Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/410,151

PASSENGER SUITE ACCESS FOR PERSONS WITH REDUCED MOBILITY

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jan 11, 2024
Examiner
LIBBY, TROY ALAN
Art Unit
3636
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
B/E Aerospace, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-52.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
18
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
43.2%
+3.2% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/410,151, filed on January 11, 2024. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “214” has been used to designate both the interior space and the transfer wheelchair. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0034], third assembly is labeled as reference character “100”. Reference character “100” refers to the entire motion assembly, the third assembly is labeled as reference character “110” in other paragraphs. In paragraph [0043], the transfer wheelchair is labeled as reference character “214”. In other paragraphs, reference character “214” refers to the interior space of the passenger suite. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites the limitations "the swivel ring". There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 11 is dependent on claim 8. The swivel ring and swivel plate are dependent on the antecedent basis of claim 9 rather than claim 8. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacobson (EP-3281873-A1). Jacobson discloses an assembly for mounting a seat in an aircraft that allows for a motion in a first lateral direction, then a rotational motion, and then a motion in a second lateral direction based on the rotational direction. Claims 1 and 8 – Jacobson teaches a passenger seat assembly (element 10 in figure 1), comprising: a passenger seat (field paragraph of the description); seat tracks (discussed in paragraph [0007]); and a motion assembly coupled between the passenger seat and the seat tracks (figure 1), the motion assembly comprising: a first subassembly for linear motion in a first direction (element 12 in figure 1), the first subassembly coupled to the seat tracks; a second subassembly for linear motion in a second direction (element 16 in figure 1), the second subassembly coupled to the passenger seat; and a third subassembly for rotational motion, the third subassembly positioned between and interconnecting the first and second subassemblies, wherein an amount of rotational motion of the third subassembly determines an angle of the second direction relative to the first direction (element 14 in figure 1). PNG media_image1.png 872 1226 media_image1.png Greyscale Figure A Claims 2 and 9 – Jacobson teaches the first subassembly comprises a platform (red arrow in Figure A above) translatably mounted to spaced beams (blue arrow in Figure A above); the third subassembly comprises a swivel plate (element 18 in figure 1) mounted to the platform and a swivel ring (element 20 in figure 1) rotatably mounted to the swivel plate; and the second subassembly comprises a platform (element 44 in figure 1) mounted to the swivel ring and spaced beams (elements 34 and 36 in figure 1) translatably mounted to the platform. Claims 3 and 10 – Jacobson teaches the spaced beams of the first subassembly are components of a first frame assembly attachable to seat tracks (element 12 in figure 1); and the spaced beams of the second subassembly are components of a second frame assembly attachable to the passenger seat (element 16 in figure 1). Claims 4 and 11 – Jacobson teaches the swivel ring is configured to rotate within the swivel plate (figure 2); the swivel ring has a radially extending feature (element 72 in figure 2); the swivel plate has an annular track of a predetermined length determinative of an amount of rotation of the swivel ring relative to the swivel plate (figure 2); and the radially extending feature is configured, as the swivel ring rotates relative to the swivel plate, to travel within the annular track (figure 2). Claims 6 and 13 – Jacobson teaches the motion assembly is configured for sequential operation in that the first subassembly is configured to operate first to provide linear motion in the first direction, the third subassembly is configured to operate second to provide rotational motion, and the second assembly is configured to operate third to provide linear motion in the second direction. (In figure 1, it can be seen that Jacobson’s disclosure moves in the X direction using the elements pointed to by blue arrows in Figure A above, then rotates using element 14, then moves in the Z direction using elements 34 and 36.) Claims 7 and 14 – Jacobson teaches the third subassembly is configured to operate after linear motion of the first subassembly ceases, and the second subassembly is configured to operate after rotational motion of the third subassembly ceases. (Jacobson describes throughout the specification braking systems for locking the assemblies in place. The brake systems allows each subassembly to cease operation prior to the operation of the next subassembly.) 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. Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson (EP-3281873-A1). Jacobson, disclosed above, teaches the third subassembly is configured for up to 90-degrees of rotation such that the second direction is orthogonal to the first direction. Jacobson explains, in the background paragraph, that occupants have a desire to lock the seat in a particular position. With the desired position to lock a seat in being towards the entrance or exit of a vehicle for a person with limited mobility, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to lock the rotation to 90-degrees to face a user towards an entrance or exit of a vehicle. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson (EP-3281873-A1) in view of Dowty (US-10421546-B2). Claim 15 – Jacobson, disclosed above, teaches a passenger seat (field paragraph of the description) comprising a motion assembly configured to move the passenger seat from a first position within the interior space to a second position within the entrance, wherein movement from the first position to the second position includes at least one direction change (element 10 in figure 1), and wherein the motion assembly comprises: a first assembly for linear motion in a first direction (element 12 in figure 1), the first assembly coupled to seat tracks of the passenger seat; a second subassembly for linear motion in a second direction (element 16 in figure 1), the second subassembly coupled to the passenger seat; and a third subassembly for rotational motion, the third subassembly positioned between and interconnecting the first and second subassemblies, wherein an amount of rotational motion of the third subassembly determines an angle of the second direction relative to the first direction (element 14 in figure 1). Jacobson does not teach a passenger suite comprising upstanding walls defining an interior space and an entrance provided through one of the upstanding walls. Dowty discloses an aircraft door and privacy panel assemblies for an aircraft occupant to have a private suite. Dowty teaches a passenger suite (figure 6) comprising upstanding walls (element 510 in figure 6) defining an interior space and an entrance (element 515 in figure 6) provided through one of the upstanding walls. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the invention disclosed by Jacobson in a passenger suite such as the one disclosed by Dowty to provide a reduced mobility user with an accommodating seat in a private aircraft passenger suite. Claim 16 – Jacobson teaches the first subassembly comprises a platform (red arrow in Figure A above) translatably mounted to spaced beams (blue arrow in Figure A above); the third subassembly comprises a swivel plate (element 18 in figure 1) mounted to the platform and a swivel ring (element 20 in figure 1) rotatably mounted to the swivel plate; and the second subassembly comprises a platform (element 44 in figure 1) mounted to the swivel ring and spaced beams (elements 34 and 36 in figure 1) translatably mounted to the platform. Claim 17 – Jacobson teaches the spaced beams of the first subassembly are components of a first frame assembly attached to the seat tracks (element 12 in figure 1); and the spaced beams of the second subassembly are components of a second frame assembly attached to the passenger seat (element 16 in figure 1). Claim 18 – Jacobson teaches the swivel ring is configured to rotate within the swivel plate (figure 2); the swivel ring has a radially extending feature (element 72 in figure 2); the swivel plate has an annular track of a predetermined length determinative of an amount of rotation of the swivel ring relative to the swivel plate (figure 2); and the radially extending feature is configured, as the swivel ring rotates relative to the swivel plate, to travel within the annular track (figure 2). Claim 19 – Jacobson teaches the motion assembly is configured for sequential operation in that the first subassembly is configured to operate first to provide linear motion in the first direction, the third subassembly is configured to operate second to provide rotational motion, and the second assembly is configured to operate third to provide linear motion in the second direction. (In figure 1, it can be seen that Jacobson’s disclosure moves in the X direction using the elements pointed to by blue arrows in Figure A above, then rotates using element 14, then moves in the Z direction using element 16.) Claim 20 – Jacobson teaches the third subassembly is configured to operate after linear motion of the first subassembly ceases, and the second subassembly is configured to operate after rotational motion of the third subassembly ceases. (Jacobson describes throughout the specification braking systems for locking the assemblies in place. The brake systems allows each subassembly to cease operation prior to the operation of the next subassembly.) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:00 AM - 2:30 PM EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID DUNN can be reached at (571) 272-6670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /T.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636 /DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 11, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
Grant Probability
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month