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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has been considered and a new rejection has been written to address the amended limitations.
Regarding claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 applicant ahs argued that the base reference Harcup is directed to an air directing device coupled to a PSU system and that therefore it would be unreasonable to modify Harcup to incorporate Vandyke’s teachings of a PSU with vents and lights aligned with each other since it would require redesign of the aircraft. Examiner does not find the arguments persuasive and notes MPEP § 2145 III makes clear that a determination of obviousness is based upon the teachings of the references as a whole and not upon whether the prior art references can be physically combined. Therefore, since the references teach each limitation of the claim it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of features could be made and provides advantages.
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.
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(s) 1-5, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harcup et al. (US 2021/0387737 A1) in view of Rittner et al. (US 2015/0036368 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harcup discloses a passenger service unit (Harcup 318) comprising a panel body (Harcup 304) having a first surface (see Harcup figure 16A) and a second surface (face not shown in Harcup figure 16A) opposite the first surface, and at least two air passages (Harcup 308) extending through the panel body (see Harcup figure 16B);
At least one light (Harcup 314) controllable by a passenger;
And at least two air vent (Harcup 312) extending from the first surface of the panel body at respective fixed angles (see Harcup figure 16A), each of the at least two air vent configured to receive air through an aperture (Harcup 606) from a respective one of the at least two air passages (see Harcup figure 19B). Examiner notes that the air directing device 600 of figures 19A-19D is useable with the PSU 318 of figure 16 see Harcup paragraph [0087]).
Harcup is silent regarding a housing configured to receive the at least one light.
However, Rittner teaches a passenger service unit (Rittner 1000) comprising a gasper module (Rittner 100) and a lighting module (Rittner 200). The lighting module includes a plurality of LED lights (Rittner 241) mounted to a PCB (Rittner 320) contained within a housing (see Rittner figure 1A) with a lens (Rittner 242) to focus the light on a targeted area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Harcup’s passenger service unit by incorporating Rittner’s teachings of using a plurality of LED lights contained within a housing with a lens to produce a predictable result of producing a bright focused light source for passengers to read.
Regarding claim 2, Harcup and Rittner as applied to claim 1 teaches the air vents (Harcup 312) are formed as a separate air directing device (Harcup 302) that is mounted to the panel (Harcup 304).
Harcup and Rittner are silent regarding the air vent being integrally formed with the panel.
However, a court has held that making separate parts into a single integral part is a matter of obvious design choice. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Harcup's passenger service unit to form the panel and the air directing device as a single integral unit to produce a predictable result of speeding installation in an aircraft by reducing the number of individual components to install.
Regarding claim 3, Harcup and Rittner as applied to claim 1 further teaches the air vents (Harcup 312) are blade nozzles comprising a pair of blades or fins (see Harcup figure 19B), and wherein each fin is substantially parallel (see Harcup figure 19B) to the other fin in the respective pair of fins.
Regarding claim 4, Harcup and Rittner as applied to claim 1 further discloses the at least two air vents includes a first air vent extending at a first angle and a second air vent extending at a second angle, wherein the first and second angles are complementary (see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
283
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Harcup figure 19B (annotated)
Regarding claim 5, Harcup and Rittner as applied to claim 1 teach the number of air vents could corresponds to the number of seats or exceed the number of seats (Harcup [0085]) and teaches the use of three lights (see Harcup figure 16A).
Harcup and Rittner are silent regarding the use of four air vents.
However, based upon Harcup's teachings of a number of vents corresponding to the number of seats it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Harcup's passenger service unit to duplicate the air passage and air vent to produce four passages and four air vents for use in an aircraft with four seats in a row.
Regarding claim 11, Harcup and Rittner as applied to claim 1 further discloses a plenum (Harcup 322) coupled to the second surface of the panel (see Harcup figure 16B) surrounding the at least two air passages (Harcup 308), wherein the plenum includes an inlet (see Harcup figure 16B) configured to be coupled to a hose for receiving air to be directed to the at least two air passages (Harcup [0071]).
Regarding claim 12, Harcup and Rittner as applied to claim 11 further discloses the panel body includes a projection (Harcup 320) projecting from the second surface around the at least two air passages, and wherein the plenum is coupled to the projection (see Harcup figure 16B).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harcup et al. (US 2021/0387737 A1) and Rittner et al. (US 2015/0036368 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Vandyke et al. (US 2022/0063814 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Harcup and Rittner as applied to claim 5 are silent regarding the air vents and lights being arranged in an alternating pattern.
However, Vandyke teaches a passenger service unit (Vandyke 414) comprising a plurality of lights (Vandyke 420) and a plurality of air vents (Vandyke 418) that are aligned in a first direction along a plane of the panel body (see Vandyke figure 6) and arranged in an alternating pattern (see Vandyke figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Harcup's passenger service unit to incorporate Vandyke's teachings of an alternating arrangement of lights and air vents to produce a predictable result of keeping both the air vent and the light arranged close to the respective passenger for ease of passenger use.
Regarding claim 7, Harcup and Rittner as applied to claim 5 are silent regarding the lights and the air vent being aligned in a first direction along a plane of the panel body.
However, Vandyke teaches a passenger service unit (Vandyke 414) comprising a plurality of lights (Vandyke 420) and a plurality of air vents (Vandyke 418) that are aligned in a first direction along a plane of the panel body (see Vandyke figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Harcup's passenger service unit to incorporate Vandyke's teachings of the lights and air vents being aligned in a first direction to produce a predictable result of a more space efficient passenger service unit to create more space for controls, oxygen masks and other components of the passenger service unit.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harcup et al. (US 2021/0387737 A1) and Rittner et al. (US 2015/0036368 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vandyke et al. (US 2022/0063814 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Harcup's embodiment of figure 16 is silent regarding the passenger service unit panel comprising an interface control, a speaker, and an oxygen mask panel.
However, Harcup discloses that it is known in the prior art for a passenger service unit to comprise an interface control in the form of a reading light control (Harcup 20) and an attendant-call control (Harcup 32), a passenger notification indicator (Harcup 34), a speaker (Harcup 36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Harcup's passenger service unit with the known features of reading light controls, attendant-call controls, passenger notification indicators, and a speaker to produce a predictable result of improving passenger experience by allowing passenger's to control their own light, call an attendant, and allow cabin crew to notify passengers by utilizing the notification indicators and speakers to make announcements.
Further, Vandyke teaches a passenger service unit (Vandyke 414) comprising a plurality of lights (Vandyke 420) and a plurality of air vents (Vandyke 418) that are aligned in a first direction along a plane of the panel body (see Vandyke figure 6) and an oxygen mask panel (Vandyke 422).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Harcup's passenger service unit to incorporate Vandyke's teaching of an oxygen mask panel located on the passenger service unit to produce a predictable result of improving passenger safety by providing access to oxygen in the event of an emergency.
Claim(s) 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harcup et al. (US 2021/0387737 A1) and Vandyke et al. (US 2022/0063814 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Harcup discloses a passenger service unit (Harcup 318) comprising a panel
body (Harcup 304) having a first surface (see Harcup figure 16A) and a second surface (face not shown in Harcup figure 16A) opposite the first surface;
Three lights (Harcup 314);
And three air vents (Harcup 312) extending from the first surface of the panel body at respective fixed angles (see Harcup figure 16A).
Harcup is silent regarding the use of four air vents and the air vents and lights being arranged in an alternating pattern.
However, based upon Harcup's teachings of a number of vents corresponding to the number of seats it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Harcup's passenger service unit to duplicate the air passage and air vent to produce four passages and four air vents for use in an aircraft with four seats in a row.
However, Vandyke teaches a passenger service unit (Vandyke 414) comprising a plurality of lights (Vandyke 420) and a plurality of air vents (Vandyke 418) that are aligned in a first direction along a plane of the panel body (see Vandyke figure 6) and arranged in an alternating pattern (see Vandyke figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Harcup's passenger service unit to incorporate Vandyke's teachings of an alternating arrangement of lights and air vents aligned in a first direction to produce a predictable result of keeping both the air vent and the light arranged close to the respective passenger for ease of passenger use.
Regarding claim 17, Harcup and Vandyke as applied to claim 16 tech the air vent and the lights are aligned in a first direction along a plane of the panel body (see Vandyke figure 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-24 allowed.
Claims 9-10, and 14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Current prior art of record fails to teach the relative angles of four different air vent as recited in claims 9 and 10, a plenum including a slot for wiring connections for a light as recited in claim 14, and is further silent regarding an air plenum surrounding at least two air passages and at least one light as recited in claims 21-24.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm EST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights