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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Bryant (US Pub. 2019/0218849 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bryant discloses a door threshold member configured to be removably secured to a substrate attached to a subfloor (Abstract, lines 1-2: “Provided is a door threshold assembly for placing below a door”), the substrate having an inner substrate edge and an outer substrate edge (Fig. 2, base 1), the door threshold member comprising a one-piece, jointless deck configured to at least partially cover the substrate (Fig. 2, deck 2 is a single piece), the deck having an upper deck surface and a lower deck surface (Fig. 2, deck 2 has an upper and lower surface) and further comprising a deck support having a lower securing leg configured to be adjacent the outer substrate edge (Fig. 2, support 2D), a base leg extending down from the lower deck surface a length to be adjacent an upper subfloor surface between the lower securing leg and an outer edge of the subfloor (Fig. 2, receiver 2C), and a drip leg adjacent an outer edge of the deck extending down a length that is longer than the base leg (Fig. 2, front end 9).
Regarding claim 2, Bryant discloses wherein the base leg includes a foot portion extending perpendicularly inward toward the substrate (Fig. 2, receiver 2C has a portion that extends inwards).
Regarding claim 3, Bryant discloses wherein the base leg extends downward from the lower surface of the deck parallel to the outer edge of the substrate (Fig. 2, receiver 2C has a portion that extends downwards from the deck).
Regarding claim 4, Bryant discloses wherein the foot portion extends inwardly to and is connected the lower securing leg (Fig. 2, receiver 2C connects to support 2D via the deck).
Regarding claim 5, Bryant discloses wherein the drip leg extends downward from the lower surface of the deck parallel to the outer edge of the substrate (Fig. 2, front end 9 extends downwards parallel to the base).
Regarding claim 8, Bryant discloses wherein the deck and deck support comprise a unitary structural element (Fig. 2, deck 2 is a single piece).
Regarding claim 9, Bryant discloses wherein the deck and deck support are formed from a continuous piece of metallic material (Pg. 2, [0022], lines 1-2: “Deck 2 can be made from a metal, such as aluminum”).
Regarding claim 10, Bryant discloses wherein an upper securing leg extends downward from the lower surface of the deck adjacent a second outer edge of the deck distal to the first outer edge of the deck, the upper securing leg having a first end connected to the deck and the second end having a foot portion extending therefrom dimensioned and configured to be at least partially disposed within an upper groove in the substrate (Fig. 2, support 2E is received by a groove in the base).
Regarding claim 11, Bryant discloses further wherein the foot portion extends perpendicularly toward the outer edge of the substrate (Fig. 2, support 2E extends perpendicularly into the base).
Regarding claim 13, Bryant discloses a door threshold member configured to be removably secured to a substrate attached to a subfloor upper surface (Abstract, lines 1-2: “Provided is a door threshold assembly for placing below a door”), the door threshold comprising a substantially planar deck extending from a first inner deck edge to a second outer deck edge and configured to at least partially cover the substrate (Fig. 2, deck 2), the deck having a drip leg extending down from the outer deck edge a length sufficient to be lower than the subfloor upper surface (Fig. 2, front end 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6-7, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US Pub. 2019/0218849 A1) in view of Monts De Oca (US Pub. 11,047,165 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Bryant discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Monts de Oca, similarly drawn to a threshold assembly, wherein a cross support is connected to the base leg and the drip leg (Fig. 1, all of the legs extending from deck cover 60 also attach to each other with base 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to extend the foot portion of Van Camp in view of McMillan to include the cross support between the base leg and the drip leg as taught by Monts De Oca for improved structural integrity.
Regarding claim 7, Bryant in view of Monts de Oca discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Monts de Oca, wherein cross support has a slope from the base leg to the drip leg with an angle that ranges from about 0 degrees to about 45 degrees from horizontal (Fig. 1, bottom flange 70 is substantially horizontal).
Regarding claim 19, Bryant discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Monts de Oca, similarly drawn to a threshold assembly, wherein a cross support is connected to the base leg and the drip leg (Fig. 1, all of the legs extending from deck cover 60 also attach to each other with base 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to extend the foot portion of Van Camp in view of McMillan to include the cross support between the base leg and the drip leg as taught by Monts De Oca for improved structural integrity.
Claim(s) 12, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US Pub. 2019/0218849 A1) in view of Van Camp (US Pub. 2015/0052820 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Bryant discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Van Camp, similarly drawn to a threshold with a sill deck, wherein the lower securing leg includes a foot portion extending into a lower groove in the substrate adjacent the subfloor (Fig. 4, proximate seal 110 is a leg comprising a foot portion that extends into a groove in the substrate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door threshold member of Bryant to include the foot portion of Van Camp for improved attachment to the base.
Regarding claim 14, Bryant discloses a lower securing leg extending downward from the lower surface of the deck (Fig. 2, support 2D).
However, Bryant fails to disclose as taught by Van Camp, similarly drawn to a threshold with a sill deck, a lower securing leg with a first end connected to the deck and the second end having a foot portion extending perpendicularly inward toward the substrate dimensioned and configured to be at least partially disposed within a lower groove of the substrate (Fig. 4, proximate seal 110 is a leg comprising a foot portion that extends into a groove in the substrate).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door threshold member of Bryant to include the foot portion of Van Camp for improved attachment to the base.
Regarding claim 15, Bryant in view of Van Camp discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Bryant, wherein a base leg extends downward from the lower surface of the deck between the lower securing leg and the drip leg (Fig. 2, receiver 2C).
Regarding claim 16, Bryant in view of Van Camp discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Bryant, wherein the base leg includes a first end connected to the deck (Fig. 2, receiver 2C) and a second end having a foot portion extending perpendicularly inward toward the substrate (Fig. 2, receiver 2C has a portion that extends inwards).
Regarding claim 17, Bryant in view of Van Camp discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Van Camp, wherein the foot portion extends to and is connected to the lower securing leg (Fig. 4, the leg comprises a foot portion that extends towards the substrate 15 in a substantially perpendicular manner).
Regarding claim 18, Bryant in view of Van Camp discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Bryant, wherein the drip leg extends downward from the lower surface of the deck parallel to the outer edge of the substrate (Fig. 2, front end 9 extends downwards parallel to the base), and further wherein the drip leg is longer than the base leg (Fig. 2, front end 9).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryant (US Pub. 2019/0218849 A1) in view of Monts De Oca (US Pub. 11,047,165 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Bryant discloses a door sill assembly for a manufactured home, the apparatus comprising:
a substrate having an inner edge and an outer edge (Fig. 2, base 1);
a threshold member configured to be removably secured to the substrate (Fig. 1, the combination of the deck 2 and rail 4), the threshold member having a deck at least partially covering the substrate (Fig. 1, deck 2), wherein the deck has a one-piece, jointless construction (The deck is formed of a single piece), the deck having an upper surface and an opposing lower surface and further comprising a deck support having a lower securing leg (Fig. 2, support 2D), a drip leg extending down from the deck a length sufficient to be lower than a subfloor upper surface (Fig. 2, front end 9), a base leg between the lower securing leg and the drip leg (Fig. 2, receiver 2C);
and a sill cap configured to be removably secured to the substrate (Fig. 1, rail 4).
However, Bryant fails to disclose as taught by Monts De Oca, similarly drawn to a threshold assembly, a cross support connecting the base leg to the drip leg (Fig. 1, all of the legs extending from deck cover 60 also attach to each other with base 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to extend the foot portion of Bryant to include the cross support between the base leg and the drip leg as taught by Monts De Oca for improved structural integrity.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights