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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the one or more screens are directly connected to the interior outboard wall” of claim 1 and the “wherein the one or more screens are directly connected to the interior outboard wall” of claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 1-12, 14-17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the disclosure fails to disclose “wherein the one or more screens extend into the compartment from the interior outboard wall” but instead only discloses coupling with the interior outboard wall in ¶46 (and in ¶12 it is said that this coupling may be direct, but this is not shown elsewhere in the disclosure) and only shows the screen (item 214) in figures 3, 6, and 8-10 where the screen is either parallel or near parallel with the interior outboard wall. In none of these places does the screen extend from the outboard wall into the compartment from the exterior wall. Hence this limitation constitutes new matter.
Regarding claim 22, the disclosure fails to disclose “wherein the one or more screens extend into the compartment form the interior outboard wall” but instead only discloses coupling with the interior outboard wall in ¶46 (and in ¶12 it is said that this coupling may be direct, but this is not shown elsewhere in the disclosure) and only shows the screen (item 214) in figures 3, 6, and 8-10 where the screen is either parallel or near parallel with the interior outboard wall. In none of these places does the screen extend from the outboard wall into the compartment from the exterior wall. Hence this limitation constitutes new matter.
Claims 2-12 and 14-17 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
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 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 5-7, 12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) discloses a lounge system disposed within an internal cabin of a commercial passenger aircraft having a single aisle (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 38), the lounge system comprising:
a compartment bounded by a wall (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 46) common to the monument (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 34, lavatory) that is distinct from the lounge system (Saint-Jalmes, col 5, lines 54-58), an interior outboard wall of the internal cabin (Saint-Jalmes, figures 2 and 8, item 16, interior side of fuselage wall), one or more side partition walls (Saint-Jalmes, figure 1 and 8, item 18), and one or more end partition walls (Saint-Jalmes, figure 6, item 14); wherein the interior outboard wall has windows that allow viewing outside of the commercial passenger aircraft (Saint-Jalmes, figure 6, item 16, windows in the wall of aircraft);
one or more seats within the compartment (Saint-Jalmes, figure 6, items 40);
one or more desks within the compartment (Saint-Jalmes, figure 8, item 66);
one or more screens within the compartment, (Saint-Jalmes, col 7 lines 58-67, screens are housed in compartment and thus coupled with the outboard wall); and
an egress area within the compartment (Saint-Jalmes, figure 8, item 64, egress door), except:
wherein the one or more screens extend into the compartment from the interior outboard wall, and wherein the one or more screens are directly connected to the interior outboard wall.
Muirhead (US 8171862 B2) teaches a one or more screens (Muirhead, figure 1, item 11) wherein the one or more screens extend into the compartment from the interior outboard wall (Muirhead, figure 1, item 4, col 1 lines 34-46, wall may be part of the internal cabin wall), and wherein the one or more screens are directly connected to the interior outboard wall (Muirhead, figure 1, item 5, screen connected to the wall)
Saint-Jalmes and Muirhead are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the screen of Saint-Jalmes with the direct attachment of the screen to the interior outboard wall of Muirhead with a reasonable expectation of success in order to attach the screen to the aircraft.
Regarding claim 2, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead teaches the lounge system of claim 1,
wherein the internal cabin of the commercial passenger aircraft having the single aisle is devoid of any other aisle (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 38, single aisle aircraft).
Regarding claim 4, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead teaches the lounge system of claim 1,
wherein the wall is a front wall of the lounge system, and a rear wall of the monument (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 46).
Regarding claim 5, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead teaches the lounge system of claim 1, wherein the one or more seats comprise a first seat and a second seat (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, items 20 and 42/44).
Regarding claim 6, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead teaches the lounge system of claim 5, wherein the second seat is coupled to the one or more end partition walls (Saint-Jalmes, figure 3, item 2, berth can be used as a seat and is coupled with end wall).
Regarding claim 12, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead teaches the lounge system of claim 1, wherein the one or more desks are coupled to the interior outboard wall (Saint-Jalmes, figure 8, items 66 and 16, desk coupled with interior outboard wall).
