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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 March 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.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites a “first portion” and a “second portion.” These appear to correspond to the portions defined in the last indent of claim 1 (their positions and thickness seem to be the same), but this is not clear. Does Applicant intend to define additional portions?
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, 6-8, 11, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (WO 2021/021162).
Regarding claim 1, Parker discloses a spreader (126 including 132 for instance) for a passenger seat, the spreader comprising a body (main portions) comprising a forward end and an aft end (toward and front and rear, respectively, of a seat cushion for instance), wherein the body defines a first roller support rail (of 132) defined on a first side of the body between the forward end and the aft end (see Figure 1), the first roller support rail being monolithic with the body (the connection is viewed as “monolithic” at least as they form a single structure), the body comprises a non-uniform thickness along a length of the body between the forward end and the aft end (see Figures 2, which shows sections of differing thickness), the body further defines a forward aperture for receiving a forward base frame tube for the passenger seat and an after aperture for receiving an aft base frame tube (forward and aft apertures for receiving tubes 110; see at least Figure 1) for the passenger seat; the first roller support rail comprises a rail surface recessed into the body relative to a side surface of the body (the recess forming 134 is arranged such), and the first roller support rail comprises a receiving area with an opening defined in a top surface of the body (151 and/or 153 form receiving areas with openings arranged in this manner). Parker further at least generally discloses a second roller support rail (see paragraphs 34-36 for instance) but may not disclose it on the same spreader body or clearly disclose a “monolithic” structure in the manner Applicant intends. Regarding the second roller support rail, duplication and rearrangement of components require only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide rails in Parker’s device as claimed based on normal variation to improve comfort and convenience for various users. Regarding the structure, making components integral requires only routine skill in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the rail formed as claimed based on normal variation to improve structural characteristics, manufacture, or safety for various users. Regarding the last indent of the claim, Parker discloses differing thickness as explained above as well as the roller support rail apparently defining a maximum thickness but may not disclose the specific thickness locations as claimed. Changes in size and shape of components require only routine skill in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide thicknesses in Parker’s device as claimed based on normal variation to improve structural characteristics, manufacture, or safety for various users.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Parker, modified as described, discloses the body comprises an upper portion and a lower portion, wherein the upper portion is configured to support an armrest for the passenger seat (armrest 106 is supported in this manner at least indirectly), and wherein the roller support rails are defined on the lower portion of the body, wherein the lower portion comprises a top side and a bottom side, and wherein the roller support rails are defined at the top side (see figures; additional rails would match the arrangement of those shown).
Regarding claim 8, Parker further discloses the body defines an aperture between the forward aperture and the aft aperture (see Figure 1); the first roller support rail and the second roller support rail are each positioned on opposing sides of the body and extend longitudinally between the forward aperture and the aft aperture (at least generally and/or in part as modified above); the body further comprises an upper portion configured to support an armrest and a lower portion in which the first roller support rail and the second roller support rail are defined (see again Figure 1; armrest 106 is supported in this manner at least indirectly); and the body includes a first portion, forward of the roller support rails, having a thickness less than a second portion, aft of the roller support rails, and wherein the second portion includes the roller support rails (as modified above at least as best understood).
Regarding claim 11, Parker further discloses the at least one roller support rail is a structural reinforcement of a main load path on the spreader when the spreader is provided with the passenger seat (it would operate as such).
Regarding claim 13, Parker further discloses the receiving area of the support rails is elongated in a forward and aft direction, and wherein an end of the receiving area is between the opening and the aft end of the body (the area could be defined in such manner).
Regarding claim 15, Parker renders obvious a passenger seat comprising the spreader of claim 1 and an armrest (106) attached to the spreader (at least indirectly). Parker may not explicitly disclose a pivotable connection. Such are old and well-known in the art and it accordingly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide such an armrest connection in Parker’s device to improve comfort and convenience for various users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that Parker is non-analogous art and that Parker does not disclose dimensions as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that Parker is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Parker is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor (i.e. providing seat supports for aircraft) and is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem (i.e. providing a robust arrangement for seat movement). Moreover, it is noted that contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Parker’s arrangement is part of a spreader as in the invention. Parker’s component 126 is referred to as a seat frame spreader (see at least paragraph 23).
Regarding the assertion that Parker does not disclose the claimed dimensions, this has been acknowledged in the rejection. Parker does clearly show a non-uniform thickness (if not explicit recitation of dimensions) much as in the invention as explained in the rejection. Moreover, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the rejection provides an articulated reason for modifying the device as suggested. That is, one of ordinary skill would readily understand that making components integral or altering their size and shape can improve structural characteristics, manufacture, or safety, all of which are beneficial for various users.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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 F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights