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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/10/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: double instances of the word “wherein” in each. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered.
The claim amendments have obviated the previously indicated 112(b) rejections. They are withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments in item 5, beginning page 11, concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, the arguments are found non-persuasive. Additionally, the arguments are moot as the new rejection(s) do/does not rely on any art or feature specifically argued or challenged in the 6/10/2026 Remarks. Respectfully, please see the new rejection(s) in light of the recent claim amendments in the section below.
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, 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison (US 2008/0217475) and Gubás (US 2013/0088055), previously cited.
Regarding claim 1, Allison discloses a system for protecting a passenger of a vehicle from a catastrophic event that threaten death or injury to the passenger (§[0061] reproduced for convenience: In another embodiment, of the present invention, the passenger compartment 40 would preferably be substantially encapsulated so as to form a separate pod from the aircraft 10. This embodiment would preferably find most acceptance for overseas flights or flights over other bodies of water. However, it can also be utilized for other flights and find use as an aid in alleviating some aspect of otherwise catastrophic accidents. Thus, it is envisioned that the passenger compartment 40, not only being able to rotate with the aid of a gyroscope 92 to maintain a substantially level position, but in the event of a sea crash the compartment 40 would also be capable of floating. Therefore, should the aircraft 10 land or crash in water, the compartment 40 could be ejected from the aircraft body or aircraft fuselage. The ejected compartment 40 would be airtight and waterproof and thus would float. It is envisioned that some type of safety beacon and radar emissions would be transmitted enabling a quick location of the passenger compartment 40 to provide for a quick rescue. The passenger compartment 40 flotation could be accomplished by encapsulating the passenger compartment with a flotation media which can be activated after or before the aircraft 10 impacts the water. The flotation material would preferably also allow the passenger compartment 40 to withstand three hundred and sixty (360) degree rolls in high seas. It is further envisioned that in addition to flotation material between the passenger compartment and the aircraft fuselage, shock absorbers also could be installed in order to minimize any type of shock during rough landings or crash landings. In another embodiment, foam would be placed around the passenger compartment between the aircraft outer skin and the passenger compartment 40. The foam would be designed to swell very quickly when exposed to water. The swelling of the foam would, in turn, cause specially designed rivets to pull loose from the outer skin to allow the passenger compartment 40 to float to the surface so rescue could occur. Preferably, conventional GPS beacons would send, via satellite, the location of the passenger compartment 40 along with the flight number and the number of passengers on board. Further, radio transmission from the cockpit 12 or crew area could still be utilized if not damaged in the initial crash. It should be understood that the passenger module 40 could also be a series of interconnected independent modules which would preferably be configured with sealing doors between such independent modules to provide for separation when desired such as for, but not limited to, security or safety reasons),
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 (passenger module 40 is substantially encapsulated in a separate pod form the aircraft, see plurality of seats in the vehicle in Fig. 2, particularly in module 40 in Fig. 2), comprising:
at least two safety pods configured to be located within the vehicle and separated by said aisle (final lines of excerpt recreated and bolded above: It should be understood that the passenger module 40 could also be a series of interconnected independent modules), 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 (The office notes the housing of the passenger module 40 is configured to be positioned within the vehicle and ejected during catastrophic event, see §[0060] from above: Therefore, should the aircraft 10 land or crash in water, the compartment 40 could be ejected from the aircraft body or aircraft fuselage);
a seating arrangement within the safety pod housing for accommodating at least one passenger (The office notes the passenger compartment in Fig. 2B), said seating arrangement consisting of a single seat or a single row of seats in a side-by-side arrangement (Fig. 2B),
a door configured to enable ingress by the at least one said passenger to 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 (from above: a series of interconnected independent modules which would preferably be configured with sealing doors between such independent modules to provide for separation when desired such as for, but not limited to, security or safety reasons)
a track fixedly installed in the vehicle (track system 42, i.e., track with bracket, as detailed in §[0048] recreated below),
the track configured to guide the safety pod to an ejection opening and a bracket extending from the bottom of the safety pod housing, (The office notes the disclosed track system is configured to guide the safety pod to an ejection opening such as the open nose cone, the cargo door 56 at the tail end 54 or the traditional side entry and exit(s); see Fig. 4), for ejection from the vehicle when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent (the track system 42 is configured as such; “Preferably, the passenger compartment will be mounted on a track system It should be appreciated that the track system 42 can be a variety of different track designs, including but not limited to, a monorail track, a dual track, a cable system, wheels, air cushions, and the like. It should be noted that a variety of motion means can be utilized including, but not limited to, a cushion of air, pneumatic power, mechanical power, winches, cables, wheels, pulleys, hydraulic power, electric power, magnetic power, or any combination thereof ”); 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 (sealing door; The office notes the excerpt from §[0061] reproduced at the beginning of claim 1); and
a latching or securing mechanism configured to releasably-secure the safety pod housing in the vehicle (various safety interlocks, §[0049]: It should be understood that the passenger compartment 40 may be locked and unlocked electronically from the aircraft 10 or from the terminal to allow movement of the compartment 40. It should be appreciated that various safety interlocks may be utilized to prevent the compartment from unlocking or moving in unsafe circumstances; The office notes the disclosed track system additionally comprises a latching or securing mechanism configured to releasably secure the safety pod housing in the vehicle as §[0050] details track system utilized specifically for loading and unloading the passenger compartment 40);
the latching or securing mechanism configured to prevent movement of the safety pod housing relative to the track unless the catastrophic event is imminent (The office notes disclosed mechanism is structurally configured as such per at least §§[0049]-[0050]), and
to release the safety pod housing to enable ejection of the safety pod housing from the vehicle upon occurrence of the catastrophic event (The office notes disclosed mechanism is structurally configured as such per at least §[0049]),
wherein the door is electrically-operated to close the door and seal the safety pod solely when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent (§[0049], locked and unlocked electronically from the aircraft 10 sealed, see also §[0061] above), thereby enabling said ingress and egress at all times other than when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent (§§ [0049], [0061]),
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 (§[0061]: sealing doors between such independent modules to provide for separation when desired; see also §[0062] detailing food modules can be placed in between multiple passenger compartments),
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, (The office notes the door and the safety pod housing are structurally configured as such as is detailed in at least §[0061] which is reproduced above), and
wherein the safety pod housing is constructed of a material that is waterproof, and configured to protect the at least one passenger from physical or environmental hazards, including impact with water, when the safety pod housing is ejected from the vehicle upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event (as is detailed §[0061]).
Allison does not appear to specifically disclose wherein:
(1) the at least two safety pods configured to be located within the vehicle and separated by said aisle are specifically ovoid in shape (line 5, claim 1); and
(2) wherein the safety pod housing is constructed of a material that is specifically fireproof, bombproof and configured to protect the at least one passenger from impact with land when the safety pod housing is ejected from the vehicle upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event (claim 1, final paragraph).
However Gubas teaches separate, closed personal safety seats, each surrounded with a shockproof, well-sealed casing configured for during a catastrophic event (§[0015]); that:
(1) is specifically ovoid in shape (egg shaped cabin, §[0020]); and
(2) is constructed of a material that is specifically fireproof, bombproof and configured to protect the at least one passenger from impact with land when the safety pod housing is ejected from the vehicle upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event (§§ [0026]-[0027]: The safety lifesaving seat according to the invention provides protection of the passengers during accident of explosion or crash; The casing may be provided with a usual oxygen mask for protecting the passenger against smoke and fire).
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 Allison with the specific ovoid shape (egg shaped cabin, §[0020]); and the specific material(s) that is/are specifically fireproof, bombproof and configured to protect the at least one passenger from impact with land when the safety pod housing is ejected from the vehicle upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event (per §§ [0026]-[0027]) as taught by Gubas,
so that the system comprises at least two safety pods, specifically ovoid in shape; comprises a bracket that is configured, so that each safety pod of the system the bracket extending from the bottom of the safety pod housing, configured to guide the safety pod (on said track) to an ejection opening for ejection from the vehicle when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent; and is constructed of the material(s) that is/are specifically fireproof, bombproof and configured to protect the at least one passenger from impact with land when the safety pod housing is ejected from the vehicle upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The benefits being, at least:
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.; and
providing protection of the passengers during accident of explosion or crash.
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.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Allison 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 (§[0048]: It should be noted that a variety of motion means can be utilized including, but not limited to, a cushion of air, pneumatic power, mechanical power, winches, cables, wheels, pulleys, hydraulic power, electric power, magnetic power, or any combination thereof).
Regarding claim 12, Allison 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 (passenger compartment 40), comprising:
a safety pod housing configured to be positioned within a vehicle and to be ejected from the vehicle when a catastrophic event occurs (§[0061]);
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 (Fig. 2B);
a door configured to enable ingress by the at least one said passenger to 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, said aisle being external to the safety pod (§[0061]);
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 preventing movement of the safety pod housing within the vehicle unless the catastrophic event is imminent (track system 42 comprising a bracket and track as detailed in §[0048]),
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 office notes per §[0050], the track system comprises a means for releasing the safety pod and for guiding the safety pod along the track to an ejection opening in the vehicle as it is expressly utilized for loading and unloading the passenger compartment 40); 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 sealing door; The office notes the excerpt from §[0061] reproduced at the beginning of claim 1),
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 (§[0049], locked and unlocked electronically from the aircraft 10 sealed, see also §[0061] above),
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 (The office notes the door is structurally configured to remain in an open position),
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 (the compartment 40 could be ejected from the aircraft body or aircraft fuselage. The ejected compartment 40 would be airtight and waterproof and thus would float, §[0061]), and
wherein the safety pod housing is constructed of a material that is waterproof, and configured to protect the at least one passenger from physical or environmental hazards, including impact with water, when the safety pod housing is ejected from the vehicle upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event (as is detailed §[0061]).
