DETAILED ACTION
In Response to Applicant’s Remarks Filed 3/24/26
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-12 have been withdrawn.
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) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saada et al. (US 20130307310) (“Saada”) in view of Sampson (US 20140299722). Saada teaches an aircraft seat comprising: a seatback (fig. 2: 2); a seat pan (fig. 2: 9); and a base assembly (fig. 4: 22) couplable to a floor of an aircraft cabin via one or more floor fittings, the base assembly including one or more tubular composite beams (fig. 4: 21; paragraph 0048, claim 2: the tubes are thermoplastic composite) and one or more joint ring connector assemblies, each joint connector assembly comprising: a metallic ring (fig. 6: 35; paragraph 0061: the bushings/connectors may be made of metal) connector configured to couple to the one or more tubular composite beams; and a layer (fig. 6: foam 50) arranged between the metallic ring connector and an external surface of the one or more tubular composite beams, the layer formed of a material configured to reduce local stress concentrations on the one or more tubular composite beams.
Saada does not teach wherein the material of the layer is an elastomeric material. However, Sampson teaches a damper layer (fig. 19: 212) comprising an elastomer between the tube (fig. 19: 216) and a surrounding bracket (fig. 19: 214). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try replacing the foam material of Saada with an elastomeric material in order to provide the desired amount of dampening and/or stress reduction.
As concerns claims 14 and 15, Saada, as modified, teaches wherein the layer includes at least one of one or more grooves or one or more bumps on at least an external surface of the layer or an internal surface of the layer (fig. 6: foam 50 comprises bumps/bubbles which are on both an outer and inner surface layer).
As concerns claim 16, Saada, as modified, teaches wherein the layer is in a hoop direction, wherein the layer is one of: a closed-loop as a single piece (Saada, fig. 6: 50 is a closed loop layer), an open-loop as the single piece, an open- loop including two or more connected pieces, or an open-loop including two or more disconnected pieces.
As concerns claim 17, Saada, as modified, teaches wherein the one or more tubular composite beams are formed of reinforcing fibers embedded in a polymeric matrix, wherein fibers of the reinforcing fibers include at least one of carbon fibers, glass fibers, organic fibers, or boron fibers, wherein the polymeric matrix formed of at least one of a thermoset or a thermoplastic matrix (paragraphs 0022, 0024 and 0048 teach that the tubular structure is thermoplastic with a fiber reinforcement including carbon or glass fibers).
Claim(s) 13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Portoles et al. (US 2017/0240284) (“Portoles”) in view of Sampson (US 20140299722). Portoles discloses an aircraft seat comprising: a seatback (fig. 1: 18); a seat pan (fig. 1: 16); and a base assembly (fig. 1: 12, 14) couplable to a floor of an aircraft cabin via one or more floor fittings, the base assembly including one or more tubular composite beams (fig. 1: 12; the tubes are formed from pultruded carbon fiber which requires some type of resin or thermoplastic in order to bind the fibers or create the rounded tube) and one or more joint ring connector assemblies, each joint connector assembly comprising: a metallic ring (fig. 3: 10 includes rings surrounding 22) connector configured to couple to the one or more tubular composite beams; and a layer (fig. 1: sleeve 26) arranged between the metallic ring connector and an external surface of the one or more tubular composite beams, the layer formed of a material configured to reduce local stress concentrations on the one or more tubular composite beams.
Portoles does not teach wherein the material of the layer is an elastomeric material. However, Sampson teaches a damper layer (fig. 19: 212) comprising an elastomer between the tube (fig. 19: 216) and a surrounding bracket (fig. 19: 214). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try using an elastomeric material to comprise the sleeve of Portoles in order to provide the desired amount of dampening and/or stress reduction.
As concerns claim 16, Portoles, as modified, teaches wherein the layer is in a hoop direction, wherein the layer is one of: a closed-loop as a single piece (fig. 1: 26 is a closed loop), an open-loop as the single piece, an open- loop including two or more connected pieces, or an open-loop including two or more disconnected pieces.
As concerns claim 17, Portoles, as modified, teaches wherein the one or more tubular composite beams are formed of reinforcing fibers embedded in a polymeric matrix, wherein fibers of the reinforcing fibers include at least one of carbon fibers, glass fibers, organic fibers, or boron fibers, wherein the polymeric matrix formed of at least one of a thermoset or a thermoplastic matrix (paragraph 0039 states that the tubes are made from carbon fiber pultrusion which would inherently require a thermoplastic as a resin in order to form the tube. In the event that a thermoplastic is not required during a pultrusion production of this type, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a thermoplastic as is known in the art in order to provide the desired strength/material properties to the tube).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection applies a combination to Saada and Portoles with Sampson teaching the use of an elastomeric sleeve, while Applicant’s arguments are drawn to Saada and Portoles alone. The claims are therefore rejected for the reasons provided above, as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7231. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
/TIMOTHY J BRINDLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights