DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 1/30/2026 is acknowledged and appreciated. The amendments have corrected the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection(s) and these rejections are withdrawn. Applicant argues that the combination of the prior art references do not disclose or contemplate the claimed subject matter referring to the different sections of the wall recess (upper vertical, lower non-vertical portion) adapted to receive loads from the corresponding different sections of the seat back (upper exterior aft surface and lower curved exterior aft surface). In response, Examiner asserts that although the “adapted to” clause, in the instant case, may be limiting to require the recess to perform the specific function (i.e. accepting loads from the seat back), the wall structure of the prior art IS designed to accept at least some loading from any of various sources including a reclined seat back and the applied Rezag reference illustrates a purposely designed wall structure to accept loads from different portions of a reclined seat back.
IPR 2014-00727
IPR 2017-01275 was instituted for US Patent No. 9,073,641. A Final Written Decision (hereinafter “FWD”) was issued on October 23, 2018. In the FWD, it was held that Petitioner had shown that claims 1, 3-10, and 12-17 were unpatentable under 35 USC 103(a) in view of the Admitted Prior Art and Betts. Claims 2 and 11 were not subject to the review in IPR 2017- 01275.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 1, 3, 4-10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Betts et al. (U.S. Patent 3,738,497) in view of Hozumi et al. (U.S. Patent 5,150,863) and in further view of Rezag et al. (U.S. Patent 7,318,622).
In regards to claim 1, Betts et al (henceforth referred to as Betts) teaches an aircraft cabin with a compartment, but fails to explicitly describe the compartment as a lavatory unit for a cabin of an aircraft. However, although Betts describes a coat closet in/on an aircraft, lavatories are commonly included in passenger aircraft cabins and Hozumi et al (henceforth referred to as Hozumi) teaches a lavatory compartment in an aircraft (see figures 7 and 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide any of various types of compartments in/on the Betts aircraft and adjacent the Betts illustrated passenger seats including a lavatory as taught by Hozumi, for passenger’s convenience,
the lavatory unit for a cabin of an aircraft comprising:
an aft wall and a forward wall comprising: an upper portion;
a lower portion;
a middle portion below the upper portion defining an upper recess aftward of at least a portion of the lower portion. The compartment of Betts, when modified as a lavatory, includes an aft and forward wall with the claimed upper, middle and lower sections as viewed in Betts figure 1. The “forward wall” of Betts includes an upper recess in the middle portion as illustrated (see Betts figure 1);
wherein the upper recess is adapted to receive at least a portion of the exterior aft surface of a seat back of a seat immediately forward of the forward wall. As shown in figure 1 of Betts, a passenger seat back (item 12) positioned forward of the forward wall, reclines into the recess with the upper recess “adapted to receive” at least a portion of the passenger seat back (see figure 1);
Betts does not explicitly disclose that an upper vertical portion of the upper recess is adapted to receive loads from an upper portion of the exterior aft surface of the seat back, and wherein a lower portion non-vertical portion of the upper recess is adapted to receive loads from a lower curved portion of the exterior aft surface of the seat back. Note that a wall, including the wall of Betts, is designed and adapted to receive at least some loading including at least some load from a seat back. Betts as modified discloses that it was known to install the aircraft cabin passenger seat immediately forward of said lavatory stall unit. Betts does not address the limitation that “an upper vertical portion of the upper recess is adapted to receive loads from an upper portion of the exterior aft surface of the seat back”, or any other portions of the wall or seat back. Rezag however discloses that it is known to install a passenger seat immediately forward of a wall of a luggage compartment in which the wall “can serve as a support for the back 4 of the illustrated arm chair” (Rezag, col. 12, lines 63-65 and as viewed in Figs. 13a-13c). Rezag further discloses that the wall 54 includes a contour which corresponds to the contour of the passenger seat back to allow the bottom of the seat back to “come to rest against this slanted corner” (Rezag, col. 13, lines 2-3) and thus corresponding to the claimed upper and lower portions of the recess and seat back. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to allow the wall of Betts to accept loads from the aircraft cabin passenger seat or an adjacent structure exterior of the lavatory unit as taught by Rezag since, in this case, a wall is known to be a structure for supporting a seat structure of an aircraft. The combination of Betts as modified and further in view of Rezag would have yielded a predictable result of allowing a seat placed adjacent a wall in which the seat is permitted to recline and in which the wall portion is configured to accept loads from the seat;
Betts does not teach that the lower portion of the forward wall is adapted to receive at least a portion of a seat support of the seat aft-ward of at least a portion of the lower portion for mounting the seat support to the aircraft. However, a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board dated October 23, 2018 and entered as Non Patent Literature describes the board’s reasoning that application of a second recess to allow another portion of the passenger seat to move further aft (i.e. seat support) would have been an obvious additional modification to the Betts design based on the common sense of those familiar with art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to incorporate additional recesses adapted to receive additional portions of the passenger seat including at least a portion of the seat support, in order to move portions of the passenger seat, including the seat support structure, aftward. Additionally, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention for the forward wall to be configured to receive at least an aft-extending portion of the seat support of said passenger seat. The motivation to include the seat support of the passenger seat within the additional space would have been the same motivation underlying all the modifications, i.e. the general purpose of maximizing space in an aircraft cabin which is a known desired optimization in the art. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to incorporate an additional recess below the one shown in Betts which would receive the aft-extending portion of the seat support. The motivation to incorporate the second recess would also be for the general purpose of maximizing space in an aircraft cabin which is a known desired optimization in the art. See Betts, col. 1;
Although Betts is silent with respect to the “forward wall”, the depicted forward wall of Betts is capable of and therefore adapted to receive loads.
In regards to claim 4, Betts discloses that the forward surface of the forward wall is shaped to substantially conform to the shape of the upwardly and aftwardly inclined seat back of the seat. The wall surface of the Betts design angles aftward to conform to the reclined seat back (see figure 1).
In regards to claim 5, Betts as modified discloses an aft-facing surface of the lower portion is accessible from an interior of the lavatory unit. As illustrated in figure 1 of Betts, the aft facing surfaces of the forward wall are the interior of the compartment, and as modified, the lavatory compartment. These surfaces are accessible from the interior of the compartment.
In regards to claim 6, Betts as modified discloses an aft-facing surface of the middle portion is accessible from an interior of the lavatory unit. As illustrated, the aft facing surfaces of the forward wall are the interior of the compartment, and as modified, the lavatory compartment. These surfaces are accessible from the interior of the compartment.
In regards to claim 7, Betts as modified disclose at least an aft-facing surface of the upper portion, an aft-facing surface of the middle portion, and an aft-facing surface of the lower portion of the forward wall are accessible from an interior of the lavatory unit. As illustrated, the aft facing surfaces of the forward wall are the interior of the compartment, and as modified, the lavatory compartment. These surfaces are accessible from the interior of the compartment.
In regards to claim 8, Betts discloses that the upper recess is adapted to receive at least a portion of the exterior aft surface of the seat back when the seat back is in an upright and not a reclined position. In Betts figure 1, the position of the passenger seat, as it is located at least partially within the wall recess, would be understood to be in an “upright” position with available space to recline aft further into the recess.
In regards to claim 9, Betts discloses that the aft-facing surface of the upper portion defines an interior secondary space aftward of the aft-facing surface of the upper portion, and wherein a secondary space is accessible from the exterior of the lavatory unit. As depicted, the forward wall of the compartment of Betts has an upper surface with an aft-facing surface (towards interior of compartment) that defines an interior space that is open to the interior of the compartment (assessable). Note that Betts describes a “coat compartment” and as modified those of ordinary skill in the art would understand beneficial use of this upper space in a lavatory.
In regards to claim 10, Betts discloses an aircraft cabin with a compartment, but fails to teach a lavatory unit for a cabin of an aircraft. However, aircraft include various compartments used in a multitude of applications including functioning as a lavatory and Hozumi et al (henceforth referred to as Hozumi) teaches a lavatory compartment in an aircraft (see figures 7 and 8) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide any of various types of compartments in/on the Betts aircraft and adjacent the Betts wall including a lavatory as taught by Hozumi, for passenger’s convenience, the lavatory unit for the cabin of an aircraft comprising:
an aft wall and a forward wall comprising:
an upper portion, a lower portion and a middle portion below the upper portion defining an upper recess aftward of at least a portion of the lower portion. The compartment of Betts, when modified as a lavatory, includes an aft and forward wall with the claimed upper, middle and lower sections as viewed in Betts figure 1. The “forward wall” of Betts includes an upper recess in the middle portion as illustrated (see Betts figure 1);
wherein the upper recess is adapted to receive at least a portion of the exterior aft surface of a seat back of a seat immediately forward of the forward wall. As shown in figure 1 of Betts, a passenger seat back (item 12) positioned forward of the forward wall, reclines into the recess with the upper recess “adapted to receive” at least a portion of the passenger seat back (see figure 1);
Betts does not explicitly disclose that an upper vertical portion of the upper recess is adapted to receive loads from an upper portion of the exterior aft surface of the seat back, and wherein a lower portion non-vertical portion of the upper recess is adapted to receive loads from a lower curved portion of the exterior aft surface of the seat back. Note that a wall, including the wall of Betts, is designed and adapted to receive at least some loading including at least some load from a seat back. Betts as modified discloses that it was known to install the aircraft cabin passenger seat immediately forward of said lavatory stall unit. Betts does not address the limitation that “an upper vertical portion of the upper recess is adapted to receive loads from an upper portion of the exterior aft surface of the seat back”, or any other portions of the wall or seat back. Rezag however discloses that it is known to install a passenger seat immediately forward of a wall of a luggage compartment in which the wall “can serve as a support for the back 4 of the illustrated arm chair” (Rezag, col. 12, lines 63-65 and as viewed in Figs. 13a-13c). Rezag further discloses that the wall 54 includes a contour which corresponds to the contour of the passenger seat back to allow the bottom of the seat back to “come to rest against this slanted corner” (Rezag, col. 13, lines 2-3) and thus corresponding to the claimed upper and lower portions of the recess and seat back. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to allow the wall of Betts to accept loads from the aircraft cabin passenger seat or an adjacent structure exterior of the lavatory unit as taught by Rezag since, in this case, a wall is known to be a structure for supporting a seat structure of an aircraft. The combination of Betts as modified and further in view of Rezag would have yielded a predictable result of allowing a seat placed adjacent a wall in which the seat is permitted to recline and in which the wall portion is configured to accept loads from the seat;
Betts does not teach that the lower portion of the forward wall is adapted to receive at least a portion of a seat support of the seat aftward of at least a portion of the lower portion for mounting the seat support to the aircraft. However, a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board dated October 23, 2018 and entered as Non Patent Literature describes the board’s reasoning that application of second recess to allow another portion of the passenger seat to move further aft (i.e. seat support) would have been an obvious additional modification to the Betts design based on the common sense of those familiar with art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to incorporate additional recesses adapted to receive additional portions of the passenger seat including at least a portion of the seat support, in order to move portions of the passenger seat, including the seat support structure, aftward. Additionally, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention for the forward wall to be configured to receive at least an aft-extending portion of the seat support of said passenger seat. The motivation to include the seat support of the passenger seat within the additional space would have been the same motivation underlying all the modifications, i.e. the general purpose of maximizing space in an aircraft cabin which is a known desired optimization in the art. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to incorporate an additional recess below the one shown in Betts which would receive the aft-extending portion of the seat support. The motivation to incorporate the second recess would also be for the general purpose of maximizing space in an aircraft cabin which is a known desired optimization in the art. See Betts, col. 1;
Betts teaches a reclining passenger seat back that is positioned at least partially in a recess of a forward wall, but not necessarily that the forward wall is configured to be positioned adjacent a structure within the cabin without a gap and accept loads from the structure. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that to achieve the most efficient use of the space shown in Betts, the seat back would need to recline until contact with the forward wall structure and Pascasio et al (henceforth referred to as Pascasio) teaches a reclining passenger seat that moves to a position adjacent to a wall structure (see figures 2, 4, 5 and 7) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the passenger seat and forward wall as claimed to be adjacent and to accept at least some loading as taught by Pascasio, to make the most efficient use of space.
In regards to claim 12, Betts discloses that the structure is exterior of the lavatory unit. The passenger seat is outside of the compartment.
In regards to claim 13, Betts discloses a compartment for a cabin of an aircraft (see figure 1), but fails to teach that the compartment is a lavatory. However, aircraft include various compartments used in a multitude of applications including functioning as a lavatory and Hozumi teaches a lavatory compartment in an aircraft (see figures 7 and 8) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to provide any of various types of compartments in/on the Betts aircraft and adjacent the Betts wall including a lavatory as taught by Hozumi, for passenger’s convenience;
Betts teaches the cabin having an aircraft passenger seat positioned forward of and adjacent to the lavatory. Betts teaches a passenger seat positioned forward of the compartment (lavatory as modified), the lavatory comprising:
an aft wall and a forward wall. The compartment of Betts as modified has an aft wall and a forward wall;
wherein an interior of the lavatory is disposed between the aft wall and the forward wall. The compartment interior is positioned between the walls as depicted, the forward wall comprising:
an upper portion. As shown in the illustrations, the compartment/lavatory forward wall includes an upper, middle and lower portion (see figure 1 of Betts);
a middle portion defining an aft-extending upper recess below the upper portion. Note the recessed portion of the forward wall in the Betts figure 1,
Betts teaches the aft-extending upper recess including a vertical portion and non-vertical portion. Betts however, does not explicitly disclose that an upper vertical portion of the upper recess is adapted to receive loads from an upper portion of the exterior aft surface of the seat back, and wherein a lower portion non-vertical portion of the upper recess is adapted to receive loads from a lower curved portion of the exterior aft surface of the seat back. Note that a wall, including the wall of Betts, is designed and adapted to receive at least some loading including at least some load from a seat back. Betts as modified discloses that it was known to install the aircraft cabin passenger seat immediately forward of said lavatory stall unit. Betts does not address the limitation that “an upper vertical portion of the upper recess is adapted to receive loads from an upper portion of the exterior aft surface of the seat back”, or any other portions of the wall or seat back. Rezag however discloses that it is known to install a passenger seat immediately forward of a wall of a luggage compartment in which the wall “can serve as a support for the back 4 of the illustrated arm chair” (Rezag, col. 12, lines 63-65 and as viewed in Figs. 13a-13c). Rezag further discloses that the wall 54 includes a contour which corresponds to the contour of the passenger seat back to allow the bottom of the seat back to “come to rest against this slanted corner” (Rezag, col. 13, lines 2-3) and thus corresponding to the claimed upper and lower portions of the recess and seat back. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to allow the wall of Betts to accept loads from the aircraft cabin passenger seat or an adjacent structure exterior of the lavatory unit as taught by Rezag since, in this case, a wall is known to be a structure for supporting a seat structure of an aircraft. The combination of Betts as modified and further in view of Rezag would have yielded a predictable result of allowing a seat placed adjacent a wall in which the seat is permitted to recline and in which the wall portion is configured to accept loads from the seat;
As shown in figure 1 of Betts, the recessed portion of the forward wall includes a most aftward flat portion; a lower portion below the middle portion. The portion of the forward wall closest to the floor is the lower portion;
wherein the lower portion comprises a downward extending vertical portion. Note the vertical flat portion directly aft of the passenger seat support (see figure 1), Betts does not explicitly teach that a seat support of the aircraft passenger seat is secured aft of the downward extending vertical portion. However, a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board dated October 23, 2018 and entered as Non Patent Literature describes the board’s reasoning that application of second recess to allow another portion of the passenger seat to move further aft (i.e. seat support) would have been an obvious additional modification to the Betts design based on the common sense of those familiar with art. Note that moving the seat support further aft is consistent with moving a portion of the seat support aft of the flat vertical wall portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to incorporate additional recesses adapted to receive additional portions of the passenger seat including at least a portion of the seat support, in order to move portions of the passenger seat, including the seat support structure, aftward. Additionally, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention for the forward wall to be configured to receive at least an aft-extending portion of the seat support of said passenger seat. The motivation to include the seat support of the passenger seat within the additional space would have been the same motivation underlying all the modifications, i.e. the general purpose of maximizing space in an aircraft cabin which is a known desired optimization in the art. In the alternative, it would have been obvious to incorporate an additional recess below the one shown in Betts which would receive the aft-extending portion of the seat support. The motivation to incorporate the second recess would also be for the general purpose of maximizing space in an aircraft cabin which is a known desired optimization in the art. See Betts, col. 1;
Betts teaches the seat support configured to interface with a floor of the cabin and hold a seat bottom of the aircraft passenger seat in an elevated position. The seat bottom of the Betts passenger seat interfaces with the aircraft cabin floor.
In regards to claims 3 and 15, Betts as modified discloses that it was known to install the aircraft cabin passenger seat immediately forward of said lavatory stall unit. Betts does not address the limitation that “the forward wall is adapted to receive loads from an adjacent structure exterior of the lavatory unit”. Rezag however discloses that it is known to install a passenger seat immediately forward of a wall of a luggage compartment in which the wall “can serve as a support for the back 4 of the illustrated arm chair” (Rezag, col. 12, lines 63-65 and as viewed in Figs. 13a-13c). Rezag further discloses that the wall 54 includes a contour which corresponds to the contour of the passenger seat back to allow the bottom of the seat back to “come to rest against this slanted corner” (Rezag, col. 13, lines 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to allow the wall of Betts to accept loads from the aircraft cabin passenger seat or an adjacent structure exterior of the lavatory unit as taught by Rezag since, in this case, a wall is known to be a structure for supporting a seat structure of an aircraft. The combination of Betts as modified and further in view of Rezag would have yielded a predictable result of allowing a seat placed adjacent a wall in which the seat is permitted to recline and in which the wall portion is configured to accept loads from the seat.
In regards to claim 16, Betts as modified by Rezag discloses that the lavatory is configured to be positioned adjacent a portion of the structure with no gap. As described, the seat back is supported by the wall with no gap. Note that Rezag teaches that the wall “can serve as a support for the back 4 of the illustrated arm chair” (Rezag, col. 12, lines 63-65 and as viewed in Figs. 13a-13c).
In regards to claim 17, Betts as modified discloses that the structure comprises the aircraft passenger seat.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Betts et al. (U.S. Patent 3,738,497) and Hozumi et al. (U.S. Patent 5,150,863) and Rezag et al. (U.S. Patent 7,318,622) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Pascasio et al. (U.S. Patent 5,716,026).
In regards to claim 14, Betts discloses that the vertical portion of the aft-extending upper recess defines an aft-most portion of the aft-extending upper recess, but not that the upper portion of the exterior aft surface of the seat back is an upper seat back such that the aft-most portion of the upper recess is parallel to an aft surface of the upper seat back when the seat back is in an unreclined position. However, Pascasio teaches a reclining seat back that, when unreclined, the seat back is parallel to a wall surface directly behind the seat (see figure 7) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to position the seat back and aftmost portion of wall recess such that they run parallel to each when the seat is upright or unreclined, to allow room for the seat back to recline.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-17 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 BENJAMIN P LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8968. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm on Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BENJAMIN P LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
Prosecution Insights