Allison does not appear to specifically disclose wherein:
(1) the safety pod housing configured to be positioned within a vehicle and to be ejected from the vehicle when a catastrophic event occurs is specifically ovoid in shape (line 4, claim 12); and
(2) wherein the safety pod housing is constructed of a material that is specifically fireproof, bombproof and configured to protect the at least one passenger from impact with land, upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event (claim 12, final paragraph).
However Gubas teaches separate, closed personal safety seats, each surrounded with a shockproof, well-sealed casing with a housing configured for during a catastrophic event (§[0015]); that:
(1) is specifically ovoid in shape (egg shaped cabin, §[0020]); and
(2) is constructed of a material that is specifically fireproof, bombproof and configured to protect the at least one passenger from impact with land when the safety pod housing is ejected from the vehicle upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event (§§ [0026]-[0027]: The safety lifesaving seat according to the invention provides protection of the passengers during accident of explosion or crash; The casing may be provided with a usual oxygen mask for protecting the passenger against smoke and fire).
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 Allison with the specific ovoid shape housing (egg shaped cabin, §[0020]); and the specific material(s) that is/are specifically fireproof, bombproof and configured to protect the at least one passenger from impact with land when the safety pod housing is ejected from the vehicle upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event (per §§ [0026]-[0027]) as taught by Gubas,
so that the system comprises at least two safety pods, specifically ovoid in shape; and is constructed of the material(s) that is/are specifically fireproof, bombproof and configured to protect the at least one passenger from impact with land when the safety pod housing is ejected from the vehicle upon the occurrence of a catastrophic event, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The benefits being, at least:
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.; and
providing protection of the passengers during accident of explosion or crash.
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.).
Regarding claim 19, modified Allison 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 (The office notes the vehicle is disclosed as an airplane, Fig. 1 and the door is configured to open to an aisle as is detailed in at least §[0061] and §[0051]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison modified by Gubás, as applied to claim 1, and further, in view of Ruiz et al. (US 5,031,860), hereinafter Ruiz.
Regarding claim 3, modified Allison discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the door includes a manual release.
However, Ruiz teaches a capsulized cabin for a passenger aircraft with a door (Fig. 4), specifically including a manual release (mechanism to open and close the doors by manual operation, Fig. 4, col. 1, line 60).
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 door disclosed by modified Allison with the manual release as taught by Ruiz, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the door comprises a manual release. The benefit being the predictable outcome of overriding the primary operation method (col. 1, line 64; Ruiz).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison modified by Gubás, as applied to claim 1, and further, in view of Demenchuk (WO 2012/054002 A1), previously cited.
Regarding claim 6, Demenchuk discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
495
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, at least prior art Demenchuk teaches the ejection of rescue capsules through an ejection opening formed in the rear of the fuselages via the firing of a detachable tail unit of the aircraft when a catastrophic event occurs or is imminent (Figure 12 reproduced below).
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 Allison with the detachable tail section configured to detach from the airplane to form the ejection opening during a catastrophic event occurs or is imminent, as taught by Demenchuk, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the system includes the detachable section that detaches from the airplane when the catastrophic event occurs or is imminent to form the ejection opening.
The benefit being the predictable outcome of during an emergency or crash, the ability to create an air stream that will be directed in the direction opposite to the crash by detaching the tail, i.e. a stream capable of assisting in ejecting the safety pod housings, each following the previous one, while enabling automatic opening of a parachute from a parachute system from each pod if desired after a split second, as the pod moves away from the plane (Demenchuk).
Regarding claim 7, modified Allison discloses the system as claimed in claim 6, wherein the detachable section is a tail section of the airplane situated to the rear of a passenger cabin of the airplane (Fig. 12).
Claims 8-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison modified by Gubás, as applied to claim 1, and further, in view of Tinder (US 5,026,006), previously cited.
Regarding claim 8, modified Allison discloses the system as claimed in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein said single row of seats in side-by-side arrangement 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 for protecting a passenger of a vehicle from a catastrophic event that threatened death or injury to the passenger, including a pod (safety enclosure 100), 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 Allison 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 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 Allison discloses the system of claim 8, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein said seating arrangement consists of a single row of airline seats.
However, Tinder teaches a single row of seating in safety pod (enclosure 100, at least Fig. 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 modified Allison with the single row of seating in a safety pod as taught by Tinder, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that system consists of a single row of airline seats. The benefit being the predictable outcome of allowing the inventor to choose a configuration of airline seating and/or pods within the pods/cabin that optimizes the space and other needs of the intended particular vehicle in which the system is configured for.
Regarding claim 17, modified Allison discloses the safety pod as claimed in claim 12, wherein the at least one seat is an airline seat (Fig. 4), but does not appear to specifically disclose that the at least one seat 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(s) disclosed by modified Allison 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 Allison, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gero (US 2,733,027).
Regarding claim 11, modified Allison 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, Gero teaches an ejectable protective capsule containing an aircraft seat specifically for a pilot situated in a cockpit of an airplane to protect a pilot and/or co-pilot of the airplane (A horizontally and vertically adjustable seat 2 for the pilot… is mounted in the capsule, col. 2, ln. 21; Figs. 2-3)
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 Allison 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 Gero, 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison modified by Gubás, as applied to claim 12, and further, in view of Temple et al. (US 2003/0075644 A1), hereinafter Temple.
Regarding claim 16, modified Allison discloses the safety pod as claimed in claim 12, wherein the bracket is a base extending from said safety pod, wherein horizontally extending sections of the base are configured to fit within the track and are configured to slide along the track, but does not appear to specifically disclose the bracket having an inverted t- shape, and the track having a horizontally extending t-shaped channel.
However, Temple teaches a transport system for an aircraft comprising a track (rail 42, 44) and a bracket (guide member 64), wherein the bracket specifically comprises an inverted t- shape (Fig. 8, §[0026]), and the track specifically comprises an inverted t-shaped channel (Fig. 8, §[0026].
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 Allison with the bracket having an inverted t- shape, and the track having a horizontally extending t-shaped channel, as taught by Temple, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the bracket has an inverted t- shape, and the track has a horizontally extending t-shaped channel. The benefit being the predicted engineering outcomes of positive retention , accurate guidance and a high load capacity, just to name a few.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison modified by Gubás and Temple, as applied to claim 16, and further, in view of Tinder (similarly to claim 8-9 above).
Regarding claim 18, modified Allison discloses the system of claim 16, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein said seating arrangement consists of a single row of airline seats.
However, Tinder teaches a single row of seating in safety pod (enclosure 100, at least Fig. 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 modified Allison with the single row of seating in a safety pod as taught by Tinder, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that system consists of a single row of airline seats. The benefit being the predictable outcome of allowing the inventor to choose a configuration of airline seating and/or pods within the pods/cabin that optimizes the space and other needs of the intended particular vehicle in which the system is configured for.
Claim 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allison modified by Gubás, as applied to claim 12, and further, in view of Sapija (US 2018/0170558), previously cited.
Regarding claims 20-21, modified Allison discloses the safety pod as claimed in claim 12, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a top section of the safety pod is detachable and connected to the safety pod by suspension lines to form a parachute; and
(claim 21), wherein the top section of the safety pod is configured to detach from the safety pod following ejection at a predetermined altitude or rate of descent.
However, Sapija teaches an aircraft comprising an ejectable passenger module to protect a passenger on aircraft specifically:
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-2d); and
wherein the top section of the safety pod is configured to detach from the safety pod following ejection at a predetermined altitude or rate of descent (Examiner notes §[0036], the parachute may be deployed in response to an ejection event).
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 Allison with the top section of the safety pod that is detachable and connected to the safety pod by suspension lines to form a parachute; and configured to detach from the safety pod following ejection at a predetermined altitude or rate of descent, as taught by Sapija, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the top section of the safety pod is detachable and connected to the safety pod by suspension lines to form a parachute; and is configured to detach from the safety pod following ejection at a predetermined altitude or rate of descent. The benefit being the predictable outcome of to slow a module's descent to protect the passengers inside (Sapija, §[0036]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chui (US 6,382,563) teaches an airplane has an outer shell with a plurality of individual passenger cabins slidably located with it in a tandem manner. The outer shell is severable at a predetermined breakable location by various methods. The outer shell is severable with control explosion devices mounted in a front mounting ring and rear mounting located at the breakable location. It may be severable with a high speed cutting mechanism or a laser cutting knife. The passenger cabins are provided with independent oxygen supply, heating, a heat protective shield, deployable parachutes, descending speed control propulsion jets for landing them safely onto the ground after they have separated from the main body in an air accident. Inflatable rafts are provided on each passenger cabin to support the cabins if it lands on water. The passenger cabins have sealing doors which automatically shut the individual passenger cabin when it separates from the main body.
Chambers (US 2022/0089276 A1) teaches an aerial vehicle including a pivoting cockpit module which provides an ovoid shaped ‘pod’ enclosure.
Rouyre (US 2013/0264428 A1) teaches an oblong shaped ovoid external fuselage.
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
Prosecution Insights