Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 9/09/25. Claims 1-13 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The substitute specification filed 1/16/23 has been entered.
The amendment to the specification filed 9/09/25 has NOT been entered as the instructions for entry are made vis-a-vis the Pre-Grant Publication rather than the specification of the instant application. As the paragraphs of the substitute specification filed 1/16/23 were not numbered instruction(s) must be made by page and line number.
The replacement drawing sheets filed 9/09/25 are approved for entry but they drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 115. This objection can be overcome by filing a proper instruction to enter the refence number to the specification by page and line number. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 8,404,329 to Wustefeld.
Wustefled provides a frame for use in the aeronautic industry comprised of planar metal plates of different shapes 10, 110, 210 having notches 14 which join the plates at their intersections. See Fig. 6 illustrating the frame can comprise curved longitudinal plates 210 and straight transverse plates 10 forming a three-dimensional shape/shell. Each plate is considered a single element. The frame supports thin cover plates (not shown). The connection of the individual strips 10; 110; 210 to each other and to the cover plates can be performed by all known connecting techniques like gluing, soldering, welding, riveting, folding, clinching (col.4, lns. 1-3).
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitations “for an aircraft seat separation shell”, “separation shell” and “an aircraft seat” are not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Further, recitations of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With repact claim 5, the joints are considered “T-shaped half-timber” two the same extent as applicants as they are joints comprised of opposed notches joining members at a crossing..
With respect to claim 7, any arbitrary plate may be considered an auxiliary part and folding and clinching is considered to meet hooking and fastening.
With respect to claim 8, the notches meet “mortise” and the inserted portions meet “tenon”.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note in particular U.S. Patent 7,856,772 to Culp et al. which provides notched single planar longitudinal elements 1522,1524,1526,1528, transverse elements 1513 and plates 1500a/b assembled in a three-dimensional shapes (figures 15C-18).
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/09/25 have been considered but are not fully persuasive.
The arguments with respect to the 112(b) rejections of claims 5 and 13 are persuasive.
The arguments with respect to the 102(a)(1) rejection under Wustfeld (US 8,404,329) are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Wustfeld fails to provide parts of varied shapes and dimensions to form a three-dimension shape. In response the examiner points to Figure 6 which provides parts 10 and 210 of different dimensions and shape and assembled into the three-dimensional shape.
The examiner disagrees that the parts do not meet the limitation “single elements” as each part 10, 110 and 210 is its own element prior to being assembled.
The fact that Wustfeld provides punch-outs 20 to reduce with is irrelevant as the claims use the transitional phrase “comprising” which is open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (MPEP 2111.03).
Applicant’s argument that Westfeld fails to provide a frame for an aircraft seat separation shell is not persuasive because as noted in the rejection when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitations “for an aircraft seat separation shell”, “separation shell” and “an aircraft seat” are not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Further, recitations of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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 ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636