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 .
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 09/23/2025, claims 1-5, 8, 9, 14, and 16-20 are pending, claims 16-20 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 14 have been amended.
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, 5, 8-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Meisiek (US 20020168184 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Meisiek discloses
An aircraft heated floor panel (aircraft floor heating panel, see abstract and fig.2), comprising:
a first face sheet (2, see fig.2);
a second face sheet (12, see fig.2) opposite the first face sheet (2, see fig.2); and
PNG
media_image1.png
455
1309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Meisiek
a core (combo 3-10, see fig.2) including a conductive core portion (foil heater 4, see fig.2), a first insulating core portion (3, see fig.2 and para.0040: “The adhesive layer 3 functions simultaneously as an electric insulator …”), and a second insulating core portion (10, see fig. 2 and para.0041: “The GFC-layer(s) …10 are also electrical insulators”), wherein the conductive core portion (4, see fig.2) supports the first face sheet (2) and the second face sheet (12, see fig.2), wherein the first insulating core portion (3) is disposed between the conductive core portion (4) and the first face sheet (2, see fig.2),
wherein the first insulating core portion (3) is adhesively coupled directly to the first face sheet (2, see fig.2 and para.0040: “A bonding layer 3, for example an acrylic bonding layer 3 adhesively secures a flat heater such as a foil heater 4 to the metal plate 2”), wherein the second insulating core portion (10, see fig.2) is disposed between the conductive core portion (4, see fig.2) and the second face sheet (12, see fig.2), wherein the second insulating core portion (10, see fig.2) is adhesively coupled directly to the second face sheet (12, see fig.2), and wherein the conductive core portion (4) is electrically insulated from the external an environment external to the aircraft heated floor panel by the first insulating core portion (3, see fig.2 and para.0040: “The adhesive layer 3 functions simultaneously as an electric insulator …”) and the second insulating core portion (10, see fig. 2 and para.0041: “The GFC-layer(s) …10 are also electrical insulators”), such that current applied to the conductive core portion (4, see fig.2) may generate heat which the core (combo 3-10) communicates to at least the first face sheet (See para.0040: “The plate 2 made of aluminum is capable of a rapid heat transfer and a homogeneous heat radiation from the panel”.)
Regarding claim 2, Meisiek further discloses
wherein the core (combo 3-10, see fig.2) includes a honeycomb body (honeycomb core 6, see fig.2) extending between the first face sheet (2, see fig.2) and the second face sheet (12, see fig.2).
Regarding claim 3, Meisiek further discloses
the conductive core portion (4, see fig.2 and 6) includes an electrically conductive coating (conductors 39, see fig.6) conformally over an exterior of the conductive core portion (4, see fig.6 and para.0054: “Conductors 39, for example in the form of printed circuit conductors on the surface of the heater 4”).
Regarding claim 5, Meisiek further discloses
the core (combo 3-10, see fig.2) defines a longitudinal axis (see longitudinal axis in annotated fig.1 below) extending between the first face sheet (2, see fig.2) and the second face sheet (12, see fig.2).
PNG
media_image2.png
461
1309
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Meisiek
Regarding claim 8, Meisiek further discloses
the longitudinal axis (see longitudinal axis in annotated fig.2 above) extends through the conductive core portion (4, See fig.2).
Regarding claim 9, Meisiek further discloses
the conductive core portion (4, see fig.2) laterally spans the core (comb 3-10) between the first face sheet (2) and the second sheet (12, see fig.2).
Regarding claim 14, Meisiek further discloses
a lead (30, see fig.7 and 10) electrically connected to the conductive core portion (4, see fig.6) and extending to the environment (plug-in connector P, see fig.10) external to the aircraft heated floor panel (1, see fig.10).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meisiek in view of Petrenko (US 20040149734 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Meisiek discloses all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except the conductive core portion includes an electrically conductive dopant disposed within an interior of the core.
Petrenko discloses ice modification removal and prevention for aircrafts (see para.0019), comprising:
the conductive core portion (8233, see claim 220) includes an electrically conductive dopant disposed within an interior of the core ( 8233, 8235, 8452, 8454, see claim 220: “…a plurality of electrodes 8233, 8235, 8452, 8454 and dopants to impart electrical conductivity in the electrodes”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the conductive core portion of Meisiek to include an electrically conductive dopant disposed within an interior of the core as taught by Petrenko. Doing so allows to increase electrical conductivity in the conductive core portion to obtain more efficient, reliable, and safer heated floor panel, ultimately contributing to improved aircraft performance and reduced operational costs (see para.0349: “The solid object may contain dopants to increase electrical conductivity in the solid object”).
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Claims: the amendments have overcome the previous objection.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b): the amendments have overcome the previous rejections.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because:
Meisiek discloses the amended limitations: “a core including a conductive core portion, a first insulating core portion, and a second insulating core portion…
wherein the first insulating core portion is disposed between the conductive core portion and the first face sheet, wherein the first insulating core portion is adhesively coupled directly to the first face sheet, wherein the second insulating core portion is disposed between the conductive core portion and the second face sheet, wherein the second insulating core portion is adhesively coupled directly to the second face sheet, and wherein the conductive core portion is electrically insulated from the external an environment external to the aircraft heated floor panel by the first insulating core portion and the second insulating core portion such that current applied to the conductive core portion may generate heat which the core communicates to at least the first face sheet” as recited in claim 1.
In Meisiek, the combo layers 3-10 is equivalent to the claimed “core”. The combo layers 3-10 includes a foil heater 4 (“ conductive core portion”), a“first insulating core portion” 3 and a “second insulating core portion” 10 (see para.0040-0041 of Meisiek). See annotated fig.2 of Meisiek, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
455
1309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first insulating core portion 3 is disposed between the conductive core portion 4 and the first face sheet 2, wherein the first insulating core portion 3 is adhesively coupled directly to the first face sheet 2 (See para.0040). Also, the second insulating core portion 10 is disposed between the conductive core portion 3 and the second face sheet 12, wherein the second insulating core portion 10 is adhesively coupled directly to the second face sheet 12, and wherein the conductive core portion 4 is electrically insulated from the external an environment external to the aircraft heated floor panel by the first insulating core portion 3 and the second insulating core portion 10 such that current applied to the conductive core portion may generate heat which the core communicates to at least the first face sheet 2 (See para.0040-0041).
For the above reasons, Meisiek teaches all limitations of the independent claim 1. Therefore, the 102 rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Claims 2,3, 4, 8, 8, 9 and 14 are rejected by their dependency from claim 1.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Meisiek teaches all limitations of the independent claim 1 as discussed above. As such, the rejection to claim 4 under 103 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6834159 B1 discloses n aircraft floor panel including a plurality of layers cured to form a lower support level, an upper heater level, and a top metal sheet for protecting the underlying layers from floor-traffic related damage.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights