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
The amendment to claims 1, 11, and 18 overcome the embodiment of Fig. 32 used in the previous rejection, but are now rejected under 35 USC 103.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that neither Fig. 32 nor Fig. 3 shows a last row seating system as claimed. The applicant starts by reiterating the examiner’s point that Fig. 32 does show a row of seats in the middle section that is further aft than the row of seats on the side (the first seating system). The applicant then argues that Fig. 3 does not show a last row of seats with three seats in an outboard section. While these two statements may be true, the applicant does not attempt to address the combination of these figures as is laid out in the rejection. The difference between Fig. 32 and the claims is that there is a section of middle seats behind the “first seating system”. Figs. 2-3 is only relied upon to teach the modification that it is known to remove such a section of middle seats in order to replace them with a lavatory, for example. It is irrelevant that the seats in that teaching are not in groups of three. Further, the examiner has already point out that due to applicant’s failure to respond to the official notice taken on 4/28/25, this modification is taken as admitted prior art and as such the arguments are moot.
As a note, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant then argues the limitations of claims 8-10 and 20. Applicant argues that the examiner has not pointed to any concrete evidence to support the rejections, and that the dimensions are not random design choices or optimum or workable ranges involving routine skill in the art. The applicant attempts to explain that the dimensions are critical, but provides no discussion/reasoning of why this is believed to be the case – the applicant only cites a few lines in the specification. The cited section essentially states that space in an aircraft is limited and that changing the width of a seating section can change the number of seats that are able to fit in that section. This is a basic understanding of how one variable may affect another. This does not show any criticality or unexpected results that would arise from a particular value. Applicant then states that In re Woodruff does not apply because the instant application is related to an aircraft seating arrangement while that case related to a gas concentrations. This is not convincing as the teachings of the case are not specific to the technology. Further, that case is not relied upon in the rejection.
As such, the applicant’s arguments are not convincing. Auestad establishes that the width of the seating system is a result effective variable – the width of the aircraft impacts the available width for seats and the width of the seating system would affect the number/size/class of seats within it. Auestad teaches different widths for different aircraft. Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Applicant has not provided evidence to counter any of this evidentiary support for the rejection of the claims at hand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, and 14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auestad.
For claim 1, Auestad discloses an aircraft comprising:
an internal cabin having a tapered area Fig. 32: rear tapered portion; and
a first seating system including three seats coupled together within a last row Fig. 32: the last row of the right-side of seats is “a last row” even if it is not the last row of the middle three seats within the tapered area, wherein the first seating system is outboard from a central longitudinal plane of the internal cabin right three seats,
wherein the three seats include an inboard seat, a middle seat, and an outboard seat 3 seats on right side, and wherein each of the inboard seat, the middle seat, and the outboard seat is outboard from the central longitudinal plane of the internal cabin all three seats are outboard of a central plane.
The embodiment of Fig. 32 fails to disclose that “the internal cabin does not have a passenger seat further aft than the last row”, as the middle row has a last row further aft than the sides. However, Auestad does disclose that in the prior art of Figs. 1-3 that it is known for an aircraft (in this case a Boeing 777-200) to be configured either with a middle aft row further back than the other rows (Fig. 1-2) or to be configured with that last middle row removed and replaced with another lavatory and/or more storage (Fig. 3).
Additionally, as stated in the office action of 1/30/25 in the rejection of claims 7 and 17, the examiner took official notice “that it is known for the last row of an aircraft to have the right, left, and center seats all be in the same row” and that it would be obvious remove the middle three seats at the rear of the aircraft. The applicant failed to traverse the assertion of official notice and therefore “the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate”. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Auestad by removing the middle three seats at the rear of the aircraft in Fig. 32. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a walkway to get from the left to right aisle without having to walk to the middle cross-aisle, or to provide another lavatory or more storage space.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the middle three rearmost seats, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
As modified, “the internal cabin does not have a passenger seat further aft than the last row”.
For claim 2, Auestad discloses the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the tapered area is proximate to an aft end of the aircraft Fig. 32.
For claim 4, Auestad discloses the aircraft of claim 1, further comprising a second seating system in front of the first seating system next to last row, wherein the first seating system extends a distance further into an aisle than the second seating system last row is placed further into the aisle due to the tapering.
For claims 5/15/19, Auestad discloses the aircraft/method of claim 4/14/18, but fails to disclose that the distance is between 0.1 – 2 inches.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the distance be 0.1-2 inches based upon the amount of tapering of the fuselage section, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification depending on the taper of the sidewall of the fuselage, in order to maximize the use of space.
For claim 6/16, Auestad discloses the aircraft/method of claim 4/14, but fails to disclose that the first seating system has a first width that differs from a second width of the second seating system.
However, Auestad does teach configurations of seats that are convertible in width, such as in Fig. 35 providing for a set of seats in front of another set of seats to have different widths.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Auestad by making the first and second seating systems have different widths. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a different number of seats and/or a different width of individual seats to provide for varying classes of comfort and accommodation of passenger sizes.
For claim 11, Auestad discloses a method of utilizing previously unused spaced within an internal cabin of an aircraft, the method comprising:
disposing a first seating system including three seats coupled together within a last row Fig. 32: the last row of the right-side of seats is “a last row” even if it is not the last row of the middle three seats within a tapered area of the internal cabin, wherein the first seating system is outboard from a central longitudinal plane of the internal cabin right three seats,
wherein the three seats include an inboard seat, a middle seat, and an outboard seat 3 seats on right side, and wherein each of the inboard seat, the middle seat, and the outboard seat is outboard from the central longitudinal plane of the internal cabin all three seats are outboard of a central plane.
The embodiment of Fig. 32 fails to disclose that “the internal cabin does not have a passenger seat further aft than the last row”, as the middle row has a last row further aft than the sides. However, Auestad does disclose that in the prior art of Figs. 1-3 that it is known for an aircraft (in this case a Boeing 777-200) to be configured either with a middle aft row further back than the other rows (Fig. 1-2) or to be configured with that last middle row removed and replaced with another lavatory and/or more storage (Fig. 3).
Additionally, as stated in the office action of 1/30/25 in the rejection of claims 7 and 17, the examiner took official notice “that it is known for the last row of an aircraft to have the right, left, and center seats all be in the same row” and that it would be obvious remove the middle three seats at the rear of the aircraft. The applicant failed to traverse the assertion of official notice and therefore “the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate”. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Auestad by removing the middle three seats at the rear of the aircraft in Fig. 32. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a walkway to get from the left to right aisle without having to walk to the middle cross-aisle, or to provide another lavatory or more storage space.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the middle three rearmost seats, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
As modified, “the internal cabin does not have a passenger seat further aft than the last row”.
For claim 12, Auestad discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the tapered area is proximate to an aft end of the aircraft Fig. 32.
For claim 14, Auestad discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising disposing a second seating system in front of the first seating system next to last row, wherein the first seating system extends a distance further into an aisle than the second seating system last row is placed further into the aisle due to the tapering.
For claim 21, Auestad discloses the aircraft of claim 1, further comprising an additional first seating system including three seats coupled together within the last row, wherein the first seating system and the additional first seating system are on opposite sides of an aisle left and right side groups of three seats are on opposite sides of each aisle.
For claim 22, Auestad discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising disposing an additional first seating system including three seats coupled together within the last row, wherein the first seating system and the additional first seating system are on opposite sides of an aisle left and right side groups of three seats are on opposite sides of each aisle.
For claim 18, Auestad discloses an aircraft comprising:
an internal cabin having a tapered area Fig. 32: rear tapered portion;
a first seating system including three seats coupled together within a last row Fig. 32: the last row of the right-side of seats is “a last row” even if it is not the last row of the middle three seats within the tapered area, wherein the first seating system is outboard from a central longitudinal plane of the internal cabin right three seats, wherein the three seats include an inboard seat, a middle seat, and an outboard seat, and wherein the first seating system has a first width last row – 3 seats on one side, wherein each of the inboard seat, the middle seat, and the outboard seat is outboard from the central longitudinal plane of the internal cabin all three seats are outboard of a central plane;
a second seating system in front of the first seating system next to last row, wherein the first seating system extends a distance further into an aisle than the second seating system last row is placed further into the aisle due to the tapering; and
a third seating system inboard from the first seating system Fig. 32: the second to last middle row (in the same row as the first seating systems on the side).
The embodiment of Fig. 32 fails to disclose that “the internal cabin does not have a passenger seat further aft than the last row”, as the middle row has a last row further aft than the sides. However, Auestad does disclose that in the prior art of Figs. 1-3 that it is known for an aircraft (in this case a Boeing 777-200) to be configured either with a middle aft row further back than the other rows (Fig. 1-2) or to be configured with that last middle row removed and replaced with another lavatory and/or more storage (Fig. 3).
Additionally, as stated in the office action of 1/30/25 in the rejection of claims 7 and 17, the examiner took official notice “that it is known for the last row of an aircraft to have the right, left, and center seats all be in the same row” and that it would be obvious remove the middle three seats at the rear of the aircraft. The applicant failed to traverse the assertion of official notice and therefore “the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate”. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Auestad by removing the middle three seats at the rear of the aircraft in Fig. 32. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a walkway to get from the left to right aisle without having to walk to the middle cross-aisle, or to provide another lavatory or more storage space.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the middle three rearmost seats, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
As modified, “the internal cabin does not have a passenger seat further aft than the last row”.
Auestad also fails to disclose that the first seating system has a first width that differs from a second width of the second seating system.
However, Auestad does teach configurations of seats that are convertible in width, such as in Fig. 35 providing for a set of seats in front of another set of seats to have different widths.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Auestad by making the first and second seating systems have different widths. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a different number of seats and/or a different width of individual seats to provide for varying classes of comfort and accommodation of passenger sizes.
Auestad also fails to disclose that the third seating system has a third width that differs from each of the first width and the second width. However, Auestad does teach configurations of seats that are convertible in width, such as in Fig. 4-5, which teaches a middle set of three seats next to a side set of three seats, in which the middle three seats may become a wider set of 4 seats (additionally, even the middle set of three seats is a different width then the side set of three seats).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Auestad by making the third seating system of a different width then the first and second seating systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a different number of seats and/or a different width of individual seats to provide for varying classes of comfort and accommodation of passenger sizes.
For claim 7/17, Auestad discloses the aircraft/method of claim 4/14, further comprising a third seating system inboard from the first seating system Fig. 32: the second to last middle row (in the same row as the first seating systems on the side).
Auestad fails to disclose that the last row of the middle seats is in the same row as the last row as the side seats. However, the examiner takes official notice that it is known for the last row of an aircraft to have the right, left, and center seats all be in the same row. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Auestad by removing the middle three seats at the rear of the aircraft in Fig. 32. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create a walkway to get from the left to right aisle without having to walk to the middle cross-aisle, or to provide another lavatory or more storage space.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the middle three rearmost seats, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Auestad also fails to disclose that the third seating system has a third width that differs from each of the first width and the second width. However, Auestad does teach configurations of seats that are convertible in width, such as in Fig. 4-5, which teaches a middle set of three seats next to a side set of three seats, in which the middle three seats may become a wider set of 4 seats (additionally, even the middle set of three seats is a different width then the side set of three seats).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Auestad by making the third seating system of a different width then the first and second seating systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a different number of seats and/or a different width of individual seats to provide for varying classes of comfort and accommodation of passenger sizes.
For claims 8-10, Auestad discloses the aircraft of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the first seating system has a width of 56.6 inches, 55.6 inches, or 57.5 inches.
Auestad does disclose that the width may be 59 inches for the outer three seats when used on a Boeing 777-200 (Col 6, lines 30-34), and may be 56 inches for the outer three seats on a Boeing 767 (Col 13, lines 29-33).
However, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Also, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would be aware that the width of a group of seats determines the width of the individual seats as desired for the intended class/comfort, and as mandated by certain regulations. Consequently, the seating system width is considered to be a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the seating system width to have a width of 56.6, 55.6, or 57.5 inches for the purpose of providing the desired seat width for the class/comfort and as a matter of routine optimization of seating system width, with predictable results.
For claim 20, Auestad discloses the aircraft of claim 18, wherein the first width is between 55 - 58 inches width may be 56 inches for the outer three seats (Col 13, lines 29-33).
Conclusion
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 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 COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA J MICHENER can be reached on (571)272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Examiner, Art Unit 3642/COLIN ZOHOORI/ /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642