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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5: “an lower” should read --a lower--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "lower deck surface" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this intended to be the same limitation as “opposing lower deck surface” in line 4?
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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) 1-3, 5, 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Camp (US Pub. 2015/0052820 A1) in view of McMillan (US Pub. 12,523,086 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Van Camp discloses a door threshold member configured to be removably secured to a substrate attached to a subfloor (Abstract: “A threshold with a sill deck, a removable sill extender and a seal. The sill extender slides into a press-fit engagement with the sill deck such that the seal provides a press-fit connection between the sill deck and the sill extender”), the substrate having an inner substrate edge and an outer substrate edge (Fig. 4, substrate 15 has edges at its left-most and right-most extents), the door threshold member comprising a deck configured to at least partially cover the substrate (Fig. 4, deck 50), the deck having an upper deck surface and an opposing lower deck surface (Fig. 4, deck 50 has two opposing surfaces) and further comprising a deck support having a lower securing leg configured to be adjacent the outer substrate edge (Fig. 4, deck 50 has a leg that extends below the surface of the deck and abuts the right-most extent of substrate 15), 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, and a drip leg adjacent an outer edge of the deck extending down a length (Fig. 4, in addition to the leg that abuts the right-most extent of substrate 15, there are two more legs to the right that are configured to contact a sub-floor).
However, Van Camp fails to disclose as taught by McMillan, similarly drawn to a threshold assembly, a drip leg adjacent an outer edge of the deck extending down a length that is longer than the base leg (Fig. 55, bottom leg 2742 extends below the surfaces that the rest of the sill lies on).
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 Van Camp to include the drip leg length of McMillan for insertion into a groove to prevent lateral movement.
Regarding claim 2, Van Camp as modified by McMillan discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Van Camp, wherein the base leg includes a foot portion extending perpendicularly inward toward the substrate (Fig. 4, all of the legs extending from the deck 50 comprise a foot portion that extends towards the substrate 15 in a substantially perpendicular manner).
Regarding claim 3, Van Camp discloses wherein the base leg extends downward from the lower surface of the deck parallel to the outer edge of the substrate (Fig. 4, the legs extend from the deck 50 parallel with the right-most edge of substrate 15).
Regarding claim 5, Van Camp as modified by McMillan discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Van Camp, wherein the drip leg extends downward from the lower surface of the deck parallel to the outer edge of the substrate (Fig. 4, the right-most leg extends from the deck 50 parallel with the right-most edge of substrate 15).
Regarding claim 8, Van Camp as modified by McMillan discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Van Camp, wherein the deck and deck support comprise a unitary structural element (Fig. 4, the device is comprised of a single unified piece).
Regarding claim 9, Van Camp as modified by McMillan discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Van Camp, wherein the deck and deck support are formed from a continuous piece of material (Fig. 4, the deck 50 is continuous).
However, Van Camp as modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein the deck and deck support are formed from a continuous piece of metallic material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the threshold out of metallic material for its durability, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 10, Van Camp as modified by McMillan discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Van Camp, 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. 4, proximate sill channel 20 is a leg that extends into the substrate, the leg also comprising a foot section that extends in a direction perpendicular to the leg).
Regarding claim 11, Van Camp as modified by McMillan discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Van Camp, wherein the foot portion extends perpendicularly toward the outer edge of the substrate (See id. The foot portion extends towards the right-most edge of the substrate 15).
Regarding claim 12, Van Camp as modified by McMillan discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Van Camp, wherein the lower securing leg includes a foot portion extending into a lower groove in the substrate adjacent the subfloor (Fig. 4, leg portion proximate to seal 110 comprises a foot which extends into a groove made by the substrate).
Regarding claim 13, Van Camp discloses a door threshold member configured to be removably secured to a substrate (Abstract: “A threshold with a sill deck, a removable sill extender and a seal. The sill extender slides into a press-fit engagement with the sill deck such that the seal provides a press-fit connection between the sill deck and the sill extender”) attached to a subfloor upper surface, the door threshold comprising a deck (Fig. 4, deck 50) configured to at least partially cover the substrate (Fig. 4, substrate 15), the deck having a drip leg extending down adjacent an outer deck edge (Fig. 4, in addition to the leg that abuts the right-most extent of substrate 15, there are two more legs to the right that are configured to contact a sub-floor).
However, Van Camp fails to disclose as taught by McMillan, similarly drawn to a threshold assembly, the deck having a drip leg extending down adjacent an outer deck edge a length sufficient to be lower than the subfloor upper surface (Fig. 55, bottom leg 2742 extends below the surfaces that the rest of the sill lies on).
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 Van Camp to include the drip leg length of McMillan for insertion into a groove to prevent lateral movement.
Regarding claim 14, Van Camp as modified by McMillan discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Van Camp, a lower securing leg extending downward from the lower surface of the deck (Fig. 4, deck 50 has a leg that extends below the surface of the deck and abuts the right-most extent of substrate 15), 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 sill channel 20 is a leg that extends into the substrate, the leg also comprising a foot section that extends perpendicular to the leg).
Regarding claim 15, Van Camp as modified by McMillan discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Van Camp, wherein a base leg extends downward from the lower surface of the deck between the lower securing leg and the drip leg (Fig. 4, in addition to the leg that abuts the right-most extent of substrate 15, there are two more legs to the right that are configured to contact a sub-floor).
Regarding claim 16, Van Camp as modified by McMillan discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Van Camp, wherein the base leg includes a first end connected to the deck and a second end having a foot portion extending perpendicularly inward toward the substrate (Fig. 4, proximate sill channel 20 is a leg that extends into the substrate, the leg also comprising a foot section that extends perpendicular to the leg).
Regarding claim 17, Van Camp as modified by McMillan 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, Van Camp as modified by McMillan discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Van Camp, wherein the drip leg extends downward from the lower surface of the deck parallel to the outer edge of the substrate (Fig. 4, the legs extend from the deck 50 parallel with the right-most edge of substrate 15).
Additionally, McMillan teaches wherein the drip leg is longer than the base leg (Fig. 55, bottom leg 2742 is longer than any other leg).
Regarding claim 19, Van Camp as modified by McMillan discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by McMillan, wherein a cross support is connected to the base leg and the drip leg (Fig. 55, truss member 2750).
Claim(s) 4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Camp (US Pub. 2015/0052820 A1) in view of McMillan (US Pub. 12,523,086 B2), and further in view of Monts De Oca (US Pub. 11,047,165 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Van Camp as modified by McMillan discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Monts De Oca, similarly drawn to a threshold assembly, wherein the foot portion extends inwardly to and is connected the lower securing 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 extension to the lower securing leg as taught by Monts De Oca for improved structural integrity.
Regarding claim 6, Van Camp as modified by McMillan 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, Van Camp as modified by McMillan and 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).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Camp (US Pub. 2015/0052820 A1) in view of Monts De Oca (US Pub. 11,047,165 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Van Camp discloses a door sill assembly for a manufactured home, the apparatus comprising:
a substrate having an inner edge and an outer edge (Fig. 4, substrate 15 has edges at its left-most and right-most extents);
a threshold member configured to be removably secured to the substrate subfloor (Abstract: “A threshold with a sill deck, a removable sill extender and a seal. The sill extender slides into a press-fit engagement with the sill deck such that the seal provides a press-fit connection between the sill deck and the sill extender”), the threshold member having a deck at least partially covering the substrate (Fig. 4, deck 50), the deck having an upper surface and an opposing lower surface (Fig. 4, deck 50 has two opposing surfaces) and further comprising a deck support having a lower securing leg (Fig. 4, deck 50 has a leg that extends below the surface of the deck and abuts the right-most extent of substrate 15), a drip leg, a base leg between the lower securing leg and the drip leg (Fig. 4, in addition to the leg that abuts the right-most extent of substrate 15, there are two more legs to the right that are configured to contact a sub-floor), and a sill cap configured to be removably secured to the substrate (Fig. 4, cap 30 is fastened to the substrate 15).
However, Van Camp 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 Van Camp to include the cross support between the base leg and the drip leg as taught by Monts De Oca for improved structural integrity.
Conclusion
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