Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 6/12/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9, 11-12, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schaefer (US PgPub #2017/0152043).
For Claims 1 and 6, the figures and paragraph [0040] of Schaefer ‘043 disclose in a partition wall arrangement (100) for a cabin of a passenger aircraft including a partition wall, a seat arrangement (10) secured to the partition wall in an assembled state and at least one cabin attendant seat (4), a carrier structure for the partition wall arrangement, comprising: a mechanically load-bearing wall structure (20) for the partition wall; a mechanically load-bearing seat structure (1, bore hole) for the seat arrangement (10); said wall structure (20) and said seat structure (1) together being configured as a single one piece part, forming only one single one-piece part containing said wall structure as well as said seat structure; and the wall structure and the seat structure being adjacent to each other in a spatial region in the assembled state.
For Claim 2, the figures and paragraph (0040] of Schaefer ‘043 disclose that the wall structure (20), the seat structure (1) are configured to be synergistically mutually complementary with regard to a common technical flight strength consideration.
For Claim 9, this is a product by process claim and is governed by MPEP 2113, as such Schaefer ‘043 discloses this limitation as the claimed structure is disclosed by Schaefer ‘043.
For Claim 11, the figures and paragraph (0040] of Schaefer ‘043 disclose that the seat structure (1) is only a basic structure of the seat arrangement constructed only to receive at least one additional component (10).
For Claim 12, the figures of Schaefer ‘043 disclose a partition wall arrangement for a cabin of a passenger aircraft, the partition wall arrangement comprising: a carrier structure of Claim 1; the partition wall containing the wall structure; the seat arrangement secured to the partition wall, the seat arrangement containing said seat structure; the at least one cabin attended seat; and the at least one fastening device securing the seat structure to the wall structure.
For Claim 17, the figures of Schaefer ‘043 disclose a design method for a carrier structure, the design method comprising: producing the carrier according to Claim 1, by entirely subjecting the carrier structure in an assembled state to a load path optimization.
For Claim 18, the figures of Schaefer ‘043 disclose a design method for a partition wall arrangement, the design method comprising: producing the partition wall arrangement according to Claim 12 by entirely subjecting the carrier structure in an assembled state to a load path optimization.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ehlers (US PgPub #201/0251762).
For Claims 1 and 6, the figures of Ehlers ‘762 disclose in a partition wall arrangement for a cabin of a passenger aircraft including a partition wall, a seat arrangement secured to the partition wall in an assembled state and at least one cabin attendant seat (4), a carrier structure for the partition wall arrangement, comprising: a mechanically load-bearing wall structure (14) for the partition wall; a mechanically load-bearing seat structure (18) for the seat arrangement (20); said wall structure (14) and said seat structure (18) together being configured as a single one piece part, forming only one single one-piece part containing said wall structure as well as said seat structure; and the wall structure and the seat structure being adjacent to each other in a spatial region in the assembled state.
For Claim 2, the figures of Ehlers ‘762 disclose that the wall structure (14), the seat structure (18) are configured to be synergistically mutually complementary with regard to a common technical flight strength consideration.
For Claim 11, the figures of Ehlers ‘762 disclose that the seat structure (18) is only a basic structure of the seat arrangement constructed only to receive at least one additional component (20).
For Claim 12, the figures of Ehlers ‘762 disclose a partition wall arrangement for a cabin of a passenger aircraft, the partition wall arrangement comprising: a carrier structure of Claim 1; the partition wall containing the wall structure; the seat arrangement secured to the partition wall, the seat arrangement containing said seat structure; the at least one cabin attended seat; and the at least one fastening device securing the seat structure to the wall structure.
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 should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US PgPub #2017/0152043) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keidel (US PgPub #2004/0211498).
For Claim 3, while the figures of Schaefer ‘043 disclose that the wall structure (20) is connected to a core panel (30) that comprises ribs that extend transversely relative to and in a direction away from a extent plane of the wall face (6), it is silent about the wall structure 20) and the core panel/ribs being formed of a single one-piece part. However, the figures of Keidel ‘498 teach that it is known in the airplane industry to use wall (1) that have ribs (2) that extend from the wall and the wall and the ribs being a single one-piece-part. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schaefer ‘043 with the wall and rib combined structure of Keidel ‘498. The motivation to do so would be to have one simpler structure that doesn’t require connectors.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schaefer (US PgPub #2017/0152043).
For Claims 7-8 and 13-16, while Schaefer ‘043 discloses that the wall structure (20) can be made of additive manufacturing, it is silent about it being made of milled aluminum. However, paragraphs [0003 and 0049] of Schaefer ‘043 discloses that the core panel (30) contains aluminum that can be milled. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Schaefer ‘043 with its own teaching that wall structures can be made of milled aluminum.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the argument that the combination of Schaefer ‘043 and Baymak ‘666 the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner holds that Baymak teaches the general concept of integrating two pieces into one piece so as to make a stronger part that doesn’t have connection points and requires less structure as connection hardware is not needed. However, after further reviewing that claims the Examiner is withdrawing the rejection and providing a new non final rejection which details how the Schaefer ‘043 reference teaches connection holes that are mechanically load-bearing seat structures and allow for connection to the rest of the seat structure. Ehlers ‘762 has also been included to show that it teaches a recessed connection area with a wall for a seat to be connected and therefore reads on the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 at 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights