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 .
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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 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.
Claim 1 recites “to match an orientation of the seat in any position” in line 10. It is unclear whether “position” refers to the top surface or the seat. Further, the use of the phrase implies some defined set of positions of the relevant element that has not been defined.
Claim 3 recites “the seat is in any position,” again implying the existence of a set of positions that have not been defined. Note that the recitation of the seat as “positionable” in claim 1 does not require plural positions.
Claim 14 recites “to correspond with the seat in any position” in line 3. It is unclear whether “position” refers to the armrest or the seat. Further, the use of the phrase implies some defined set of positions of the relevant element that has not been defined.
Claim 15 recites “to match the orientation of the seat in any position” in line 5. It is unclear whether “position” refers to the armrest or the seat. Further, the use of the phrase implies some defined set of positions of the relevant element that has not been defined.
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are deemed indefinite because they are dependent on an indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayne et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0130846).
Regarding claim 1, Mayne discloses a surface extension system, comprising: secondary furniture (including 130), positioned to a side of a seat (at least a front side of 104 for instance) configured to be positionable (see at least paragraph 36), wherein the secondary furniture comprises: a support structure (including 230 for instance), the support structure configured to raise a height of the secondary furniture to a height of the seat (it provides such function); a top surface (of 202); a pivot (at 214 for instance), wherein the pivot is configured to couple the support structure and the top surface (this is the general arrangement), wherein the pivot permits the top surface to rotate about the pivot in order to match an orientation of the seat in any position (at least as best understood; see Figures 5 showing various “matching” orientations); and a locking mechanism (associated with 228 for instance) disposed within the support structure, wherein when the locking mechanism is engaged the locking mechanism prevents rotation of the top surface about the pivot and when the locking mechanism is disengaged the locking mechanism allows rotation of the top surface about the pivot (see paragraph 50). Mayne does not disclose a storage compartment as claimed. Mayne does disclose other storage compartments (within 112 and/or of 120, 122) disposed below a top surface and within a support structure. As duplication and rearrangement require only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a storage compartments as claimed (e.g. below the top surface of the ottoman) based on normal variation to improve comfort and convenience for users. Note that the combination would provide the locking mechanism proximal the storage compartment (e.g. with the storage compartment below the top surface and the locking mechanism present at least at a front thereof).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Mayne, modified as described, further discloses the top surface of the secondary furniture is manually adjusted via the pivot (via 228 as discussed in paragraph 50) and/or wherein an electronic actuator adjusts orientation of the top surface (as described in paragraph 63).
Regarding claims 4-6, Mayne, modified as described, discloses a system as explained above including preset positions for component orientation (various seating configurations as described in paragraph 60 for instance) such that surfaces match orientations of other components when the seat is in at least the sitting position and the berthed position, wherein the electronic actuator accepts an input to adjust a surface to a selected position, and wherein the electronic actuator is configured to match the orientation of a surface to an orientation of the seat when the seat is in any position (i.e. switches 304, etc. take input to adjust surfaces to various matching orientations), but Mayne may not clearly disclose this functionality for the top surface specifically. However, as duplication and rearrangement require only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the functionality as claimed (e.g. including ottoman configuration in preset seating positions) based on normal variation to improve comfort and convenience for users.
Regarding claim 7, Mayne, modified as described, further discloses the top surface forms a top side of the storage compartment (this would be the case in the modified device based on the arrangement of components).
Regarding claim 8, Mayne, modified as described, discloses a system as explained above but may not clearly disclose a lid as claimed. Mayne discloses storage compartments (within 112 and/or of 120, 122), wherein a top surface comprises a lid (116), the lid configured to be opened to allow access to the storage compartment and closed to restrict access to the storage compartment (this would apparently be the case based on the description of the tray motion in paragraph 40; note that Mayne also discloses lids for covering compartments in paragraph 61). As duplication and rearrangement require only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the functionality as claimed (e.g. providing the top surface as a lid) based on normal variation to improve comfort and convenience for users.
Regarding claims 9-11, Mayne, modified as described, further discloses the secondary furniture further comprises a pivot stop (of 218), the pivot stop configured to prevent the rotation of the top surface beyond a first end position and a second end position (i.e. ends of 218 define first and second end positions), wherein the first end position corresponds with when the top surface is aligned with the seat when the seat is in a sitting position, wherein the second end position corresponds with when the surface is aligned with the seat when the seat is in a berthed position (the ends and points could be defined in this manner).
Regarding claim 13, Mayne, modified as described, discloses a system as explained above but may not explicitly described providing the top surface and seat with matching covering material. Providing touch surfaces with matching cover material is old and well-known and, moreover, material selection is a routine design choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide matching material based on normal variation to improve comfort and aesthetics for a user.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Mayne, modified as described, further discloses the secondary furniture and the seat form an extended seating surface when the orientation of the top surface of the secondary furniture and the orientation of the seat match when the seat is in at least a sitting position (as in Figures 5A, 5B, or 5C), and wherein the secondary furniture and the seat form an extended sleeping surface when the orientation of the top surface of the secondary furniture and the orientation of the seat match when the seat is in a berthed position (as in Figure 5D).
Regarding claim 18, Mayne, modified as described, discloses a system as explained above including a gas cylinder (244) but may not clearly associate the cylinder with the locking mechanism. However, as duplication and rearrangement require only routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the arrangement as claimed (e.g. providing a gas cylinder for the locking) based on normal variation to improve comfort and convenience for users.
Regarding claim 19, Mayne, modified as described, further discloses the support structure forms part of an aircraft mini-suite (it is viewed as such).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayne in view of Porter (US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0252680). Mayne discloses a system as explained above including an armrest (at 114, 116 for instance) but does not clearly disclose height adjustment. Porter discloses a related device including an armrest (including 216), wherein a height of the armrest is adjustable to correspond with the seat in any position (the height is adjustable via 331 and would be viewed as corresponding in various positions), wherein the armrest comprises: an armrest top surface (of 216); an armrest pivot (hinge allowing opening as in Figure 10 and described at least in paragraph 350), wherein the pivot permits the armrest to rotate about the armrest pivot in order to match the orientation of the seat position (again, it would serve to “match” orientations); and an armrest locking mechanism (see at least paragraph 351). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide an armrest arrangement as taught by Porter in Mayne’s system as previously modified because this could improve comfort and convenience for various users. Note that while the combination may not explicitly provide a rotation locking mechanism as claimed, Mayne does disclose such a locking mechanism as explained above (see at least the rejection of claim 1). Accordingly, as duplication and rearrangement require only routine skill in the art, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a rotation locking mechanism for the armrest based on normal variation because this could improve comfort and safety for a user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the structure of Mayne would not allow storage at the footrest and that the components are/would not be arranged as claimed. However, as set forth above, Mayne is viewed as capable of providing the claimed arrangement. That is, providing a storage compartment within the support structure would have been recognized as beneficial by one of ordinary skill and would be perfectly feasible despite Applicant’s assertion otherwise. As can be seen in the drawings, there is a great deal of open space below the top surface and within the support structure, which only would need to be enclosed to provide storage. The top surface would be functional as an opening/lid as taught elsewhere in Mayne and explained above. The locking mechanism would in fact be proximal the storage compartment as they are present on the same element, while the secondary furniture would be positioned at least on a front/foot side of the seat (the claims do not require a side or arm side placement as Applicant appears to imply).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP F GABLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2155. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 - 4:30.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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 F GABLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights