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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 recites “cabined”, which should be --cabinet--. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the amendments with respect to the prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is a new interpretation of the reference applied in the prior rejection of record and does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the angle of the seat and partition wall are not found in Dowty. Dowty shows that they are clearly at some angle, but it is not disclosed what the angle is, and therefore we do not know if it is 45 degrees, as claimed. For this reason, a new teaching reference is introduced to teach this specific angle. Applicant argues that Dowty does not disclose a reverse herringbone layout multiple times, and yet this limitation is not in the claim. Still, the teaching reference does teach this. Applicant also argues that it would not be obvious to angle the partition wall with the motivation of maximizing storage space while still allowing for enough footwell space, because “more storage space is a generic design goal that could be achieved in countless ways”. The examiner agrees that there are many ways one would consider to maximize storage space. Considering all the options is the job of the designer, and one of these ways is to angle the partition wall.
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.
Claim 1-5 and 8-10 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.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the seat comprises an axis forming a non-zero angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft cabin at 45 degrees, the seat being turned in a direction opposite the longitudinal axis of the aircraft cabin, the axis of the seat being substantially parallel to the partition wall”.
There is not support for this specific angle for the seat or for the partition wall. The only mention of this is that the axis X2 of a seat 13 may be “for example of the order of 45 degrees”. This does not support limiting the angle to be only 45 degrees, but rather that it is “of the order of 45 degrees”. It is another question of what is meant by “of the order of 45 degrees”. Further, there is no mention that the partition wall is at 45 degrees or is parallel to the seat.
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 1-5 and 8-10 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 “a flat surface defined by the seat is located at the same level and in the extension of the foot rest”. This at least lacks antecedent basis for the term “the extension”. Additionally, it is not clear what it meant by this line. How is a surface of the seat located in an extension of the foot rest? How does this extension contain another component within it? Is it hollow?
The term “substantially parallel” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially parallel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base 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, 3-5, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowty et al (US 20220024591 A1) in view of Ruiter et al (US 8196864 B2).
For claim 1, Dowty discloses an assembly for an aircraft cabin comprising at least one cabinet and at least one aircraft seat unit, the aircraft seat unit comprising a seat movable between a seated position and a lying position, the at least one cabinet comprising:
at least one first cabinet module Fig. 4A-6B as shown below comprising:
a front side left side as marked below and a rear side right side, the front side facing a space dedicated to a crew member left, the rear side facing an opposite side toward a seat unit right,
a first lateral side top side of first part as viewed in the image below and a second lateral side bottom side of second part,
a first part as marked below, called "crew member part", containing an equipment to be used by a crew member Para 0058: “storage compartments 118 may include one or more safety devices (e.g., air masks, personal floatation devices, or the like)” which may be used by crew, and
a second part as marked below, called "passenger part", comprising an element specific to a passenger seat cut-out footwell 608 (Fig. 6B), wherein the passenger part comprises a housing in which is arranged a foot rest Fig. 6C: footrest 610 is arranged in the cut-out,
wherein the crew member part comprises a height greater than a height of the passenger part, wherein an entirety of the crew member part extends along an entire height of the aircraft cabin in a full-height configuration Fig. 6B: the right part which is the crew member part is full-height along the entirety of it and is taller than the passenger part,
wherein said crew member part and said passenger part extend between the front side and the rear side of said first cabinet module as shown,
wherein said crew member part and said passenger part longitudinally overlap each other along a longitudinal axis of said cabinet as shown,
wherein the crew member part and the passenger part have a common partition wall at least the wall between 204 and 118, and as shown in Fig. 1B the partition wall inside extends to the front side.
PNG
media_image1.png
413
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1B shows a partition wall within the cavity 120, this wall diving the first part and the second part, but it is not disclosed that the common partition wall is at a non-zero angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the cabinet. However, the embodiment of Fig. 5A-5B teaches a different common partition wall that may be at a non-zero angle (the wall between 202 and 118 shown above it). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Dowty by angling the common partition wall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to narrow the footwell at the back in order to create more space for the storage areas next to it.
Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the cabinet of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, in order to maximize the storage space while allowing for enough space for the footwell. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
As modified, the common partition wall forms a non-zero angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the cabinet partition is angled, so that the crew member part and the passenger part each have respectively a first trapezoidal shape and a second trapezoidal shape as modified,
wherein the first trapezoidal shape corresponds to the crew member part being formed by a portion of the front side, a portion of the rear side, the common partition wall and the first lateral side as shown above,
wherein the second trapezoidal shape corresponds to the passenger part being formed by a portion of the front side, a portion of the rear side, the common partition wall and the second lateral side as shown above,
wherein the crew member part and the passenger part of the first cabinet module have openings in two different directions so as to respectively allow access to an element of a kitchen module by a crew member Fig. 1B: opening 120 and access to the footrest by a passenger Fig. 6B: 608,
wherein an opening of the crew member part is positioned in the front side opening 120 opens to the front side,
wherein an opening of the passenger part is positioned in the rear side footwell 608 opens to the rear side,
wherein the seat comprises an axis forming a non-zero angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft cabin Fig. 5B: seat is angled, the seat being turned in a direction opposite the longitudinal axis of the aircraft cabin seat faces the fuselage wall, away from center axis, the axis of the seat being substantially parallel to the partition wall seat 132 at an angle that is substantially aligned with the partition wall;
wherein the housing of the passenger part is open towards the seat unit, so that when the seat is in the lying position Fig. 5B, a flat surface defined by the seat is located at the same level as the foot rest as it is a lie-flat seat, all components “lie-flat”, the flat surface of the seat in the lying position and an inner surface of the foot rest thus defining a bed surface for the passenger Para 0002: “At least a portion of the bed surface may be within the footwell when the aircraft seat is in the lie-flat position”, the foot rest having an axis parallel or coincident with the axis of the seat these components each have many axes which can be defined in almost anyway, so a line between the two of them would therefore be coincident.
Dowty also fails to disclose what angle the seat and partition wall are at and therefore does not disclose:
wherein the seat comprises an axis forming a non-zero angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft cabin at 45 degrees, the seat being turned in a direction opposite the longitudinal axis of the aircraft cabin, the axis of the seat being substantially parallel to the partition wall.
However, Ruiter teaches an aircraft seat unit Fig. 2 wherein the seat comprises an axis forming a non-zero angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft cabin at 45 degrees Col 3, lines 49-51: “Preferred values for the angle formed by axes S.sub.3L and L are between +90.degree. to +150.degree. (more preferably between +120.degree. to +140.degree.)” – the reciprocal angle of the seat therefore being 40-60 degrees, including 45 degrees, the seat being turned in a direction opposite the longitudinal axis of the aircraft cabin Dowty already teaches this, and Ruiter does as well as the inner seats are angled outward, the axis of the seat being substantially parallel to the partition wall Fig. 2: the angle of the wall adjacent the foot rest is at substantially the same angle as the seat, 45 deg.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Dowty by angling the seat at 45 degrees and the axis of the seat being substantially parallel to the partition wall as disclosed by Ruiter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to efficiently pack the seats in the row so that they can fully recline and also include as many seats as possible; further it would be efficient to angle the partition wall at the same angle as the seat since that would be in alignment with the passengers legs and would therefore allow for space of the passenger while still maximizing the space on the other side of the wall to be used by the crew.
It is clear from Ruiter that the forwardmost seat of a row would have the footrest portion extending into an area that would ideally be used in some efficient manner. It is the question of how to optimally use this space that Dowty addresses in the first place. One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to these two references, which deal with the similar issues, and be motivated to combine an efficient use of space from a herringbone, 45-degree angled seat configuration with the forward cabinet module that integrates a footrest.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to angle the seat and partition wall at 45 degrees for efficient packing of seats, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The angle is a result effective variable as it impacts the number of seats that can be used and the size of the aisles.
For claim 3, Dowty discloses the assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that the crew member part comprises a storage space containing an equipment to be used by a crew member Para 0058: “storage compartments 118 may include one or more safety devices (e.g., air masks, personal floatation devices, or the like)” which may be used by crew.
For claim 4, Dowty discloses the assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that the passenger part comprises a passenger seat at the least, the footwell is a component of a passenger seat, and it could be interpreted that the passenger seat is a part of the passenger part.
For claim 5, Dowty discloses the assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that the crew member part has a height greater than a height of the passenger part Fig. 6B.
For claim 8, Dowty discloses the assembly according to claim 1, characterized in that it further comprises a second cabinet module Fig. 1A-1C: actuable panel 110 attached to 104 having a front side side furthest from monument 104 and a rear side side attached to monument 104; Para 0048: “actuatable panel 110 may be coupled to the primary monument 104”, said rear side of the second cabinet module being attached to the front side of the first cabinet module with no space between the rear side of the second cabinet module and the front side of the first cabinet module Fig. 1A-1C.
For claim 9, Dowty discloses the assembly according to claim 8, characterized in that it further comprises a third cabinet module Fig. 1A-1C: actuable panel 110 attached to auxiliary monument 106 having a front side side attached to 106 and a rear side side which extends toward other panel 110,
but fails to disclose that the panels 110 are attached to one another.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the panels by attaching them to one another with a latch/lock mechanism in order to secure them once they are deployed.
As modified, said rear side of the third cabinet module would be attached to the front side of the second cabinet module with no space between the front side of the second cabinet module and the rear side of the third cabinet module as they are locked together, as modified.
For claim 10, Dowty discloses an aircraft cabin comprising the assembly as defined in claim 1 see claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowty in view of Ruiter, and further in view of Moran (US 20190291868 A1).
For claim 2, Dowty discloses the assembly according to claim 1, but fails to disclose that the crew member part comprises a kitchen module containing at least one element chosen from: a trolley, a half-trolley, a refrigerator, or an oven.
However, Moran teaches a cabinet with a crew member part that contains a trolley Fig. 2: cabinet monument 104 contains trolley 118 within door 146.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Dowty by storing a trolley in the compartment as disclosed by Moran. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to safely stow a trolley when not in use and to provide easy access to the trolley for distributing items to passengers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
