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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/1/2026 has been entered.
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 1-6 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.
For Claims 1 and 5, each of the claims is to “an adaptable fixation interface” “for an aircraft cabin floor” but the claim appears to try and positively claim the floor itself and equipment. It is unclear if the floor and the equipment are required in the claims or if only the claimed shape of the connection studs is required as they are the only structure of the “adaptable fixation interface”. As such the claims are indefinite. Claims 1-4 are indefinite as depending on Claim 1 and Claim 6 is indefinite as depending on Claim 5.
For Claim 3, “a floor arrangement interface point” is defined but Claim 1, which it depends on defines “a plurality of interface points in a floor arrangement”. It is unclear if “a floor arrangement interface point” is one of these a plurality of interface points or if it is a different interface point. As such the claim is indefinite.
For Claim 3, “ a flange protrusion” is defined however, Claim 1 which it depends on defines an upper flange and a lower flange. It is unclear if the flange protrusion is different than the upper and lower flanges or if it is one of those flanges. As such the claim is indefinite.
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)(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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Carr (US Patent #10604262).
For Claim 1, the figures of Carr ‘262 disclose an adaptable fixation interface for an aircraft cabin floor, the adaptable fixation interface comprising: a plurality of connections studs (304), wherein each connection stud comprises a mounting foot region and a connection head region, wherein the mounting foot region is configured to be inserted into one of a plurality of interface points in a floor arrangement (308), wherein the connection head region is configured to be engaged by a fitting of an equipment (510) to be fixed to the floor arrangement, wherein the connection studs are configured to be releasably connected to adjacent interface points in the floor arrangement to provide a longitudinally extending fixation interface segment for mounting of the equipment, wherein the connection head region comprises an upper flange spaced from a lower flange, wherein the upper flange is configured to be engaged by the fitting of the equipment to be fixed to the floor arrangement, wherein a first connection stud in the plurality of connection studs is adjacent a second connection stud in the plurality of connection studs, wherein a lower flange of the first connection stud in the plurality of connections studs is configured to engage (through the puck 302) a lower flange of the second connection stud in the plurality of connection studs, and wherein the foot region extends downwardly from the lower flange.
For Claim 2, the figures of Carr ‘262 disclose that the plurality of connection studs (304) are configured to form an adaptable fixation segment when the connection studs are mounted to a floor support structure, and wherein the adaptable fixation segment provides a connecting profile for mounting the equipment, the equipment comprising seats.
For Claim 3, the figures of Carr ‘262 disclose that the mounting foot region comprises at least one lateral protrusion for a form-fitting engagement with radial wall segments of a floor arrangement interface point.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr (US Patent #10604262) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
For Claim 4, while figures 3A-3B of Carr ‘262 disclose a lower flange protrusion with an edge of the connection head that is connected to a support beam, it is silent about it having two abutment edges and two opposite edges. However, AAPA teaches that it is well known in the art to have flange protrusions that are square so as to provide lateral straight edges for connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Carr ‘262 with a square flange head region as taught by AAPA. The motivation to do so would be to have a straight connection edge.
For Claim 6, while Carr ‘262 is silent about the connection studs being configured as an electric interface, AAPA teaches that it is well known in the art to provide studs that are metallic to allow for transmitting electric energy or can be provided with a specific electrical interface connection so as to contain electrical wiring within the stud. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Carr ‘262 with an electrical interface on the studs as taught by AAPA. The motivation to do so would be to provide a known electrical connection to provide electricity to the monument.
Claim(s) 7-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr (US Patent #10604262) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benthien (US PgPub #2014/0131519).
For Claims 7-8, the figures of Carr ‘262 disclose an aircraft floor mounting system comprising: at least one adaptable fixation interface (304); and at least one longitudinally extending clamping profile (302), wherein the at least one longitudinally extending clamping profile comprises at least one outer section for holding an edge of at least one floor panel (308). While Carr ‘262 discloses a central recessed section wherein connection studs are configured to be provided along the central recess section in a mounted state, it is silent about the central recessed section for attaching the longitudinally extending clamping profile to a floor support beam. However, figure 3 of Benthien ‘519 teaches that it is known to have a clamping profile (72) that has a central recess that allows the clamping profile to attach to a floor support beam (16) with the connection stud (32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Carr ‘262 with the connection to a floor support beam as taught by Benthien ‘519. The motivation to do so would be to provide extra stability by connecting the floor mounting system to the floor support beam.
For Claim 9, the figures of Carr ‘262 disclose an aircraft floor arrangement, the floor arrangement comprising: at least one floor support; a plurality of interface points provided on an upper side along the floor; and at least one adaptable fixation interface according to claim 1; wherein the interface points are configured to receive the mounting foot region of one of one of the connection studs. However, Carr ‘262 is silent about the interface points being provided on an upper side along at least a part of a floor support beam. Figure 3 of Benthien ‘519 teaches a plurality of interface points provided on an upper side along at least a part of a floor support beam (16); and the interface points are configured to receive the mount foot region of one of the connection studs (32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Carr ‘262 with the connection to a floor support beam as taught by Benthien ‘519. The motivation to do so would be to provide extra stability by connecting the floor mounting system to the floor support beam.
For Claim, 10, figure 3A of Carr ‘262 disclose using blind nuts with an inner thread aligned with through holes in the upper flange segment, and wherein the blind nuts provide a bore in which the mounting foot region of one of the connection studs is inserted in an engaging manner with the blind nuts.
For Claim 11, the figures of Carr ‘262 disclose an aircraft floor mounting system comprising: a floor panel (308); and at least one clamping profile (302), wherein the clamping profile is configured to hold an upper lateral edge of the floor panel in a clamping manner. While Carr ‘262 discloses a clamping profile, it is silent about it being attached to a floor support beam. However, figure 3 of Benthien ‘519 teaches that it is known to have a clamping profile (72) that has a central recess that allows the clamping profile to attach to a floor support beam (16) with the connection stud (32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Carr ‘262 with the connection to a floor support beam as taught by Benthien ‘519. The motivation to do so would be to provide extra stability by connecting the floor mounting system to the floor support beam.
For Claim 14, figure 2 of Carr ‘262 discloses an aircraft, comprising: a fuselage (207), and a wing arrangement (205) attached to the fuselage; wherein an aircraft cabin is provided within the fuselage, the aircraft cabin comprising a cabin floor, and wherein the cabin floor comprises the aircraft floor mounting system according to claim 7.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr (US Patent #10604262) and Benthien (US PgPub #2014/0131519)as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
For Claim 12, while column 4, lines 30-36 of Carr ‘262 teaches that the pucks (302) can be non-corrosive, it is silent about the specific material choice of the floor support and the clamping profile, AAPA teaches that it is well known in the art to use a noncorroding material for an object when it is near or touch a corrosive material so as to stop the corrosion of the material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Carr ‘262 with the corrosive and noncorroding material combinations as taught by AAPA. The motivation to do so would be to use a cheaper material for the large support while avoiding corrosion of it with having connections that are noncorroding.
For Claim 13, while Carr ‘262 discloses that clamping profile having a central recess of the interface points, it is silent about a filler to contour with the recess. However, AAPA teaches that it is well known in the art to close a void with a filler. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Carr ‘262 with a filler as taught by AAPA. The motivation to do so would be to close up an open area so that objects cannot fall in the void.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 allowed.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 which includes additional piece of prior art that disclose floor mounting systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 571-272-1467. 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 9/14/2026
Prosecution Insights