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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the claim objections and drawing objection, the amendments have obviated the previously indicated objections.
Examiner notes the previously indicated 112d appears to be unaddressed in Applicant’s Remarks and is therefore reiterated here within.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 rejections, the response has been fully considered but is non-persuasive. Specifically, while the rejection in light of Demenchuk under 35 U.S.C § 102 is withdrawn, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies for argument (e.g., standardized design, aisle-less pods, superior ease-of -installation, pod size, pod weight, etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s) and/or are relative. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Please note the new 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and new/alternative 35 U.S.C § 103 rejections here within in light of the claim amendments.
With respect to the specific arguments regarding Gubas, Tinder, and Chalupa, the arguments are moot. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For example, Gubas teaches the ovoid shape of a safety pod; Tinder teaches the manual release of a door in a system for protecting a passenger of a vehicle from a catastrophic event; Chalupa teaches having a safety pod in the cock-pit to protect the pilot and/or co-pilot in the event of a catastrophic event (col. 1, ln. 65: In a preferred practice of this invention the cockpit would also contain a detachable hatch to permit the pilot and copilot or other occupants of the cockpit to be ejected in a known manner). Each is a detail or feature that is known to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive and do not negate the teachings. Additionally, in response to applicant's suggestion that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “at least two safety pods located within a vehicle and separated by said aisle” in line 5 of the claim, which renders the claim indefinite as it both positively recites the vehicle vis the language “located within”, and functionally requires the vehicle via the preamble language and the claim language “configured to be positioned within the vehicle”. Correction is required, i.e., Examiner suggests changing “located with the vehicle” to “configured to be located within the vehicle” throughout the claims since applicant’s arguments indicate the vehicle is not required. Essentially, any reference to the vehicle should be changed to a functional limitation.
Examiner notes the following Applicant response in the Remarks dated 1/23/2025: Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner's apparent requirement to positively claim the vehicle as an element of the system. It is not indefinite to claim a system that is configured to be installed within a vehicle without reciting that the vehicle is part of the system. If the Examiner's logic were correct, it would be impossible to obtain meaningful patent protection for any vehicle component. Requiring an automotive tire, alarm, or steering wheel (etc.) maker to recite the vehicle in which the tire, alarm, or battery is to be installed would preclude the tire maker from protecting the tire, alarm, or battery unless it also manufactured the vehicle. The invention is a safety pod and not a vehicle. The safety pod forms no part of the vehicle, except that it is installed within the vehicle and ejected therefrom when the vehicle blows up, crashes, or otherwise suffers a catastrophic event. The safety pod is configured to be mounted within a vehicle. It does not include the vehicle.
Claim 6 is rejected as it is unclear to which claim it depends from. Claims 2-3, 5-9 and 11 do not cure the above deficiencies. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the safety pod is configured to enclose said single row of seats” which renders the claim indefinite. The claim from which it depends claims consisting of either a single seat or a single row. Therefore if the single seat option is chosen claim 18 is indefinite. Correction is required. Just as an example, “wherein when the seating arrangement is the single row of seats, the pod is configured to enclose said row of seats”.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 12, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sapija et al. (US 2018/0170558 A1), hereinafter Sapija; and Demenchuk.
Regarding claim 1, Sapija discloses a system for protecting a passenger of a vehicle from a catastrophic event that threaten death or injury to the passenger, wherein the vehicle includes a plurality of seats accessible to passengers from at least one aisle that extends between the seats in a direction of travel of the vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising:
at least two safety pods located within a vehicle and separated by said aisle (Fig. 1), each said safety pod including:
a safety pod housing configured to be positioned within the vehicle and to be ejected from the vehicle when a catastrophic event occurs (module 100, Fig. 1);
a seating arrangement within the safety pod housing for accommodating at least one passenger, said seating arrangement consisting of a single seat or a single row of seats in a side-by-side arrangement (arrangement comprising seats 106 as detailed in §[0034]);
a door for enabling ingress and egress by the at least one said passenger to and from the safety pod from the aisle, and egress from the safety pod to the aisle, when the door is in an open position and the safety pod is secured within the vehicle (door 132, §[0031]); and
an ejector configured to guide the safety pod to an ejection opening for ejection from the vehicle when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent (ejector (not shown), detailed in §[0042]); and
a seal on at least one of the door and the safety pod housing, said seal configured to seal the safety pod when the door is in a closed position (seal disclosed in §[0052], In response to a hazardous condition being indicated by either or both controllers 202, 204, the module door control can close the module doors 132 and seal the module 100 from the cabin 1); and
a latching or securing mechanism for releasably securing the safety pod housing in the vehicle, the latching or securing mechanism configured to prevent movement of the safety pod housing relative to the track unless the catastrophic event is imminent, and to release the safety pod housing to enable ejection of the safety pod housing from the vehicle upon occurrence of the catastrophic event (a latching or securing mechanism is releasably securing the module in the cabin of an aircraft as is evidenced by § [0030] The passenger modules 100 may be mounted to the cabin frame 20 and be supported by the cabin frame 20 in any suitable manner. The passenger module 100 may be detachable from the frame 20 to allow for its ejection from the aircraft),
wherein the door is electrically-operated to close the door and seals seal the safety pod solely when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent, thereby enabling said ingress and egress at all times other than when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent (door electrically operated via controller 200 in the event of catastrophic event, see Fig, 5 and §§[0044]-[0045]),
wherein the vehicle is an airplane and the door is further configured, when in the open position, to open to an aisle of the vehicle and enable the at least one passenger to enter and leave the safety pod, and to receive service items from a crew of the airplane, when the catastrophic event has not occurred and is not imminent (Fig. 2a),
wherein the door, in the closed position, together with the safety pod housing, completely encloses the at least one said passenger and the seating arrangement in a sealed chamber that surrounds the seating arrangement and seated passenger during and after ejection of the pod from the vehicle within which the safety pod is located when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent (Figs. 1, 2a, 4a-c),
wherein the safety pod housing is constructed of a material that is fire proof, waterproof, bomb proof, and configured to protect the at least one passenger from physical or environmental hazards, including impact with land or water, when the safety pod housing is ejected from the vehicle upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event (Examiner notes the safety pod is constructed of a material that is fire proof, waterproof, bomb proof, and configured to protect the at least one passenger from physical or environmental hazards, including impact with land or water, when the safety pod housing is ejected from the vehicle upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event as is evidenced by the safety pod isolating and protecting passengers from a hazardous condition or fatal condition (e.g., necessary ejection, collision with another aircraft or structure, fire, smoke or toxic fumes) as described in §§ [0048]-[0055]).
Sapija does not appear to disclose wherein the ejector configured to guide the safety pod to an ejection opening for ejection from the vehicle when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent is specifically a track configured to be fixedly installed in a vehicle and a bracket extending from the bottom of the safety pod housing.
However, Demenchuk teaches a system for protecting a passenger of a vehicle from a catastrophic event in a similar field of endeavor including an ejector configured to guide a safety pod to an ejection opening for ejection from the vehicle when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent that is specifically a track fixedly installed in the vehicle (tubular guides 12, Fig. 5) and a bracket extending from the bottom of a housing of the safety pod (ejection mechanism 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by Sapija with the track fixedly installed in a vehicle and the bracket extending from the bottom of a safety pod housing (ejection mechanism 14), as taught by Demenchuk, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that each safety pod of the system comprises the track fixedly installed in the vehicle and the bracket extending from the bottom of the safety pod housing, the track and bracket configured to guide the safety pod to an ejection opening for ejection from the vehicle when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent. The benefit being providing a means of ejection of the at least two safety pods to ensure safe rescue of passengers from an air transport vehicle (Demenchuk, pg. 4 of translation, 4th line from the bottom).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sapija discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the door includes a manual release (§[0051]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Sapija discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the safety pod is configured to be propelled towards the ejection opening by an explosion, a motor, or a pneumatic or electro-magnetic actuator (Sapija: § [0042] The ejection force E can be provided by any suitable ejector or plurality thereof, such as rocket motors, explosive devices, hydraulic actuators and/or electric actuators, as would be appreciated by the skilled person; and Demenchuk, pg. 8, 5th line from the bottom: hydraulic devices or pneumatic ejection mechanisms 14).
Regarding claim 6, modified Sapija discloses the system as claimed in claim (Examiner notes 112d rejection associated with the limitation), wherein the system includes a detachable section that detaches from the airplane when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent to form the ejection opening (Examiner notes the skin is configured to detach from the airplane to facilitate ejection, e.g., via piercing or reduced thickness regions of skin coupled with momentum of the ejecting safety pod; §[0043]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sapija discloses the system as claimed in claim 6, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the detachable section is a tail section of the airplane situated to the rear of a passenger cabin of the airplane.
However, Demenchuk teaches a detachable tail section (tail 4, Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by modified Sapija with the detachable tail as taught by Demenchuk, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises a detachable section specifically a detachable tail section of the airplane situated to the rear of a passenger cabin of the airplane. The benefit being providing a detachable tail that pens like a hatch, this has the predictable benefit of a rigid fixation of the hatch until a safety pod is ejected out completely, so that some planning of the flight of the air transport is provided and resistance to air flow is achieved in order to slow down the speed of the falling air transport. Additionally, if necessary, after throwing ejecting a safety pod, the hatch can be closed and the fuselage is sealed (Demenchuk).
Regarding claim 12, Sapija discloses a safety pod for a vehicle that includes a plurality of seats accessible to passengers from at least one aisle that extends between the seats in a direction of travel of the vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising:
a safety pod housing configured to be positioned within a vehicle and to be ejected from the vehicle when a catastrophic event occurs (module 100, Fig. 1);
a seating arrangement within the safety pod housing for accommodating at least one passenger, said seating arrangement consisting of a single seat or a single row of seats in a side- by-side arrangement (arrangement comprising seats 106 as detailed in §[0034]);
a door for enabling ingress by the at least one said passenger to the safety pod from the aisle, and egress from the safety pod and egress from the safety pod to the aisle, when the door is in an open position and the safety pod is secured within the vehicle (door 132, §[0031]);
a mount configured to latch the safety pod in the vehicle and thereby prevent movement of the safety pod housing within the vehicle unless the catastrophic event is imminent further including a means for releasing the safety pod and for guiding the safety pod to an ejection opening in the vehicle, enabling ejection of the safety pod from the vehicle when the catastrophic event is imminent ejector (not shown), (detailed in §[0042]); and
a seal on at least one of the door and the safety pod housing, said seal configured to seal the safety pod when the door is in a closed position (seal disclosed in §[0052]: In response to a hazardous condition being indicated by either or both controllers 202, 204, the module door control can close the module doors 132 and seal the module 100 from the cabin 1); and
wherein the door is configured to be electrically-operated to close the door and seal the safety pod only when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent (door electrically operated via controller 200 in the event of catastrophic event, see Fig, 5 and §§[0044]-[0045]),
wherein the door is further configured, when the safety pod housing is latched to the track, to remain in an open position and thereby enable the at least one passenger to enter and leave the safety pod during times when the catastrophic event has not occurred and is not imminent (Fig. 2a),
wherein the door, in the closed position, together with the safety pod housing, completely encloses the at least one passenger and the seating arrangement in a sealed chamber that surrounds the seating arrangement and seated passenger during and after ejection of the pod from the vehicle when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent
(Figs. 1, 2a, 4a-c), and
wherein the safety pod housing is constructed of a material that is fire proof, waterproof, bomb proof, and configured to protect the at least one passenger from physical or environmental hazards, including impact with land or water, upon the occurrence of the catastrophic event (Examiner notes the safety pod is constructed of a material that is fire proof, waterproof, bomb proof, and configured to protect the at least one passenger from physical or environmental hazards, including impact with land or water, when the safety pod housing is ejected from the vehicle upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event as is evidenced by the safety pod isolating and protecting passengers from a hazardous condition or fatal condition (e.g., necessary ejection, collision with another aircraft or structure, fire, smoke or toxic fumes) as detailed in §§ [0048]-[0055]).
Sapija does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the mount configured to latch the safety pod in the vehicle and thereby prevent movement of the safety pod housing within the vehicle unless the catastrophic event is imminent further that includes a means for releasing the safety pod and for guiding the safety pod to an ejection opening in the vehicle, enabling ejection of the safety pod from the vehicle when the catastrophic event is imminent is specifically a bracket extending from the bottom of the safety pod housing, configured to latch to a track that is fixedly mounted in a vehicle.
However, Demenchuk teaches a mount configured to latch a safety pod in a vehicle and thereby prevent movement of the safety pod housing within the vehicle unless a catastrophic event is imminent further including a means for releasing the safety pod and for guiding the safety pod to an ejection opening in the vehicle, enabling ejection of the safety pod from the vehicle when the catastrophic event is imminent that is specifically a bracket extending from the bottom of a safety pod housing (Examiner notes the bracket receiving tubular guide 12, see annotated Fig. 5 in NF action dated 9/16/2025), the bracket is configured to latch the safety pod to a track fixedly mounted in a vehicle and thereby prevent movement of the safety pod housing within the vehicle unless the catastrophic event is imminent (Examiner notes the bracket is configured to latch the safety pod to tubular guides 12 fixedly mounted in the vehicle and thereby prevent movement of the safety pod housing within the vehicle unless the catastrophic event is imminent as is evidenced by at least Fig. 5), said bracket further includes a means for releasing the safety pod and for guiding the safety pod along the track to an ejection opening in the vehicle enabling ejection of the safety pod from the vehicle when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent (ejection mechanism 14 including piston 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by modified Sapija with the bracket extending from the bottom of a safety pod housing, configured to latch to a track that is fixedly mounted in a vehicle, wherein the bracket is configured to prevent movement of the safety pod housing within the vehicle unless the catastrophic event is imminent, wherein the bracket includes the means for releasing the safety pod and for guiding the safety pod along the track to an ejection opening in the vehicle enabling ejection of the safety pod from the vehicle when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent as taught by Demenchuk with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises a bracket extending from a bottom of the safety pod housing, the bracket configured to latch the safety pod to a track fixedly mounted in the vehicle and thereby prevent movement of the safety pod housing within the vehicle unless the catastrophic event is imminent, said bracket further including means for releasing the safety pod and for guiding the safety pod along the track to an ejection opening in the vehicle, enabling ejection of the safety pod from the vehicle when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent. The benefit being a reliable mounting mechanism for the safety pod within a vehicle that has the predictable benefit of movably supporting the safety pod and reliably guiding the safety pod to an ejection opening when required (Demenchuk).
Regarding claim 16, modified Sapija discloses the safety pod as claimed in claim 12, wherein the bracket extends from the safety pod and where in the safety pod comprises a base having an inverted t-shape and a track with a horizontally extending channel, wherein horizontally extending sections of the base fit within and are configured to slide along a horizontally extending channel in the track (see Demenchuk, annotated Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
583
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Sapija does not appear to disclose wherein the bracket is the base having an inverted t-shape.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the bracket the base having an inverted t-shape, so that the bracket of the safety pod is the base having an inverted t-shape and is extending from said safety pod, so that horizontally extending sections of the base fit within and are configured to slide along the horizontally extending channel in the track, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. The benefit being a specific configuration of track and bracket variations that are well-known in the that will best allow the safety pod to release and guide along the track to an ejection opening as intended in the particular vehicle in which the safety pod is configured for; This allows the inventor to choose a variation/configuration that optimizes the performance based on expected crash/emergency load, desired ease of removal of the pod and other safety requirements, for example.
Regarding claim 18, modified Sapija discloses the safety pod as claimed in claim 16, wherein the safety pod is configured to enclose said single row of seats (Fig. 2c).
Regarding claim 19, modified Sapija discloses the safety pod as claimed in claim 12, wherein the vehicle is an airplane and the door is configured to open to an aisle of the airplane to enable passengers to enter and leave the safety pod, and to receive service items from a crew of the airplane (cabin of aircraft, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Sapija discloses the safety pod as claimed in claim 12, wherein a top section of the safety pod is detachable and connected to the safety pod by suspension lines to form a parachute (Figs. 2c and 2d).
Regarding claim 21, modified Sapija discloses the safety pod as claimed in claim 20, wherein the top section of the safety pod is configured to detach from the safety pod following ejection specifically at a predetermined altitude or rate of descent (Examiner notes §[0036], the parachute may be deployed in response to an ejection event).
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sapija, as applied to claims 1 as 12, respectively, and further, in view of Gubas.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, modified Sapija discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, and the safety pod as claimed in claim 12, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the safety pod is ovoid in shape.
However, Gubas teaches a safety pod wherein the safety pod is ovoid in shape (having an egg shape; §[0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system and safety pod disclosed by modified Sapija with the ovoid shape as taught by Gubas, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the safety pod is ovoid in shape.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the safety pod of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. 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. The benefit being a shape that is optimal for the intended use of the safety pod, e.g., intended vehicle/aircraft in the system, intended catastrophic event anticipated to protect a passenger from by using the safety pod, etc.).
Claims 8-9 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demenchuk, as applied to claim 1, and further, in view of Tinder.
Regarding claim 8, modified Sapija discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein said seats each include a seat cushion, a seat back, at least one armrest, and space configured for legs of the at least one passenger.
However, Tinder teaches a system in a similar field of endeavor, comprising seats (Fig. 87), specifically wherein each include a seat cushion (the seating cushion in Fig. 87, specifically bottom layers 1070, 1102 and 1104), a seat back (back layers 1100, 1103 and 1105, Figs. 87 and 91) at least one armrest (armrest depicted in Fig. 87), and space configured for legs of the at least one passenger (Examiner notes the space configured for the legs of at least one passenger, Fig. 87).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by modified Sapija with the seat cushion, seat back, at least one armrest, and space configured for legs of at least one passenger as taught by Tinder, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises seats, wherein each seat in the single row of seats in side-by-side arrangement includes the seat cushion, seat back, at least one armrest, and space configured for legs of at least one passenger. The benefit being seats that can provide appropriate anatomical support and maximum distribution of forces during strong inertial accelerations, such as in catastrophic events.
Regarding claim 9, modified Sapija discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the safety pod is configured to enclose said single row of airline seats (§[0034]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sapija discloses the safety pod as claimed in claim 12, wherein the at least one seat is an airline seat (Fig. 5), but does not appear to specifically disclose that includes a seat cushion, a seat back, at least one armrest, and wherein the safety pod further includes, in front of the airline seat, space configured for legs of the at least one passenger.
However, Tinder teaches a safety pod (Fig. 87) in a similar field of endeavor, with a seat that specially includes a seat cushion (the seating cushion in Fig. 87, specifically bottom layers 1070, 1102 and 1104), a seat back (back layers 1100, 1103 and 1105, Figs. 87 and 91) at least one armrest (armrest depicted in Fig. 87), and space configured for legs of at least one passenger (Examiner notes the space configured for the legs of at least one passenger, Fig. 87).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the safety pod disclosed by modified Sapija with the seat cushion, seat back, at least one armrest, and space configured for legs of at least one passenger as taught by Tinder, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the safety pod comprises the airline seat, including the seat cushion, seat back, at least one armrest, and space configured for legs of at least one passenger. The benefit being a seat that can provide appropriate anatomical support and maximum distribution of forces during strong inertial accelerations, such as in catastrophic events.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Sapija, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chalupa.
Regarding claim 11, modified Sapija discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, including an additional safety pod, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the additional safety pod is situated in a cockpit of the airplane to protect a pilot and/or copilot of the airplane.
However, Chalupa teaches a system for protecting a passenger of vehicle from catastrophic events that threaten death or injury to the passenger in the same field of endeavor comprising at least one safety pod situated in a cockpit to protect a pilot and/or copilot of the airplane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the system disclosed by modified Sapija with the positioning of a safety pod in a cockpit of the airplane to protect a pilot and/or copilot of the airplane as taught by Chalupa, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system comprises at least one safety pod situated in a cockpit of the airplane to protect a pilot and/or copilot of the airplane. The benefit being a system with the predictable outcome of protecting both the pilot and/or co-pilot and a passenger of the aircraft when a catastrophic event occurs or is imminent.
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 SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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 Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.D.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642