DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “pull box tab attached to the wall pocket” in claims 1 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 10, 12-13, 16-17 and 19 are 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.
5. Claim 1, line 5, recites the limitation “a pull box tab attached to the wall pocket” which renders the intended scope of the claim unascertainable, since it is unclear as to exactly what the applicant considers to be a “pull box tab”. Per the applicant’s disclosure (see para. [0044] of the specification filed on 01/13/2023 and para. [0045] of the amendments to the specification filed on 01/07/2025) the pull box tabs 514a/514b are used to deploy/retract the privacy door 500 within the wall pocket, and an example of such tab is defined as “various types of commercial off-the-shelf pull tab boxes”. Neither of the terms, pull box tab or pull tab box, is a term of the art. Therefore, term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Furthermore, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Similarly, claim 12 is unclear for the same reasons.
6. Claim 1 recites the limitation “its original” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear as to exactly what returns to its original shape. Similarly, claim 12 is unclear for the same reasons.
7. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the suite” in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim.
7. Claim 8, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “further providing flight crew personnel a view of a passenger sitting in a passenger seat or suite within the aircraft cabin” which renders the intended scope of the claim unascertainable, since it is unclear as to exactly what is further providing flight crew personnel a clear view of a passenger sitting in a passenger seat or suite within the aircraft cabin. Is the privacy door providing the view? A view is not a structural element and the claimed invention is drawn to the privacy door. Thus, it is unclear as to exactly which disclosed structure does the view correspond with. Further, the claimed invention is drawn to a privacy door, and not an aircraft, aircraft cabin or flight crew personnel. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the aircraft cabin” in the claim. Similarly, claim 19 is unclear for the same reasons.
7. Claim 12 recites the limitation “the suite” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim.
8. Claim 19 recites the limitation “the passenger seat or suite” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not addressed are rejected based on their dependency from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, 10, 12-13, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowty et al. (US 2018/0281963 A1), in view of Kenny (US 2020/0141158 A1).
11. Regarding Claim 1, Dowty discloses a privacy door for an aircraft (Abstract and paras. [0056]-[0057]; flexible privacy panel 120/120a for aircraft passenger seating 100 as seen in FIG. 1B) comprising:
a flexible panel having a first edge located at a distal end from a second edge (first edge distal from a second edge of panel 120/120a as seen in FIG. 1B), the first edge and the second edge attached to a wall pocket (paras. [0056] and [0064]; panel 120/120a moves out or within pocket 140 of rear seat 105b of passenger seating 100 as seen in FIG. 1B, accordingly the first and second edges much be attached to wall pocket 140),
wherein the wall pocket is attached to a backshell of an airplane seat (paras. [0056] and [0064]; wall pocket 140 clearly attached to a backshell of an air plane seat 105b as seen in FIG. 1B);
wherein the flexible panel having a pre-determined modulus of elasticity in order to bend elastically, flex and return to its original shape and provide an opening for allowing a passenger to pass through the opening for ingress and/or egress during flight operations (para. [0058]; the bending distance 125 may be a function of the modulus of elasticity (e.g., Young’s modulus or tensile modules) of the material comprising panel 120/120a, as such panel 120/120a is by definition constructed from a material having a pre-determined elasticity such that the panel can be deformed elastically and return to its original shape when a certain amount of force is applied to the panel and providing an opening for allowing passengers to pass through for ingress/egress during flight operations, see also paras. [0061]-[0062] for further clarification);
wherein the flexible panel is moveable between a first position and a second position (paras. [0056] and [0064]; panel 120/120a coupled to suite boundary 110a of seat 105a, further panel 120/120a movable in a retractable manner into pocket 140 and extend therefrom, and/or a bendable manner as indicated by bending distance 125 as seen in FIG. 1B), the first position is a stowed position providing an opening between spaced structures of the airplane seat and the second position is a deployed position partially closing the opening between the spaced structures of the airplane seat (para. [0057] and [0064]; panel 120/120a can be retracted and/or opened via bending distance 125 and leaving an ingress/egress 115 as seen in FIG. 1B, further panel 120/120a in the closed position and thereby ingress/egress 115 being at least partially closed as seen in FIG. 1B); and
wherein the flexible panel is positioned to reside in a plane of a suite entrance in the second position in order to partially or fully obstruct a view from outside into an area around a passenger sitting inside the suite (panel 120/120a in a closed position, therefore is the panel 120/120a is structurally capable of partially or fully obstructing the view from outside into the area around the passenger sitting in suite 150 as seen in FIG. 1B).
Dowty is silent regarding a pull box tab attached to the wall pocket.
Kenny discloses a pocket door system (Kenny Abstract and para. [0060] and [0063]; pocket door system including door 1 (i.e., panel) within a pocket as seen in FIG. 1) comprising a pull box tab attached to the wall pocket (paras. [0060] and [0063]; door 1 including a handle assembly 2 in the form of a box that is configured to be pulled, accordingly when the door 1 is within the pocket, the handle assembly 2 is attached to the pocket, furthermore door pockets are by definition wall pockets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dowty as taught by Kenny such that a pull box tab attached to the wall pocket in order to facilitate opening and closing of the door from and to the wall pocket.
22. Regarding Claim 2, modified Dowty discloses (see Dowty) the privacy door of claim 1, wherein the stowed position is configured to be used during Taxi, Take Off and Landing (TTOL) of the aircraft (para. [0096]; panel 120/120a can be stowed during taxi, take-off and landing of an aircraft, furthermore, panel 120/120a is capable of being in the stowed position during TTOL of an aircraft as seen in FIG. 1B).
24. Regarding Claim 5, modified Dowty discloses (see Dowty) the privacy door of claim 21, wherein the spaced structures are fixed walls and the opening is a suite entrance formed between the walls (para. [0057]; passenger seating 100 comprising seats 105a/105b and suite boundaries 110a/110b with ingress/egress 115 formed therebetween as seen in FIG. 1B).
26. Regarding Claim 8, modified Dowty discloses (see Dowty) the privacy door of claim 1, further providing flight crew personnel a view of a passenger sitting in a passenger seat or suite within the aircraft cabin (a clear view of at least one passenger sitting in the passenger seat 105a/105b or suite within the aircraft cabin as seen in FIG. 1).
27. Regarding Claim 10, modified Dowty discloses the flexible privacy door of claim 1.
Modified Dowty is silent regarding the first edge comprises a steel rod or a magnetic latch or leather foam in the embodiment as shown in FIG. 1B.
Dowty discloses a flexible privacy door for an aircraft cabin environment (Abstract and para. [0091]; flexible privacy panel system 1500 including flexible panel 1505 as seen in FIG. 15) wherein the first edge further comprises a steel rod or a magnetic latch or leather foam in order to provide efficient deployment (para. [0092]; wall 150 includes wall magnets 1525a-c that are paired with panel magnets 1530a-c on a first edge of flexible panel 1505 as seen in FIG. 15, therefore the first edge is structurally capable of providing efficient deployment of the panel 1505).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of modified Dowty as taught by Dowty such that the first edge comprises a steel rod or a magnetic latch or leather foam in order to provide efficient deployment in order to facilitate the opening and closing of the door by a passenger and utilizing means that provide a low threshold retention force (Dowty para. [0092]).
10. Regarding Claim 12, Dowty discloses a method of providing a privacy door for an aircraft (Abstract and paras. [0010] and [0056]-[0057]), the method comprising the steps of:
positioning a flexible panel having a first edge located at a distal end from a second edge (first edge distal from a second edge of panel 120/120a as seen in FIG. 1B), the first edge and the second edge attached to a wall pocket (paras. [0056] and [0064]; panel 120/120a moves out or within pocket 140 of rear seat 105b of passenger seating 100 as seen in FIG. 1B, accordingly the first and second edges much be attached to wall pocket 140), wherein the wall pocket is attached to the backshell of an airplane seat (paras. [0056] and [0064]; wall pocket 140 clearly attached to a backshell of an air plane seat 105b as seen in FIG. 1B), the flexible panel having a pre-determined modulus of elasticity in order to bend elastically, flex and return to its original shape (para. [0058]; the bending distance 125 may be a function of the modulus of elasticity (e.g., Young’s modulus or tensile modules) of the material comprising panel 120/120a, as such panel 120/120a is by definition constructed from a material having a pre-determined elasticity such that the panel can be deformed elastically and return to its original shape when a certain amount of force is applied to the panel and providing an opening for allowing passengers to pass through for ingress/egress during flight operations, see also paras. [0061]-[0062] for further clarification);
providing an opening for allowing a passenger to pass through the opening for ingress and/or egress during flight operations (FIG. 1B);
moving the flexible panel between a first position and a second position (paras. [0056] and [0064]; panel 120/120a coupled to suite boundary 110a of seat 105a, further panel 120/120a movable in a retractable manner into pocket 140 and extend therefrom, and/or a bendable manner as indicated by bending distance 125 as seen in FIG. 1B), wherein the first position is a stowed position providing an opening between spaced structures of the airplane seat and the second position is a deployed position partially closing the opening between the spaced structures of the airplane seat (para. [0057] and [0064]; panel 120/120a can be retracted and/or opened via bending distance 125 and leaving an ingress/egress 115 as seen in FIG. 1B, further panel 120/120a in the closed position and thereby ingress/egress 115 being at least partially closed as seen in FIG. 1B); and
positioning the flexible panel to reside in a plane of a suite entrance in the second position in order to partially or fully obstruct a view from outside into an area around a passenger sitting inside the suite (panel 120/120a in a plane of a suite entrance in the second position and clearly partially or fully obstructing a view from outside into an area around a passenger sitting in the suite 150).
Dowty is silent regarding a pull box tab attached to the wall pocket.
Kenny discloses a pocket door system (Kenny Abstract and para. [0060] and [0063]; pocket door system including door 1 (i.e., panel) within a pocket as seen in FIG. 1) comprising a pull box tab attached to the wall pocket (paras. [0060] and [0063]; door 1 including a handle assembly 2 in the form of a box that is configured to be pulled, accordingly when the door 1 is within the pocket, the handle assembly 2 is attached to the pocket, furthermore door pockets are by definition wall pockets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Dowty as taught by Kenny such that a pull box tab attached to the wall pocket in order to facilitate opening and closing of the door from and to the wall pocket.
29. Regarding Claim 13, modified Dowty discloses (see Dowty) the method of claim 12, wherein the stowed position is configured to be used during Taxi, Take Off and Landing (TTOL) of an aircraft (para. [0096]; panel 120/120a can be stowed during taxi, take-off and landing of an aircraft, furthermore, panel 120/120a is capable of being in the stowed position during TTOL of an aircraft as seen in FIG. 1B).
31. Regarding Claim 16, modified Dowty discloses (see Dowty) the method of claim 12, wherein the spaced structures are fixed walls and the opening is a suite entrance formed between the walls (para. [0057]; passenger seating 100 comprising seats 105a/105b and suite boundaries 110a/110b with ingress/egress 115 formed therebetween as seen in FIG. 1B).
32. Regarding Claim 17, modified Dowty discloses (see Dowty) the method of claim 12, wherein the flexible panel can partially or fully obstruct the view from outside into the area around the passenger (panel 120/120a in a closed position, therefore is the panel 120/120a is structurally capable of partially or fully obstructing the view from outside into the area around the passenger as seen in FIG. 1B).
33. Regarding Claim 19, modified Dowty discloses (see Dowty) the method of claim 12, further providing flight crew personnel a view of passenger sitting in the passenger seat or suite within the aircraft cabin (a clear view of at least one passenger sitting in the passenger seat 105a/105b or suite within the aircraft cabin as seen in FIG. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regard to arguments pertaining to claims 1 and 12, the applicant makes numerous arguments either to embodiments of Dowty’s disclosure (p. 11 of the remarks filed on 02/27/2026) not relied upon or nakedly asserting, without evidence, that prior art of record does not disclose the claimed invention is currently amended. Applicant’s statements amount to no more than reciting the disputed limitations and generally alleging that the cited prior art references are deficient. Merely pointing out certain claim features recited in independent claims 1 and 13 and nakedly asserting that none of the cited prior art references teach or suggest such features does not amount to a separate patentability argument. Attorney arguments that are conclusory in nature, i.e., providing no further substantive explanation or evidence in support is afforded little weight. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 424 F.3d 1276, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Attorney argument is no substitute for evidence.”). Furthermore, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996): In re De Blauwe, 736 F,2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); See MPEP 2145. In addition, the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.Sti 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion to what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prime facie case of obviousness.'').
As a note, per the guidance set forth in MPEP 714.02, “In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made.” (emphasis added) and “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure” as well as “Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure” as set forth in MPEP 2163.06.
As an added note, the examiner shall consider a Final, first action following a request for continued examination (RCE) should future amendments to the claims meet the threshold set forth in MPEP 706.07(b).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642