DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, “Apparatus” should be --An apparatus--;
Claim 18, line 1, “pod to is” is should be --pod is--;
Claim 18, line 2, “transportation is via” should be --transportation via--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for vehicles such as aircraft, does not reasonably provide enablement for other modes of transportation. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim 1 recites the apparatus to be mounted in a vehicle or “other modes of transportation”. Although the disclosure refers to aircraft, trains, sea-craft, and the like, it also indicates use in “any mode of transportation” (e.g. page 1, lines 17-18). “Other modes of transportation” would include options such as strollers, skateboards, and the like. However, there is no indication of how the claimed system would be used for these modes of transportation. Further, it would not be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art how to apply the system to these “other modes” based on their understanding of the art. Accordingly, it would require one of ordinary skill undue experimentation to use the product on these “other” modes of transportation.
Similarly for claim 15.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 recites the pod unit surrounding and securely enclosing a human body on the seat. It is unclear whether the claim is requiring a human body.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the frame upon which the skin is stretched over" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Although there is support for a skin and frame, there is no indication of stretching of skin or any frame or frame portion supporting the stretched skin.
Similarly for claim 6.
The term “lightweight” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lightweight” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to how “lightweight” the material must be. The disclosure notes a spider silk is a lightweight material, however is silent on whether other “lightweight” materials, such as aluminum, textile, etc., may be used.
The term “strong” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strong” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to how “strong” the material must be. The disclosure notes a “strong” material “such as titanium”, however is silent on whether other “strong” materials, such as steel, may be used.
Claim 7 recites the helical coil is oval in shape. However, the coil already has a shape, helical. It is unclear as to how the helical coil would be oval in shape.
Claim 12 recites the occupant sits on a fully reclining seat. This indicates a method step, the act of a person sitting, however the claim is drawn to an apparatus, the device in which the person sits. The scope of the claim is thus unclear.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "flexibility of the pod material" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the seat connects to any mode of transportation. It is unclear whether the claim scope is drawn to the apparatus, or the system of the apparatus and the mode of transportation.
Similarly for claim 18.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the connection" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The terms “thin, lightweight, soundproofing” in claim 19 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “thin, lightweight, soundproofing” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to how “thin, lightweight, soundproofing” the material must be. The disclosure is silent as to any such materials used for this feature.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8-10, 12-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Piispanen et al. (US 2014/0304909).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Piispanen discloses an apparatus comprising:
a seat (1, 3) capable of being mounted in a vehicle or “other mode of transportation”; and
a pod unit (generally seen in e.g. Fig 3) with rounded semi-rigid walls (e.g. [0019]-[0020]) for surrounding a human occupant (e.g. Fig 2).
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Piispanen discloses a flexible outer skin (16, 23) supported on an interior frame (8, 11).
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Piispanen discloses the outer skin of the pod made of a flexible lightweight material ([0019]; note: the covering is lightweight compared to the rest of the device).
Regarding claim 8:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Piispanen discloses the pod unit as oval shaped (e.g. Fig 2) with narrower upper/lower ends than a central area.
Regarding claims 9 and 10:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Piispanen discloses separate top (16) and bottom (8, 11) sections, with the top sliding across the bottom for entry/exit.
Regarding claims 12 and 13:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Piispanen discloses an electronically (claim 9) fully reclinable seat (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 14:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Piispanen discloses flexibility of the pod to allow for changing occupant positions (Figs 1 and 2; opening/closing the pod via the flexible cover).
Regarding claim 15:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Piispanen discloses the seat capable of connecting to any mode of transportation (e.g. cruise ships).
Regarding claim 16:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Piispanen discloses the connection designed to breakaway upon major impact (all connections break upon a strong enough force).
Regarding claim 19:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
As best understood, Piispanen discloses a thin, lightweight, soundproofing material as part of the wall (claim 22; note the covering is lightweight compared to the rest of the device).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hemetsberger (US 2008/0203774).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Hemetsberger discloses an apparatus comprising:
a seat (11) capable of being mounted in a vehicle or “other mode of transportation”; and
a pod unit (generally seen in e.g. Fig 5) with rounded semi-rigid walls (as seen in e.g. Fig 1) for surrounding a human occupant.
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Hemetsberger discloses a flexible outer skin (4) supported on an interior frame (e.g. 3).
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Hemetsberger discloses the outer skin of the pod made of a flexible lightweight material ([0003]).
Regarding claim 5:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Hemetsberger discloses a strong and flexible frame material (to permit collapsing and for holding occupant body weight).
Regarding claim 14:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Hemetsberger discloses flexibility of the pod to allow for changing occupant positions (as the frame is flexible; note: the claim refers to the occupant changing seating positions, e.g. putting their feet up or leaning to the side, not the seat changing positions).
Regarding claim 15:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Hemetsberger discloses the seat capable of connecting to any mode of transportation (e.g. cruise ships).
Regarding claim 16:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Hemetsberger discloses the connection designed to breakaway upon major impact (all connections break upon a strong enough force).
Claim(s) 1 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alfadil (US 2023/0142872).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Alfadil discloses an apparatus comprising:
a seat (120) mounted in a vehicle; and
a pod unit (200) with rounded semi-rigid walls (200; [0055], aluminum being a semi-rigid material and the shield being deployable from a collapsed state) for surrounding a human occupant.
Regarding claim 14:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Alfadil discloses flexibility of the pod to allow for changing occupant positions (note: the claim refers to the occupant changing seating positions, e.g. putting their feet up or leaning to the side, not the seat changing positions).
Regarding claim 15:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Alfadil discloses the seat capable of connecting to any mode of transportation (e.g. other vehicles other than aircraft).
Regarding claim 16:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Alfadil discloses the connection designed to breakaway upon major impact (all connections break upon a strong enough force, and the system is already designed to detach).
Regarding claim 17:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Alfadil discloses a parachute (210) for aircraft use.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 9, 11, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 203 676 595; provided English translation used).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Zhang discloses an apparatus comprising:
a seat (1) capable of being mounted in a vehicle or “other mode of transportation”; and
a pod unit (generally seen in e.g. Fig 2) with rounded semi-rigid walls (as seen in e.g. Fig 2) for surrounding a human occupant.
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Zhang discloses a flexible outer skin (15-19) supported on an interior frame (generally 5, 6).
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Zhang discloses the outer skin of the pod made of a flexible lightweight material (tarpaulin).
Regarding claims 9 and 11:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Zhang discloses separate top (16) and bottom (8, 11) sections, with the bottom hinged (at e.g. abstract) for entry/exit.
Regarding claims 12 and 13:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Zhang discloses a fully reclinable seat (abstract; [0002]), the reclining either electronically or manually controlled (inherent, as this covers all possibilities).
Regarding claim 14:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Zhang discloses flexibility of the pod to allow for changing occupant positions (as the tarpaulin is flexible).
Regarding claim 15:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Zhang discloses the seat capable of connecting to any mode of transportation (e.g. cruise ships).
Regarding claim 16:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Zhang discloses the connection designed to breakaway upon major impact (all connections break upon a strong enough force).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12-16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gershon et al. (US 10 888 479).
Regarding independent claim 1:
Gershon discloses an apparatus comprising:
a seat (102) mounted in a vehicle; and
a pod unit (generally seen in e.g. Fig 1) with rounded semi-rigid walls (as seen in e.g. Fig 1) for surrounding a human occupant.
Regarding claim 2:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gershon discloses a flexible outer skin (col 5, lines 42-44) supported on an interior frame (e.g. col 6, lines 51-67).
Regarding claim 4:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gershon discloses the outer skin of the pod made of a flexible lightweight material (e.g. plexiglass).
Regarding claims 12 and 13:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gershon discloses a fully reclinable seat (col 7, lines 57-63), the reclining either electronically or manually controlled (inherent, as this covers all possibilities).
Regarding claim 14:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gershon discloses flexibility of the pod to allow for changing occupant positions (col 7, lines 57-63).
Regarding claim 15:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gershon discloses the seat capable of connecting to any mode of transportation (e.g. other vehicles other than aircraft).
Regarding claim 16:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gershon discloses the connection designed to breakaway upon major impact (all connections break upon a strong enough force).
Regarding claim 19:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gershon discloses a thin, lightweight, soundproofing material as part of the wall (plexiglass being a relatively thin, lightweight, soundproofing material).
Regarding claim 20:
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Gershon discloses an air filtration system providing filtered ai to the pod interior (e.g. claim 17).
Note: temperature control is optional, and thus not required.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (‘.
The discussion above regarding claim 2 is relied upon.
Hemetsberger discloses a tarpaulin (generally plastic-based material) outer skin, but does not disclose the skin made of spider silk.
In the absence of any stated problems solved by or any stated advantage obtained by having a certain feature as claimed in the instant invention (as evidenced by page 1, lines 5-9 of the specification), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Zhang to use spider silk as this is a renewable resource for making lightweight fabrics (e.g. reducing plastic consumption), and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfadil (‘872) in view of Sjostrom et al. (US 2021/0062134).
The discussion above regarding claim 1 is relied upon.
Alfadil discloses mounting seats to an aircraft for release in emergencies (e.g. Figs 2, 5 and 6), but does not disclose electromagnetic connections.
Sjostrom teaches aircraft seating using electromagnetic connections to permit toolless mounting or removal (e.g. abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Alfadil to use electromagnetic connections as taught by Sjostrom for the predictable advantage of permitting toolless mounting and removal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach or render obvious a helical coil frame, in combination with the other limitations of the claim(s) The frames of the prior art are generally polygonal (e.g. rectangular), ovoid, or the like.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph W Sanderson whose telephone number is (571)272-6337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6-3 ET.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/JOSEPH W SANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619