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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 6/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no search burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different groups/subgroups or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). Further, the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanchfield et al. (US Patent Application No. 2010/0115870) in view of Schoch (WO 2016/062673, see machine translated version) and Tovani et al. (US Patent No. 5,827,022).
Regarding claim 1, Stanchfield et al. teach an aircraft floor assembly for use with an aircraft subfloor (page 1, paragraph [0010], page 11, paragraph [0143]), the aircraft floor assembly comprising an underlayment layer disposed on top of the aircraft subfloor (page 1, paragraph [0014]); the underlayment layer comprising an adhesive configured to adhere to the aircraft subfloor (page 3, paragraph [0062]); and a decorative layer on top of the underlayment layer (page 1, paragraph [0014], page 3, paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
Stanchfield et al. fail to teach wherein the underlayment layer comprises a first magnetically responsive material and the decorative layer comprising a second magnetically responsive material configured to couple the decorative layer to the underlayment layer. However, Schoch teaches a floor assembly (paragraph [0002]) comprising an underlayment magnetic layer including a first magnetically responsive material (paragraphs [0005], [0006]), wherein a second magnetically responsive layer is coupled to the first magnetically responsive layer (paragraphs [0005], [0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the magnetic layers of Schoch in the underlayment layer and decorative layer of Stanchfield et al. in order to make it possible to exchange different floor coverings (Schoch, paragraph [0005]).
Stanchfield et al. fail to teach wherein the underlayment layer is cut to dimensions of the aircraft subfloor to allow access to compartments below the aircraft subfloor. However, Tovani et al. teach an aircraft floor assembly (col. 1, lines 5-10, 35-60) comprising an underlayment layer that is removable to provide access to a region underneath the aircraft subfloor (col. 2, lines 27-45).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the subfloor of Tovani et al. in the floor assembly of Stanchfield et al. in order to provide a lightweight and durable aircraft interior (Tovani et al., col. 1, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 2, Stanchfield et al. teach wherein the decorative layer is selectively removable to provide access to the underlayment layer (page 1, paragraph [0014], page 3, paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 3, Stanchfield et al. fail to teach wherein the assembly further comprises an underlayment sublayer provided between the first magnetically responsive material and the decorative layer. However, Schoch teaches a floor assembly (paragraph [0002]) comprising an underlayment magnetic layer including a first magnetically responsive material (paragraphs [0005], [0006]), wherein a second magnetically responsive layer is coupled to the first magnetically responsive layer (paragraphs [0005], [0006]), wherein the assembly comprises an underlayment sublayer (paragraphs [0005], [0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the underlayment sublayer of Schoch in the assembly of Stanchfield et al. in order to make it possible to exchange different floor coverings (Schoch, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Stanchfield et al. teach wherein the underlayment layer comprises a closed cell board (page 10, paragraph [0138]).
Regarding claim 5, Stanchfield et al. fail to teach wherein the underlayment sublayer is configured to couple to the decorative layer by magnetic attraction. However, Schoch teaches a floor assembly (paragraph [0002]) comprising an underlayment magnetic layer including a first magnetically responsive material (paragraphs [0005], [0006]), wherein a second magnetically responsive layer is coupled to the first magnetically responsive layer (paragraphs [0005], [0006]), wherein the assembly comprises an underlayment sublayer (paragraphs [0005], [0006]), wherein the underlayment sublayer is configured to couple to another layer by magnetic attraction (paragraphs [0005], [0006])
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to magnetically couple the decorative layer of Stanchfield et al. to the underlayment sublayer of Schoch in order to make it possible to exchange different floor coverings (Schoch, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Stanchfield et al. do not disclose wherein the decorative layer comprises a decorative material providing at least at least a 0.45 coefficient of friction. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in coefficient of friction involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the coefficient of friction of Stanchfield et al. in order to reduce cost (Stanchfield et al., page 1, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 7, Stanchfield et al. do not disclose wherein a thickness of the decorative layer is between 0.45 inches and 0.85 inches. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the thickness of the decorative layer of Stanchfield et al. in order to provide for different finished floor thicknesses (Stanchfield et al., page 9, paragraph [0127]).
Regarding claim 8, Stanchfield et al. teach an aircraft floor assembly for use with an aircraft subfloor (page 1, paragraph [0010], page 11, paragraph [0143]), the aircraft floor assembly comprising an underlayment layer disposed on top of the aircraft subfloor (page 1, paragraph [0014]); and a decorative layer on top of the underlayment layer (page 1, paragraph [0014], page 3, paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
Stanchfield et al. fail to teach wherein the underlayment layer comprises a first magnetically responsive material; an underlayment sublayer and the decorative layer comprising a second magnetically responsive material configured to couple the decorative layer to the underlayment layer. However, Schoch teaches a floor assembly (paragraph [0002]) comprising an underlayment magnetic layer including a first magnetically responsive material (paragraphs [0005], [0006]), an underlayment sublayer (paragraphs [0005], [0006]), wherein a second magnetically responsive layer is coupled to the first magnetically responsive layer (paragraphs [0005], [0006]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the magnetic layers of Schoch in the underlayment layer and decorative layer of Stanchfield et al. in order to make it possible to exchange different floor coverings (Schoch, paragraph [0005]).
Stanchfield et al. fail to teach wherein the underlayment layer is cut to dimensions of the aircraft subfloor to allow access to compartments below the aircraft subfloor. However, Tovani et al. teach an aircraft floor assembly (col. 1, lines 5-10, 35-60) comprising an underlayment layer that is removable to provide access to a region underneath the aircraft subfloor (col. 2, lines 27-45).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the subfloor of Tovani et al. in the floor assembly of Stanchfield et al. in order to provide a lightweight and durable aircraft interior (Tovani et al., col. 1, lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 9, Stanchfield et al. teach wherein the decorative layer is selectively removable to provide access to the underlayment layer (page 1, paragraph [0014], page 3, paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
Regarding claim 10, Stanchfield et al. teach wherein the underlayment layer comprises a closed cell board (page 10, paragraph [0138]).
Regarding claim 11, Stanchfield et al. do not disclose wherein a combined weight of the underlayment layer and the decorative layer is less than three pounds per square foot. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in weight involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the weight of the underlayment layer and the decorative layer of Stanchfield et al. in order to reduce cost (Stanchfield et al., page 1, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 12, Stanchfield et al. do not disclose wherein the decorative layer comprises a decorative material providing at least at least a 0.45 coefficient of friction. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in coefficient of friction involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the coefficient of friction of Stanchfield et al. in order to reduce cost (Stanchfield et al., page 1, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 13, Stanchfield et al. do not disclose wherein a thickness of the decorative layer is between 0.45 inches and 0.85 inches. However, where in the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in thickness involve only routine skill in the art, absence a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II. One would have been motivated to modify the thickness of the decorative layer of Stanchfield et al. in order to provide for different finished floor thicknesses (Stanchfield et al., page 9, paragraph [0127]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 EST.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 7/24/2026
Prosecution Insights