DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-8 as originally filed are pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “locking key” of claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, at line 1-3, the recitation “suitable” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. The term suitable is vague and ambiguous and will be examined under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, at lines 1-6, the recitation “smooth” renders the claim indefinite because the term is a relative or subjective term that does not provide a clear boundary as to what would qualify as “smooth”. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation will be examined under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, at line 8, the recitation “shallow as possible” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. The terms shallow and possible are relative, vague, and ambiguous and will be examined under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 1, at line 15, the recitation "the upper straight part" renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, at line 4, the recitation "the undersurface" renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, at line 1, the recitation “a tile or ramp element superposed another tile or ramp element” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis or creates ambiguity as to whether it is referring to the same previously recited limitation of tile element or a rampa element. Furthermore, it is unclear if the claim should depend from claim 1, or claim 4 to support the antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, at line 3, the recitation "the floor" renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, at line 9, the recitation “if necessary” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. The term suitable is vague and ambiguous and will be examined under broadest reasonable interpretation, as being optional.
Regarding claim 7, at line 12, the recitation "the undersurface" renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, at line 19, the recitation “the straight part has a first thickness” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what “has” the “first thickness”. It is not clear as to which part is being referred to specifically.
Regarding claim 8, at line 2, the recitation “its raised position…the proper closing” enders the claim indefinite because the term “its” is unclear, the term “proper” is a relative term which leads to ambiguity, and “raised position” and “the proper closing position” lack antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 8, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Javier et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0212858).
Regarding claim 1, Javier et al. teaches a bridge structure suitable to provide a transition way across a threshold in an openable doorway (abstract), wherein the bridge structure comprises: a first ramp structure (104) suitable to be arranged on the opposite side of a door to which the door opens (figure 2), wherein the first ramp structure is built up from one or more layers of ramp elements (figure 2) and optionally tile elements, assembled to provide a first section (at 104) of an inclined ramp having a substantially upper smooth transition surface (figure 2), wherein a first height along a first side (doorway adjacent side of 104) in use substantially corresponds to or is higher than the height of the threshold (figure 2) and a height along a second opposing side (opposite floor adjacent side) which is as shallow as possible (figure 2); and a bridge element (108/402), comprising a first bridge part (108) fastened to the first ramp structure (figure 12), wherein the first bridge part by a hinge (402) is pivotably connected to a second bridge part (flanges at 1206/1208), wherein the bridge element comprises one or more layers of tile and/or ramp elements (108), wherein the bridge element has an upper surface and a lower surface (top and bottom surfaces of the bridge element), wherein the first bridge part has a first inclined part (at 108) and optionally a straight part wherein the first bridge part has a maximum thickness (arbitrary thickness of 108) and wherein the second bridge part has a straight part (1206) and a second inclined part (1208), wherein the second inclined part connects the upper straight part or first inclined part with a surface in use outside of the door (figure 11).
Regarding claim 2, Javier et al. teaches the bridge element is made up of one or more ramp elements (104) and one or more tile elements (108), wherein the tile elements are of the same type (figure 11).
Regarding claim 3, Javier et al. teaches a support structure (106), suitable to be arranged on the side of the door to which the door opens up to is provided (figure 11), the support structure having an underside and an upper surface (top and bottom surfaces of 106), wherein the support structure has a height in use between the undersurface and the upper surface lower than the lowest point of the door (figure 11), wherein the support structure is built from one or more tile elements in one or more layers (figure 11) and optionally ramp elements.
Regarding claim 7, Javier et al. teaches a method of providing a transition way across a threshold in an openable doorway by a bridge structure (abstract), comprising: a. arranging an interior ramp structure (104) on the floor on the opposite side of a door to which the door opens (figure 11), wherein the interior ramp is built up from one or more ramp elements (figure 2) and optionally tile elements, in one or more layers (figure 2), assembled to provide a first section (at 104) of an inclined ramp having a substantially upper smooth transition surface (figure 2), having a first height along a first side (doorway adjacent side of 104) adjacent the threshold (figure 2) and a height along a second opposing side (opposite floor adjacent side) is as shallow as possible thereby being substantially flush with the floor (figure 2), and b. if necessary arranging an exterior ramp and/or surface structure (106) on the side of the door to which the door opens up to (figure 2), the exterior ramp and/or surface structure having an underside arranged on a support surface and an upper surface (top and bottom surfaces of 106), wherein the ramp and/or surface structure has a height in use between the undersurface and the upper surface lower than the lowest point of the door (figure 2), wherein the exterior ramp structure is built from one or more tile elements in one or more layers and optionally ramp elements (figure 2); c. arranging a bridge element (108/402), comprising a first bridge part (1206/1208) fastened to the interior ramp structure (figure 12), wherein the first bridge part by a hinge (402) is pivotably connected to a second bridge part (108), wherein the bridge element comprises one or more layers of tile and/or ramp elements (figure 12), wherein the bridge element has an upper surface and a lower surface (top and bottom surfaces of the bridge element), wherein the first bridge part has an inclined part (1208) and a straight part (1206) and between upper and lower surfaces of the straight part has a first thickness (arbitrary thickness of the first bridge part) and wherein the second bridge part when the straight surfaces on the first and second bridge parts are flush, has a lower surface in contact with the support surface or the upper surface of the exterior ramp (it is understood that when the straight surfaces on the first and second bridge parts are flush, the second bridge part would have a lower surface in contact with the support surface or the upper surface of the exterior ramp; figure 12 illustrates this in part, and once the first and second bridge parts are flush, the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 8, Javier et al. teaches the hinge is arranged at a distance “a” (arbitrary distance) in use from the inside of a door, such that the bridge element in its raised position is capable of not interfering with closing of the door (the examiner notes that the door is not being positively claimed).
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-6, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javier et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0212858) in view of Frederiksen (WO 01/02667 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Javier et al. does not specifically disclose the ramp elements and tile elements have a surface plate defined by an upper side and a rear side, wherein the surface plate is continued along the edges with wall portions extending substantially orthogonal from the surface plate, the wall portions defining the thickness of the tile elements or ramp elements and wherein the surface plate is provided with a pattern of apertures, and wherein at least between some of the apertures extending from the rear side of the surface plate a number of support towers are provided.
Frederiksen discloses ramp elements (abstract) having a surface plate (2) defined by an upper side and a rear side (top and bottom sides of 2), wherein the surface plate is continued along the edges with wall portions extending substantially orthogonal from the surface plate (figure 1), the wall portions defining the thickness of the tile elements or ramp elements (figure 1) and wherein the surface plate is provided with a pattern of apertures (16), and wherein at least between some of the apertures extending from the rear side of the surface plate a number of support towers (10) are provided (figure 2).
Therefore, from the teaching of Frederiksen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the threshold assembly of Javier et al. to include a surface plate defined by an upper side and a rear side, wherein the surface plate is continued along the edges with wall portions extending substantially orthogonal from the surface plate, the wall portions defining the thickness of the tile elements or ramp elements and wherein the surface plate is provided with a pattern of apertures, and wherein at least between some of the apertures extending from the rear side of the surface plate a number of support towers are provided, as taught by Frederiksen, in order to provide structural and modular support for thresholds of different heights since it is known in the art for thresholds to have different height variations.
Regarding claim 5, Javier et al. does not specifically disclose when a tile element or a ramp element is superposed another tile or ramp element, apertures in one element are superposed apertures in the other element and a locking key is inserted through overlapping apertures locking the two elements together.
Frederiksen discloses ramp elements (abstract) such that when a tile element or a ramp element is superposed another tile or ramp element (figures 1-2), apertures in one element are superposed apertures in the other element (figures 1-2) and a locking key (18) is inserted through overlapping apertures locking the two elements together (col. 6, lines 10-15).
Therefore, from the teaching of Frederiksen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the threshold assembly of Javier et al. such that when a tile element or a ramp element is superposed another tile or ramp element, apertures in one element are superposed apertures in the other element and a locking key is inserted through overlapping apertures locking the two elements together, as taught by Frederiksen, in order to provide and secure modular supports for thresholds of different heights since it is known in the art for thresholds to have different height variations.
Regarding claim 6, Javier et al. as modified does not specifically disclose the tiles have a height of 15 to 20 mm, width between 400 to 800 mm, length between 400 to 800 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the tiles have a height of 15 to 20 mm, width between 400 to 800 mm, length between 400 to 800 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art [at the time the invention was made] before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the tiles have a height of 15 to 20 mm, width between 400 to 800 mm, length between 400 to 800 mm, in order to provide the optimal support surface and length and width dimensions to accommodate wheelchairs, walkers and scooters.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to bridge structures in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633