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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (figures 1-3) and claims 1-12 in the reply filed on November 7th, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 12, “…seat parts is continuously…” should read “…seat parts are continuously…” to resolve grammar issue.
In claim 2 line 2, “a side seat part provided…” should read “side seat parts provided…”.
In claim 2 line 5, “…seat part.” should read “…seat parts.”.
In claim 3 line 4, “…the heat to the tail…” should read “…a heat to a tail…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 5 lines 3-4, “…with the passenger…” should read “…with a passenger…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 5 line 4, “…seat part.” should read “…seat parts.”.
In claim 6 line 2, “…in the region…” should read “…in a region…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 9 line 3, “…disposed in the head direction…” should read “…disposed in a head direction…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 12 lines 2-3, “…the plurality of seat parts having the V-shaped arrangement structure is disposed…” should read “…the plurality of seat parts having the V-shaped arrangement structure are disposed…” to resolve grammar issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the first side wall and the second side wall are detachably coupled to each other with a fastening member” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 9, on which claim 11 depends, recites “a second side wall provided at one end of the rear wall and disposed in parallel with the first side wall”. Thus, it is unclear how a first side wall is parallel and detachably coupled with a second side wall at a same time.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheung et al. (US 2022/0001991).
Regarding claim 1, Cheung et al. ‘991 teaches (figures 1-9) a seat system for an airplane comprising:
a lower seat system/rows of side seats (104s) and rows of lower-level seats (156, 200, 254) provided in a first space part/cabin space below space occupied by rows of upper level seats (354s) of an airplane body/fuselage (Para 0020, 0029, 0034, 0038); and
an upper seat system/rows of upper-level seats (354) provided in a second space part/cabin space occupied by rows of upper-level seats (354) disposed above the first space part (clearly seen in figure 1) (Para 0020, 0046),
wherein the upper seat system includes plurality of seat parts (clearly seen in the figure below) (Para 0046),
the plurality of seat parts have a V-shaped arrangement structure (clearly seen in the figure below), and
the plurality of seat parts/seats (354s) are continuously arranged (clearly seen in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
920
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Cheung et al. ‘991 teaches (figures 1-9) the seat system for the airplane wherein the lower seat system comprises
side seat parts provided in the first space part (clearly shown in the figure above); and
a first seat part disposed to be spaced apart from the side seat parts (clearly shown in the figure above).
Regarding claim 3, Cheung et al. ‘991 teaches (figures 1-9) the seat system for the airplane wherein the side seat parts are disposed on both sides of the first seat part and are arranged in a straight line in a direction from a head to a tail of the airplane body/fuselage (clearly seen in the figure above).
Regarding claim 4, Cheung et al. ‘991 teaches (figures 1-9) the seat system for the airplane wherein a pair of first corridors are provided in the first space part (clearly shown in the figure above), and
the first seat part includes a first seat body/seat (156) provided between the pair of first corridors and provided as a seating area for a user (Para 0034).
Regarding claim 5, Cheung et al. ‘991 teaches (figures 1-9) the seat system for the airplane wherein the first seat part further comprises a blocking body/back partition (158) disposed close to the first seat body/seat (156) to block a line of sight with a passenger sitting on the side seat parts (Para 0036).
Regarding claim 6, Cheung et al. ‘991 teaches (figures 1-9) the seat system for the airplane wherein in the first space part in a region where the first seat part is provided, a plurality of support partitions/partitions (158, 160, 162) are provided to support a bottom part of the second space part (clearly seen in figure 2) (Para 0036; partitions (158, 160, 162) in the first space part comes in contact with a bottom part of a second space part and a cabin floor).
Regarding claim 7, Cheung et al. ‘991 teaches (figures 1-9) the seat system for the airplane wherein the plurality of seat parts having the V-shaped arrangement structure comprise a plurality of second seat parts disposed in a V-shape with a second corridor/upper level aisle (302) provided in the second space part interposed therebetween (clearly seen in figure 6) (Para 0046).
Regarding claim 8, Cheung et al. ‘991 teaches (figures 1-9) the seat system for the airplane wherein the plurality of second seat parts comprises
a second seat body/seat (354) provided as a seating area for passengers (Para 0046); and
a seat accommodating body/partitions (350, 352) and a door configured to block the lines of sight of passengers seated on the second seat body and other passengers and accommodate the second seat body therein (Para 0047, 0050).
Regarding claim 12, Cheung et al. ‘991 teaches (figures 1-9) the seat system for the airplane wherein the plurality of seat parts having the V-shaped arrangement structure are disposed above a first seat part provided in the lower seat system (clearly seen in the figure above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung et al. (US 2022/0001991) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Henshaw (US 2015/0166183).
Regarding claim 9, Cheung et al. ‘991 teaches (figures 1-9) the seat system for the airplane wherein the seat accommodating body comprises a first side wall/partition (350), a rear wall provided at one end of the first side wall/partition (350) (clearly shown in the figure above), a second side wall/partition (352) provided at one end of the rear wall and disposed in parallel with the first side wall/partition (350), and a body door (Para 0047, 0050)
but it is silent about the seat system form airplane wherein seat accommodating body comprises
a front wall disposed in a head direction of the airplane body;
a first side wall provided at one end of the front wall;
a rear wall disposed in parallel with the front wall; and
a body door provided on the second side wall.
Henshaw ‘183 teaches (figures 11-18) a seating arrangement (110) comprising a center assembly (116) wherein center assembly (116) includes a center shell structure/seat accommodating body (134) comprising an end/front wall (172), a first side wall (154) provided at one end of the end/front wall (172), an end/rear wall (176) provided at one end of the first side wall (154) and disposed in parallel with the end/front wall (172), a second side wall (156, 157) provided at one end of the end/rear wall (176) and disposed in parallel with the first side wall (154); and a body door (164, 166) provided on the second side wall (156, 157) (Para 0069-0070, 0074, 0077).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cheung et al. ‘991 to incorporate the teachings of Henshaw ‘183 to configure the seat system form airplane wherein seat accommodating body comprises
a front wall disposed in a head direction of the airplane body;
a first side wall provided at one end of the front wall;
a rear wall disposed in parallel with the front wall; and
a body door provided on the second side wall.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maximize the space surrounded by a seat accommodating body and minimize the floor space occupied by the door during operations.
Regarding claim 10, modified Cheung et al. ‘991 teaches (figures 1-9) the seat system for the airplane wherein the plurality of second seat parts are disposed so that the first side wall and the second side wall come into contact with each other (side walls come into indirect contact via front and rear walls).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 J 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642