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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show motor1, translator, lock, motor2, pivot member, lock (i.e. fig 1 as), seat support movable coupled to the panels, back rest movably coupled to the panels, (i.e. claims 2-10, 13-19) as described in the specification. Applicant provides a mere schematic representation of this complex movement system, it is unknown from the drawings how it works. It is unknown how these complex mechanical elements are attached to each other and the seat arrangement itself. Unknown how the panels are arranged/configured to move. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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 Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that the applicant includes the claim limitation “the backrest and the seat support are configured to support the individual in a standing orientation when the seat support is in the standing position” . Based on ¶34 of the specification, which reads “Further, the backrest 106 and the seat support 110 are configured to support the individual in a standing orientation (that is, the individual is able to stand on the floor 122 within the seat system 100) when the seat support 110 is in the standing position” this is being interpreted as the backrest and seat support accommodating standing individuals, rather than supporting the weight of individuals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 8-9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification fails to provide adequate written support because the specification is not specific other than a re-iteration of the claimed function/language of potential elements, and the general execution of the of those elements as claimed via a general purpose motor, lock, translator, and pivot member for example, but nothing more. In other words, the claimed scope of and general reference are meaningless. As such, the examiner asserts due to the lack of sufficient written description, a skilled artisan would not be informed how to implement the invention as claimed and disclosed in a meaningful way. As such, the examiner asserts the claimed language in view of the specification is not satisfactory to amount to anything more than a general possession of a concept, not disclosed with sufficient detail. The examiner invites applicant to particularly point out what and where some examples of these various claimed elements are and how they are put together to operate as a system and where they located in the specification as they relate and/or are directed to an implementation of the invention, as the generic schematic representation of at least figure 1 is completely insufficient.
Claims 4, 8-9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
(A) Breadth of the claims [MPEP § 2164.08]
The scope of the claims is rather broad, with limited to no guidance, and potential scope issues
regarding the use of the terms ‘support’, ‘moveably,’ and ‘desired’ (see 112b below). Thus, adding to
the challenges under 112a.
The claims cover a seat system comprised of:
A seat with a support element, a backrest element allowing passengers to sit or stand (Claims 1 and 12), and
panel(s) where the support element is ‘movably coupled’ with the panel(s) (Claims 2 and 13),
a lock for locking the seat support in a ‘desired’ position (Claim 4),
a motor for ‘automatically’ moving the seat support (Claim 8 and 17),
a lock for locking the backrest in a ‘desired’ position (Claim 9),
a motor for ‘automatically’ moving the backrest (Claims 10 and 18)
(B) Nature of the invention [§ 2164.05(a)]
[DESCRIBE THE INVENTION]
The nature of the invention is an aircraft seating system which allows passengers to either sit or stand.
(C) State of the prior art [§ 2164.05(a)]
Aircraft seating is generally a mature technology. However, there are infinite amounts of components and arrangements possible in a seating system.
(D) Level of one of ordinary skill [§ 2164.05(b)]
One of ordinary skill could be one that performs maintenance on aircraft, aircraft interior designers, mechanically inclined individuals, and engineers with a BS degree, i.e. (ME, AE)
(E) Level of predictability in the art [§ 2164.03]
Unknown
(F) Amount of direction provided by the inventor [§ 2164.03]
Applicant provides directions regarding the general composition of elements of the claimed seats via a schematic drawing in figure 1 and a seat with no internal details in figures 4-8 and a general mirror of the claim language in the specification.
However, the inventor provides little direction with regards to guiding one of ordinary skill in the art for reducing the particulars of the seat internal mechanisms to practice.
For the “lock operatively coupled to the pivot member, wherein the lock is configured to lock the seat support in a desired position” there is no detail on how a pivot member may be locked or how to do so and the lock therefor beyond the schematic representation in figure 1 and a recitation of the claim language in ¶6, ¶27, ¶55.
For the “motor configured to automatically move the seat support between the seating position and the standing position” there is no detail on how the motor is arranged or otherwise any configuration to allow for automatic movement of the seat support between positions seat support beyond the schematic representation in figure 1 and a recitation of the claim language in ¶26-27, ¶30, ¶59, and ¶68.
For the “lock configured to lock the backrest in a desired position” there is no detail on the lock is constructed or any related mechanism for preventing the movement of the backrest beyond the schematic representation in figure 1 and a recitation of the claim language in ¶9, ¶25, ¶30, and ¶60.
For the “motor configured to automatically move the backrest” there is no detail on how the motor is arranged to move the backrest or configuration to allow for automatic movement of the backrest beyond the schematic representation in figure 1 and a recitation of the claim language in ¶9, ¶25-26, ¶30, ¶61, and ¶69.
(G) Existence of working examples [§ 2164.02]
There are no known working examples.
(H) Quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure [§ 2164.06]
There would be extensive experimentation required to make the parts of the invention including the lock system and motorization system. There is little instruction provided on how to implement locks and automation of motors with both of the backrest and the seat support beyond the schematic representations in figure 1 and a reiteration of claim language in the specification (in In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 991-92, 169 USPQ 723, 727-28 (CCPA 1971), functional "block diagrams" were insufficient to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the claimed invention with only a reasonable degree of experimentation because the claimed invention required a "modification to prior art overlap computers," and because "many of the components which appellants illustrate as rectangles in their drawing necessarily are themselves complex assemblages).
In applicant’s invention, based on all of the considerations above, and the lack how to make and use this device, there would be undue experimentation needed to figure out how to lock the seat support/backrest and/or automate actuation of the seat support/backrest via motors as described and thus it is unknown how to make this device.
Because of insufficient direction, a lack of working examples, and the quantity of experimentation needed, this invention is not enabled and there is insufficient written description.
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.
Claims 2, 4, and 9 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.
Regarding claim 2, the term “movably coupled” is indefinite because the meets and bounds of this limitation is unclear. Is the seat support required to move with respect to the panel(s)? Or is the seat support required to move with the panel(s)?
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “desired position” is subjective to a particular interpreter and it is unclear when a position may be desired vs not desired and thus the scope of this limitation can not be ascertained.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “desired position” is subjective to a particular interpreter and it is unclear when a position may be desired vs not desired and thus the scope of this limitation can not be ascertained.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-4, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lokanatha (US 20210253257 A1) in view of Fourrey (FR 2589800 A1) and Lin (EP 3680173 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lokanatha (US 20210253257 A1) discloses a seat system configured to be within an internal cabin of a vehicle, the seat system comprising:
a rear panel (Lokanatha, figure 1, item 106);
a backrest coupled to one or more of the rear panel (Lokanatha, figure 2, item 118); and
a seat support coupled to one or more of the rear panel, wherein the seat support is moveable between a seating position and a standing position (Lokanatha, figure 2, item 120), wherein the seat support is pivoted downwardly in relation to the backrest from the seating position to the standing position (Lokanatha, figure 2, item 120, seat pivots between positions including downwards) wherein the seat support in the standing position is folded against a front surface of the rear panel (Lokanatha, figure 4, item 120),
wherein the backrest and the seat support are configured to allow an individual to be in a seated orientation when the seat support is in the seating position (Lokanatha, figure 2, item 120, seat pan in an extended configuration for sitting), and
wherein the backrest and the seat support are configured to allow the individual to be in a standing orientation when the seat support is in the standing position (Lokanatha, figure 4, item 120, seat pan in a stowed configuration for standing), except:
a first lateral panel forwardly extending from the rear panel;
a second lateral panel forwardly extending from the rear panel.
Assuming arguendo, should applicant argue that Lokantha fails to teach downward pivoting, Fourrey (FR 2589800 A1) teaches a seat support which is downwardly pivoted in relation to the backrest between positions (Fourrey, figures 1 and 3, item 1, seat pan pivoted downwards with respect to the backrest between different positions).
Lokanatha and Fourrey are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat pan of Lokanatha with to pivot downwards of Fourrey with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase clearance in the upper part of the seat near the backrest.
Lin (EP 3680173 A1) teaches a seat system wherein the seat system comprises:
a first lateral panel forwardly extending from the seat (Lin, figure 2, item 28);
a second lateral panel forwardly extending from the seat (Lin, figure 2, item 28).
Lokanatha as modified by Fourrey and Lin are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat pan of Lokanatha as modified by Fourrey with the lateral panels of Lin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an armrest for occupants.
Regarding claim 2, Lokanatha as modified by Fourrey and Lin teaches the seat system of claim 1, further comprising one or more panels, wherein the seat support is moveably coupled to one or more of the rear panel, the first lateral panel, or the second lateral panel (Lokanatha, figure 1, item 108, seat attached to rear panel).
Regarding claim 3, Lokanatha as modified by Fourrey teaches the seat system of claim 2, wherein the seat support is pivotally coupled to one or more of the rear panel, the first lateral panel, or the second lateral panel by a pivot member (Lokanatha, figure 2, item 130, hinge).
Regarding claim 4, Lokanatha as modified by Fourrey teaches the seat system of claim 3,
further comprising a lock operatively coupled to the pivot member, wherein the lock is configured to lock the seat support in a desired position (Lokanatha, figure 5, item 120, retainer).
Alternatively, Fourrey also teaches a seat comprising a lock operatively coupled to the pivot member, wherein the lock is configured to lock the seat support in a desired position (Fourrey, figure 3, item 32, abstract, locks prevent the articulation of the seat bottom).
Lokanatha and Fourrey are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat pan pivot mechanism of Lokanatha with the lock of Fourrey with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent unwanted and potentially harmful articulation of the seat support.
Regarding claim 6, Lokanatha as modified by Fourrey teaches the seat system of claim 1, wherein the backrest is moveably coupled to one or more of the rear panel, the first lateral panel, or the second lateral panel by a translator configured to allow the backrest to linearly translate in relation to the one or more of the rear panel, the first lateral panel, or the second lateral panel (Lokanatha, figure 2, item 122, guide track allowing the backrest to linearly translate with respect to the panel)
Regarding claim 9, Lokanatha as modified by Fourrey teaches the seat system of claim 1, further comprising a lock configured to lock the backrest in a desired position (Lokanatha, figure 5, item 120, retainer).
Alternatively, Fourrey also teaches a seat comprising a lock configured to lock the backrest in a desired position (Fourrey, figure 3, item 28, abstract, locks prevent the articulation of the backrest).
Lokanatha and Fourrey are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the backrest of Lokanatha with the lock of Fourrey with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent unwanted and potentially harmful articulation of the backrest.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lokanatha (US 20210253257 A1) in view of Fourrey (FR 2589800 A1) and Lin (EP 3680173 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferry (GB 2406269 A).
Regarding claim 10, Lokanatha discloses the seat system of claim 1, except:
further comprising a motor configured to automatically move the backrest.
Ferry (GB 2406269 A) teaches a seat system comprising a motor configured to automatically move a seat between a first position and a second position (Ferry, figures 3-4 and 6, item 280).
Lokanatha and Ferry are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft seat design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the backrest and associated mounting mechanism of Lokanatha with the motor of Ferry with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce/eliminate the requirement for passengers to apply force to move the backrest thereby accommodating for those with physical disabilities and to increase passenger convenance.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lokanatha (US 20210253257 A1) in view of Fourrey (FR 2589800 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Lokanatha discloses the method for a seat system (Lokanatha, figure 1, item 100) within an internal cabin of a vehicle (Lokanatha, figure 1, item 102, ¶30, aircraft cabin fuselage), the seat system comprising a backrest (Lokanatha, figure 2, item 118) and a seat support (Lokanatha, figure 2, item 120), the method comprising:
moving the seat support between a seating position and a standing position (Lokanatha, figures 2-4, item 120), wherein the backrest and the seat support are configured to support an individual in a seated orientation when the seat support is in the seating position (Lokanatha, figure 2, item 120, seat is a seat to sit on when the seat pan is flat), and wherein the backrest and the seat support are configured to support the individual in a standing orientation when the seat support is in the standing position (Lokanatha, figure 4, item 120, seat is a seat to sit on when the seat pan is flat seat is capable of allowing a passenger to stand when the seat pan is stowed), wherein said moving comprises pivoting the seat support in relation to the backrest from the seating position to the standing position (Lokanatha, figure 3, item 120, seat pan pivots with respect to backrest when transitioning) wherein the seat support in the standing position is folded against a front surface of a rear panel (Lokanatha, figure 4, item 120), except:
wherein said moving comprises downwardly pivoting the seat support in relation to the backrest from the seating position to the standing position.
Fourrey (FR 2589800 A1) teaches a seat support which moves, wherein said moving comprises downwardly pivoting in relation to the backrest between positions (Fourrey, figures 1 and 3, item 1, seat pan pivoted downwards with respect to the backrest between different positions).
Lokanatha and Fourrey are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat pan of Lokanatha to pivot downwards as in Fourrey with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase clearance in the upper part of the seat near the backrest.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 11-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Round (US 9033413 B2) in view of Fourrey (FR 2589800 A1), Lokanatha (US 20210253257 A1), and Lin (EP 3680173 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Round (US 9033413 B2) discloses a seat system configured to be within an internal cabin of a vehicle, the seat system comprising:
a rear panel (Round, figure 26, item 50, rear panel behind backrest)
a backrest coupled to one or more of the rear panel (Round, figure 26, see callout below, backrest); and
a seat support moveable between a seating position and a standing position, wherein the seat support is pivoted downwardly in relation to the backrest from the seating position to the standing position (Round, figures 24-25),
wherein the backrest and the seat support are configured to support an individual in a seated orientation when the seat support is in the seating position (Round, figures 26 and 27, see callout below, seat support which is shown in a standing position below and a sitting position in figure 27), and
wherein the backrest and the seat support are configured to support the individual in a standing orientation when the seat support is in the standing position (Round, figure 26, see callout below, space for standing), except:
a first lateral panel forwardly extending from the rear panel;
a second lateral panel forwardly extending from the rear panel
wherein the seat support in the standing position is folded against a front surface of the rear panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
599
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In arguendo, should applicant argue that Round fails to teach downward pivoting, Fourrey (FR 2589800 A1) teaches a seat support which is downwardly pivoted in relation to the backrest between positions (Fourrey, figures 1 and 3, item 1, seat pan pivoted downwards with respect to the backrest between different positions).
Round and Fourrey are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat pan of Round with to pivot downwards of Fourrey with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase clearance in the upper part of the seat near the backrest.
Lokanatha (US 20210253257 A1) teaches a seat system including a rear panel, backrest, and seat support, wherein the seat support in the standing position is folded against a front surface of the rear panel (Lokanatha, figures 1 and 4, item 108 and 120, seat support folds against a front surface of the rear panel).
Round as modified by Fourrey and Lokanatha are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat pan of Round as modified by Fourrey with to fold against the rear panel of Lokanatha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase clearance in the upper part of the seat near the backrest.
Lin (EP 3680173 A1) teaches a seat system wherein the seat system comprises:
a first lateral panel forwardly extending from the seat (Lin, figure 2, item 28);
a second lateral panel forwardly extending from the seat (Lin, figure 2, item 28).
Round as modified by Fourrey and Lokanatha and Lin are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat pan of Round as modified by Fourrey and Lokanatha with the lateral panels of Lin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an armrest for occupants.
Regarding claim 2, Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin teaches the seat system of claim 1, , wherein the seat support is moveably coupled to one or more of the rear panel, the first lateral panel, or the second lateral panel (Round, figure 26, see callout above, panels coupling to seat support).
Regarding claim 7, Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin teaches the seat system of claim 2, further comprising a tray table moveably secured to one or more panels, wherein the tray table is configured to be moved between a privacy position and a forwardly-deployed position (Round, figures 26 and 27, item 34, tray attached to the panels which is moved between a deployed and stowed position; privacy is a matter of intended use), except:
wherein the tray table is secured to one or more of the rear panel, the first lateral panel, or the second lateral panel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to re-arrange the tray table to be secured to one or more of the rear panel, the first lateral panel, or the second lateral panel in order to increase the ease of access of an occupant to the tray table since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 11, Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin teaches the seat system of claim 1.
Round also teaches a seat wherein the seat system is configured to be secured to one or more seat tracks within a floor of the internal cabin (Round, col 6, lines 38-44, seat attached to the track).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat of figure 26 with the seat attached to a seat track of figure 12 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the position of the seat to be adjusted and thereby accommodate passengers of different heights.
Regarding claim 12, Round (US 9033413 B2) discloses an aircraft comprising:
an internal cabin (Round, claim 1, aircraft cabin); and
a seat system configured to be within an internal cabin of a vehicle (Round, figure 26), the seat system comprising:
a rear panel (Round, figure 26, item 50, rear panel behind backrest)
a backrest coupled to one or more of the rear panel (Round, figure 26, see callout below, backrest); and
a seat support moveable between a seating position and a standing position, wherein the seat support is pivoted downwardly in relation to the backrest from the seating position to the standing position (Round, figures 24-25),
wherein the backrest and the seat support are configured to support an individual in a seated orientation when the seat support is in the seating position (Round, figures 26 and 27, see callout below, seat support which is shown in a standing position below and a sitting position in figure 27), and
wherein the backrest and the seat support are configured to support the individual in a standing orientation when the seat support is in the standing position (Round, figure 26, see callout below, space for standing), except:
a first lateral panel forwardly extending from the rear panel;
a second lateral panel forwardly extending from the rear panel
wherein the seat support in the standing position is folded against a front surface of the rear panel.
PNG
media_image1.png
599
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In arguendo, should applicant argue that Round fails to teach downward pivoting, Fourrey (FR 2589800 A1) teaches a seat support which is downwardly pivoted in relation to the backrest between positions (Fourrey, figures 1 and 3, item 1, seat pan pivoted downwards with respect to the backrest between different positions).
Round and Fourrey are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat pan of Round with to pivot downwards of Fourrey with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase clearance in the upper part of the seat near the backrest.
Lokanatha (US 20210253257 A1) teaches a seat system including a rear panel, backrest, and seat support, wherein the seat support in the standing position is folded against a front surface of the rear panel (Lokanatha, figures 1 and 4, item 108 and 120, seat support folds against a front surface of the rear panel).
Round as modified by Fourrey and Lokanatha are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat pan of Round as modified by Fourrey with to fold against the rear panel of Lokanatha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase clearance in the upper part of the seat near the backrest.
Lin (EP 3680173 A1) teaches a seat system wherein the seat system comprises:
a first lateral panel forwardly extending from the seat (Lin, figure 2, item 28);
a second lateral panel forwardly extending from the seat (Lin, figure 2, item 28).
Round as modified by Fourrey and Lokanatha and Lin are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat pan of Round as modified by Fourrey and Lokanatha with the lateral panels of Lin with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide an armrest for occupants.
Regarding claim 13, Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin teaches the seat system of claim 12, wherein the seat support is moveably coupled to one or more of the rear panel, the first lateral panel, or the second lateral panel (Round, figure 26, see callout above, panels coupling to seat support).
Regarding claim 14, Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin teaches the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the seat support is pivotally coupled to one or more of the rear panel, the first lateral panel, or the second lateral panel by a pivot member (Round, figure 26-27, item 52, seat pan coupled with the rear panel pivots with respect to the rear panel ).
Alternatively, Lokanatha also teaches a seat support pivotally coupled to the rear panel by a pivot member (Lokanatha, figure 2, item 130, hinge).
Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha (as previously applied), and Lin and Lokanatha are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat pan of Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha (as previously applied), and Lin with the pivot member of Lokanatha with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a mechanism to allow the seat to pivot.
Regarding claim 15, Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin teaches the aircraft of claim 13, wherein the backrest is moveably coupled to one or more of the rear panel, the first lateral panel, or the second lateral panel (Round, figure 26, item 50).
Regarding claim 16, Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin teaches the aircraft of claim 13, wherein the seat system further includes a tray table moveably secured to one or more panels, wherein the tray table is configured to be moved between a privacy position and a forwardly-deployed position (Round, figures 26 and 27, item 34, tray attached to the panels which is moved between a deployed and stowed position; privacy is a matter of intended use), except:
wherein the tray table is secured to one or more of the rear panel, the first lateral panel, or the second lateral panel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to re-arrange the tray table to be secured to one or more of the rear panel, the first lateral panel, or the second lateral panel in order to increase the ease of access of an occupant to the tray table since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 19, Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin teaches the aircraft of claim 12.
Round also teaches a seat wherein the seat system is configured to be secured to one or more seat tracks within a floor of the internal cabin (Round, col 6, lines 38-44, seat attached to the track).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat of figure 26 with the seat attached to a seat track of figure 12 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the position of the seat to be adjusted and thereby accommodate passengers of different heights.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Round (US 9033413 B2) in view of Fourrey (FR 2589800 A1), Lokanatha (US 20210253257 A1), and Lin (EP 3680173 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferry (GB 2406269 A).
Regarding claim 8, Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin teaches the seat system of claim 1, further comprising a motor configured to automatically move the seat support between the seating position and the standing position.
Ferry (GB 2406269 A) teaches a seat system comprising a motor configured to automatically move the seat support between a first position and a second position (Ferry, figures 3-4 and 6, item 280).
Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin and Ferry are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft seat design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat of Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin with the motor of Ferry with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce/eliminate the requirement for passengers to apply force to move the seat support thereby accommodating for those with physical disabilities and to increase passenger convenance.
Regarding claim 10, Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin teaches the seat system of claim 1, except:
further comprising a motor configured to automatically move the backrest.
Ferry (GB 2406269 A) teaches a seat system comprising a motor configured to automatically move a backrest between a first position and a second position (Ferry, figures 3-4 and 6, item 280).
Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin and Ferry are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft seat design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the backrest of Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin with the backrest movement mechanism and motor of Ferry with a reasonable expectation of success in order to automatically adjust the height of the backrest to make passengers comfortable.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Round (US 9033413 B2) in view of Fourrey (FR 2589800 A1), Lokanatha (US 20210253257 A1), and Lin (EP 3680173 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ferry (GB 2406269 A).
Regarding claim 17, Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin teaches the seat system of claim 12, further comprising a motor configured to automatically move the seat support between the seating position and the standing position.
Ferry (GB 2406269 A) teaches a seat system comprising a motor configured to automatically move the seat support between a first position and a second position (Ferry, figures 3-4 and 6, item 280).
Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin and Ferry are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft seat design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the seat of Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin with the motor of Ferry with a reasonable expectation of success in order to reduce/eliminate the requirement for passengers to apply force to move the seat support thereby accommodating for those with physical disabilities and to increase passenger convenance.
Regarding claim 18, Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin teaches the seat system of claim 12, except:
further comprising a motor configured to automatically move the backrest.
Ferry (GB 2406269 A) teaches a seat system comprising a motor configured to automatically move a backrest between a first position and a second position (Ferry, figures 3-4 and 6, item 280).
Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin and Ferry are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft seat design. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the backrest of Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin with the backrest movement mechanism and motor of Ferry with a reasonable expectation of success in order to automatically adjust the height of the backrest to make passengers comfortable.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Round (US 9033413 B2) in view of Fourrey (FR 2589800 A1), Lokanatha (US 20210253257 A1), and Lin (EP 3680173 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Erhel (US 20150008708 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin teaches the aircraft of claim 1, except:
wherein one or both of the first lateral panel or the second lateral panel comprises a storage pocket.
Erhel (US 20150008708 A1) teaches a seat wherein one or both of the first lateral panel or the second lateral panel comprises a storage pocket (Erhel, figure 1, item 82).
Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin and Erhel are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of vehicle seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lateral panels of Round as modified by Fourrey, Lokanatha, and Lin with the storage pocket of Erhel with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide storage space for passenger’s belongings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of applicant’s reply, filed 12/18/2024, with respect to the amendments to resolve the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 12, 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Figure 1 shows the required claim elements
This is not found persuasive because figure 1 is a schematic drawing which is insufficient for showing the claimed features. See the objection to the drawings above. As such, this objection is maintained.
That there is sufficient written description and that the invention is enabled.
With regards to the lock of claim 4, applicant points to parts of the specification as providing written description for the claim scope.
The parts of the specification were addressed as being insufficient in the rejection and they fail to provide more than a reiteration of the claim language.
With regards to the motor of claim 8, applicant points to parts of the specification as providing written description for the claim scope
The parts of the specification were addressed as being insufficient in the rejection and they fail to provide more than a reiteration of the claim language.
With regards to the lock of claim 9, applicant points to parts of the specification as providing written description for the claim scope.
The parts of the specification were addressed as being insufficient in the rejection and they fail to provide more than a reiteration of the claim language.
With regards to the motor of claim 18, applicant points to parts of the specification as providing written description for the claim scope
The parts of the specification were addressed as being insufficient in the rejection and they fail to provide more than a reiteration of the claim language.
With regards to the enablement requirement, applicant submits that undue experimentation would not be needed for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant cites no prior art and appears to have invented this in a vacuum. As such, the examiner maintains that with the infinite number of combinations of complex elements there would be undue experimentation.
That claims are definite
With regards to claim 2, that the term ‘moveably coupled‘ is defined clearly by the specification
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears that applicant points to parts of the specification which either reiterates claim language without further elaboration and the ambiguity about what is claimed remains. As such, this rejection is maintained.
With regards to claim 4, that the term ‘desired position’ should be definite because ‘desired position’ is a position based on a preference of a user of the seat.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is because the preferences of different users might vary that the particular claim scope is unclear. As such this rejection is maintained.
The claims are not obvious under the prior rejections
With regards to claim 1 and the combination of Lokanatha and Fourrey that the seat pan of Lokanatha is incapable of being pivoted downwards and that there is no motivation to combine these references
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection is based on a combination of Lokanatha with the teachings of Fourrey, not upon Lokanatha alone and it would have been within one of ordinary skill in the art’s ability to combine both of these teachings in such a way as to meet the claim language. As such, this rejection is being maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the downward pivoting seat of Fourrey is being used to modify the Seat of Lokathanatha in order to increase clearance in the upper part of the seat near the backrest, thereby giving passengers more available space when standing or otherwise allowing for seat pitch to be decreased.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-4, 6-20 under 35 USC 102/103 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saberan (US 20060061174 A1) teaches a seat system with a pivoting seat pan and which can translate.
Hoover (US 10464679 B2) teaches a seat with a backrest which translates and a seat pan which pivots
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 communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached on (571) 272-1467. 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights