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 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, 8, 9, 12-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5220706 to Bivens in view of US Patent Application 2017/0234479 to McIntosh.
Re: claims 1, 8, 9, and 16. Bivens shows in figures 3 and 4 a load absorbing device, comprising: an outer cylinder 48; a piston 12, 50 located at least partially within the outer cylinder, the piston comprising a piston head 50 located at a first or lower end of the piston, a mounting section shown in the area of 38 located at a second or upper end of the piston, and a piston rod 12 located between the piston head and the mounting section; a compressed gas located in a volume C defined by a first or bottom end surface of the piston head 50 of the piston, a first or bottom end surface of the outer cylinder, and an internal surface shown inward of the end of the lead line of 48 of the outer cylinder perpendicular to the first end surface of the outer cylinder, wherein the compressed gas is configured to allow translation of the piston toward the first end surface of the outer cylinder in response to a load greater than a first load threshold being applied to the piston and to prevent translation of the piston toward the first end surface of the piston in response to loads less than the first load threshold being applied to the piston; and a stopper 74 located between a second or upper surface of the piston head 50 and a second or upper end surface of the outer cylinder, the second or upper end surface of the outer cylinder being opposite the first or bottom end surface of the outer cylinder, wherein the stopper 74 is integral to the outer cylinder 48, wherein a first portion of the internal surface of the outer cylinder without the stopper through which the piston head translates has a first diameter i.e. the diameter surrounding element C, and wherein a second portion of the internal surface of the outer cylinder with the stopper through which the piston rod and mounting section translates has a second diameter i.e. the diameter within the confines of the stopper 74 smaller than the first diameter as shown, the second diameter being configured to generate an interference with the second surface of the piston head and thereby at least one of preventing or reducing translation of the piston head toward the second end surface since it creates a reduced diameter region as shown, but is silent with regards to the load absorbing device being tie rod.
McIntosh teaches in figures 4 and 5 the use of a load absorbing device being in the form of a tie rod 404, 500.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the load absorbing device of Bivens to have been in the form of a tie rod, in view of the teachings of McIntosh, in order to provide a means of absorbing loads in the environment of an aircraft interior such as in the connection of overhead storage compartments to the fuselage to effectively transfer loads as explained in paragraph [0004] of McIntosh.
With regard to claims 8 and 16, Bivens, as modified, is silent with regard to the limitations of the assembly comprising an interior cabin monument 406 and an aircraft structure 402.
McIntosh teaches in figures 4 and 5 the use of an assembly comprising an interior cabin monument 406 and an aircraft structure 402.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the assembly of Bivens, as modified, to have comprised an interior cabin monument and an aircraft structure to which the tie rod is associated with, in view of the teachings of McIntosh, in order to provide a means of absorbing loads in the environment of an aircraft interior such as in the connection of overhead storage compartments to the fuselage to effectively transfer loads as explained in paragraph [0004] of McIntosh.
Re: claims 12 and 14. Bivens, as modified, is silent with regard to a monument connector, a bracket, and an aircraft connector as recited.
McIntosh, as modified, teaches in figures 4 and 5 of McIntosh the assembly further comprising a monument connector 504 coupled to the piston 508, 513 and a bracket or unlabeled element between elements 412 and 406 in figure 4 of McIntosh of the interior cabin monument 406 and an aircraft connector 516 coupled to the outer cylinder 522 and the aircraft structure 402 via bracket 410 as shown in figure 4 of McIntosh.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the assembly of Bivens, as modified, to have comprised a monument connector, a bracket, and an aircraft connector as recited, in view of the teachings of McIntosh, in order to provide a means of absorbing loads in the environment of an aircraft interior such as in the connection of overhead storage compartments to the fuselage to effectively transfer loads as explained in paragraph [0004] of McIntosh.
Re: claim 13. Bivens, as modified, is silent with regard to the monument connector being coupled via a threaded engagement.
McIntosh, as modified, teaches in figures 4 and 5 of McIntosh wherein the monument connector 504 is coupled to the piston 508, 513 via a threaded engagement as shown near the lead line of 508.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the coupling of the monument connector to the piston of Bivens, as modified, to have been via threaded engagement, in view of the teachings of McIntosh, in order to provide a connection that is able to be decoupled and re-coupled to facilitate repair or replacement.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bivens in view of McIntosh as applied above, and further in view of WO-2012177675 (WO’675).
Bivens, as modified, is silent with regards to the first load threshold being greater than or equal to 5 kilonewtons.
WO’675 teaches in paragraph [114] of the English machine translation the use of a load threshold to activate to absorb energy is greater than 5 kilonewtons or 9.79 kilonewtons.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first load threshold of Bivens, as modified, to have been greater than or equal to 5 kilonewtons, in view of the teachings of WO’675, in order to provide a large enough force to avoid inadvertent or premature energy absorber activation.
Examiner notes that the originally filed specification does not provide an explanation of criticality with respect to the particular recited threshold range. See In re Aller. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bivens in view of McIntosh and WO’675 as applied above, and further in view of CN-110748596 (CN’596).
Bivens, as modified, is silent with regards to the pressure in the volume being between about 9.9 MPa and about 19.7 MPa.
CN’596 teaches in the paragraph of the English machine translation that discusses the single tube shock absorber comprising a chamber with a volume including gas and oil that the volume has a pressure of 100 bar which is equivalent to 10 MPa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the volume of Bivens, as modified, to have been between about 9.9 MPa and about 19.7 MPa, in view of the teachings of CN’596, in order to provide a large enough pressure to avoid inadvertent or premature energy absorber activation but not too much pressure to avoid continuous pressure relief due to over pressurization.
Examiner notes that the originally filed specification does not provide an explanation of criticality with respect to the particular recited threshold range. See In re Aller. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bivens in view of McIntosh, WO’675, CN’596 as applied above, and further in view of CN-204647128 (CN’128).
Bivens, as modified, is silent with regards to a pressure release valve fluidly coupled to the volume.
CN’128 teaches in figure 1 the use of a load absorbing member including a pressure release valve 8 fluidly coupled to a volume 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the volume of Bivens, as modified, to have included a pressure release valve, in view of the teachings of CN’128, in order to provide a means of protecting the tie rod from pressure overloads to improve the life of the tie rod. Examiner notes that as functionally and broadly recited Bivens, as modified, is capable of or configured to open in response to a second load threshold including greater than or equal to 25 kilonewtons depending on the needs of the particular application.
Examiner notes that the originally filed specification does not provide an explanation of criticality with respect to the particular recited threshold range. See In re Aller. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bivens in view of McIntosh as applied above, and further in view of CN-204647128 (CN’128).
Bivens, as modified, is silent with regards to a pressure release valve fluidly coupled to the volume.
CN’128 teaches in figure 1 the use of a load absorbing member including a pressure release valve 8 fluidly coupled to a volume 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the volume of Bivens, as modified, to have included a pressure release valve, in view of the teachings of CN’128, in order to provide a means of protecting the tie rod from pressure overloads to improve the life of the tie rod.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bivens in view of McIntosh and CN’128 as applied above, and further in view of WO-2012177675 (WO’675) and US Patent Application 2012/0007409 to Gandhi.
Re: claim 19. Bivens, as modified, is silent with regards to the first load threshold being greater than or equal to 5 kilonewtons and the second load threshold being greater than or equal to 25 kilonewtons.
WO’675 teaches in paragraph [114] of the English machine translation the use of a load threshold to activate to absorb energy is greater than 5 kilonewtons or 9.79 kilonewtons.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the first load threshold of Bivens, as modified, to have been greater than or equal to 5 kilonewtons, in view of the teachings of WO’675, in order to provide a large enough force to avoid inadvertent or premature energy absorber activation.
Gandhi teaches in claim 8 the use of a release force being greater than 4 kilonewtons which includes the range of equal to or greater than 25 kilonewtons.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the second load threshold of Bivens, as modified, to have been greater than or equal to 25 kilonewtons, in view of the teachings of Gandhi, in order to provide a means of preventing over pressurization.
Examiner notes that the originally filed specification does not provide an explanation of criticality with respect to the particular recited threshold range. See In re Aller. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Re: claim 20. Bivens, as modified, is silent with regard to coupling a monument connector and coupling an aircraft connector, and the interior cabin monument comprising at least one of a galley structure, a lavatory structure, or an overhead bin.
McIntosh teaches in figures 4 and 5 coupling a monument connector 504 to the piston 508, 513 and the interior cabin monument 406, and coupling an aircraft connector 516 to the outer cylinder 522 and the aircraft structure 402 wherein the interior cabin monument 406 comprises at least one of a galley structure, a lavatory structure and an overhead bin as discussed in paragraph [0056] of McIntosh.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the assembly of Bivens, as modified, to have comprised a monument connector, an aircraft connector, and connection of an overhead storage compartment as recited, in view of the teachings of McIntosh, in order to provide a means of absorbing loads in the environment of an aircraft interior such as in the connection of overhead storage compartments to the fuselage to effectively transfer loads as explained in paragraph [0004] of McIntosh.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the same combination of references relied upon in the previous Office action.
Conclusion
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 MELODY M BURCH whose telephone number is (571)272-7114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30AM-3PM, generally.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached on 571-272-7124. 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.
mmb
December 13, 2025
/MELODY M BURCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights