Urban (e.g. ¶ [0020]) and Kelly (as previously discussed), it is observed Urban provides a material suitable for Kelly purposes, thus motivating consideration for use.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for Stolle’s threshold to be constructed of TPU as Urban suggests, the rationale being that TPU is suitable for the environment of use for the threshold.
Claims 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stolle (DE 20017532 U1, referencing a machine translation thereof provided with the Office Action mailed 25 September 2025).
Regarding claim 7, although Kelly is not explicit as to the further including an adhesive layer between the bottom surface of the threshold and the subfloor, this feature would have been obvious in view of Stolle.
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]), and
an adhesive layer between the bottom surface of the threshold and the subfloor (“microfilm adhesive tape” 6: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0015], [0018], [0024]).
Since adhesives are generally used to improve the bond between two items, such an adhesive layer would improve the contact between the threshold and the subfloor, thus maintaining the relative positions. Considering the use in aircraft flooring, this prevent slipping which Stolle is concerned with (e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0007], [0017], [0018]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Kelly’s aircraft to prevent slippage between the subfloor and the threshold.
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, although Kelly is not explicit as to the aircraft further including an adhesive layer between the first flooring material and a top surface of the ramp portion, this feature would have been obvious in view of Stolle.
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]), and
an adhesive layer between the first flooring material and a top surface of the ramp portion (“microfilm adhesive tape” 6: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0015], [0018], [0024]).
Since adhesives are generally used to improve the bond between two items, such an adhesive layer would improve the contact between the first flooring material and the ramp portion, thus maintaining the relative positions. Considering the use in aircraft flooring, this prevent slipping which Stolle is concerned with (e.g. ¶¶ [0005] – [0007], [0017], [0018]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Kelly’s aircraft to prevent slippage between the first flooring material and the ramp portion.
Regarding claim 10, although Kelly is not explicit as to the aircraft further including a sealant between the first edge of the first flooring material and the first side surface of the vertical body portion, this feature would have been obvious in view of Stolle.
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]), and
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]).
Stolle’s sealant provides a liquid-tight connection, meaning the motivation is to control liquids, e.g. fluids from trolleys, thus making cleaning easier (e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0010]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Kelly’s aircraft to comprise a sealant between the first edge of the first flooring material and the first side surface of the vertical body portion as Stolle suggests in order to ease cleaning.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Stolle.
Regarding claim 12, although Kelly is not explicit as to the second edge of the carpet being edge treated, this feature would have been obvious in view of Stolle.
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]),
wherein the second edge of the carpet is edge treated (“sealing seam/sealing compound” 10: e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0009] – [0011], [0027]).
Stolle’s edge treatment provides a liquid-tight connection, meaning the motivation is to control liquids, e.g. fluids from trolleys, thus making cleaning easier (e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0010]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Kelly’s aircraft by edge treating the second edge of the carpet as Stolle suggests in order to ease cleaning.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urban.
Regarding claim 16, although Kelly 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, Kelly discloses plastics are suitable (e.g. Col. 2, ll. 35 – 37) and would need to be able to withstand pedestrian traffic per conventional use of the threshold (e.g. Col. 1, ll. 9 – 19). Urban notes TPU is suitable for thresholds (equivalency noted for “shim devices” 10: e.g. ¶ [0024]). Given vertical strength is a concern for both Urban (e.g. ¶ [0020]) and Kelly (as previously discussed), it is observed Urban provides a material suitable for Kelly purposes, thus motivating consideration for use.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for Stolle’s threshold to be constructed of TPU as Urban suggests, the rationale being that TPU is suitable for the environment of use for the threshold.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Stolle.
Regarding claim 19, although Kelly is not explicit as to the method including further 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, this feature would have been obvious in view of Stolle.
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]), and
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]).
Stolle’s sealant provides a liquid-tight connection, meaning the motivation is to control liquids, e.g. fluids from trolleys, thus making cleaning easier (e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0010]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Kelly’s method by adding a step add a sealant between the first edge of the first flooring material and the first side surface of the vertical body portion of the threshold as Stolle suggests in order to ease cleaning.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8 – 12, filed 8 July 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive except for (emphasis added by the examiner) the rejections of claims 13 – 15 and 17 in view of Mowers under 35 U.S.C. 102. Therefore, other than the rejections highlighted in view of Mowers, these rejections have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 in view of Mowers, while the examiner appreciates Mowers teaches fibers F extending over a cap 13 (see Mowers’ Fig. 8, for instance), claim 13 and its dependents are directed to the threshold itself, not an installation of a threshold with flooring materials, e.g. an aircraft as claim 1 relates to where this is the case. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 can be maintained in view of Mowers since Mowers provides a threshold whose structure matches that claimed. A new grounds of rejection is also presented under 35 U.S.C. 112 seeking clarity of whether claim 13 is directed to the threshold or a combination of the threshold with the flooring materials.
As to the remaining claims, Kelly is cited as a new reference and therefore new grounds of rejection. Applicant asserts patentability of the claims, at least in part, due to the thresholds recited in the claims having a first overhang extending over a first edge of a first flooring material and a second overhang extending over a second edge of a second flooring material. Kelly is cited to address these features, noting Fig. 2, and 4 – 7 as depicting thresholds which meet the claim limitations. Stolle and Urban are still considered useful disclosures for thresholds used to address deficiencies of Kelly with respect to the indicated dependent claims as the features relied on in Stolle and Urban are considered beneficial independent of their threshold structures.
Conclusion
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