Regarding claim 16, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead teaches the lounge system of claim 1, wherein the compartment comprises a windowless area and a window area (Saint-Jalmes, figure 8, item 16, outer wall has windows and portions without windows; also other parts of the compartment don’t have windows).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 20120318918 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Saint- Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead (as previously applied) teaches the lounge system of claim 5, except:
further comprising a lower luggage stowage area underneath the first seat.
Johnson (US 20120318918 A1) teaches a lower luggage stowage area underneath the first seat (Johnson, figures 2 and 3, items 20 and 12, open area under first seat can be used for luggage storage)
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Johnson are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft cabin layout. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead with the open area underneath the seat of Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase storage capacity for passengers’ luggage.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mittlemann (EP 0035955 A2).
Regarding claim 3, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead teaches the lounge system of claim 1, except:
wherein the lounge system is disposed within the internal cabin between a cross-aisle extending between doors and a first row of passenger seats, wherein the passenger doors allow passengers to enter and exit the aircraft.
Mittelmann (EP 0035955 A2) teaches a lounge system (Mittelmann, figure 2, item 10) which is disposed within the internal cabin between a cross-aisle extending between doors (Mittelmann, figure 2, items 7 and 8, aft door and associated cross aisle) and a first row of passenger seats (Mittelmann, figure 2, item 12), wherein the passenger doors allow passengers to enter and exit the aircraft (Mittelmann, figure 2, items 8, door allows for ingress or egress of the aircraft).
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Mittlemann are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft cabin layout. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead with the row of seats of Mittlemann with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase passenger capacity of the aircraft.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Cazalis (US 20240034474 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead teaches the lounge system of claim 5, wherein the second seat is oriented at an angle between 30-60 degrees in relation to a longitudinal plane of the internal cabin (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 36, seat at an angle with respect to longitudinal plane).
Cazalis (US 20240034474 A1) teaches a seat oriented at an angle between 30-60 degrees in relation to a longitudinal plane of the internal cabin (Cazalis, ¶61, seat at a 45 degree angle with respect to the central axis of the aircraft cabin).
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Cazalis are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second seat of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead with the seat at a 45 degree angle with respect to the longitudinal plane of the cabin of Cazalis with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase clearance for the egress area or to increase passenger comfort during maneuvering.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Saint-Jalmes ‘018 (US 7354018 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead teaches the lounge system of claim 5, further comprising:
an open overhead area over the first seat, wherein the open overhead area is devoid of an overhead stowage bin, and wherein the open overhead area extends above the egress area; and
a front overhead bin is located above the second seat within the compartment (Saint-Jalmes, figures 2 and 8, item 40, seat is not shown with an overhead storage bin above it or above the egress area).
Saint-Jalmes ‘018 (US 7354018 B2) teaches a lounge system including:
an open overhead area over the first seat, wherein the open overhead area is devoid of an overhead stowage bin (Saint-Jalmes ‘018, figures 2-3, item 18, seat does not have an overhead bin above it), and wherein the open overhead area extends above the egress area (Saint-Jalmes ‘018, figure 2, item 16, egress area to/from door has an open overhead area); and
a front overhead bin is located above the second seat within the compartment (Saint-Jalmes ‘018, figure 3, item 48, storage bin above seat area).
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Saint-Jalmes ‘018 are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft passenger accommodation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compartment(s) of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead with the empty overhead area above the first seat and egress and the storage bin above the second seat of Saint-Jalmes ‘018 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide lighting and an open feeling for passengers and simultaneously provide a place for passengers to storage their luggage.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2) and Saint-Jalmes ‘018 (US 7354018 B2), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Merlaku (DE 20203007 U1).
Regarding claim 10, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Johnson and Merlaku teaches the lounge system of claim 9, except:
wherein slots are formed within a ceiling of the open overhead area, wherein the slots are configured to allow for emission of light therethrough (Merlaku, figure 1-2, item 1 and 2, lights in slots of the ceiling).
Merlaku (DE 20203007 U1) teaches slots are formed within a ceiling of an open overhead area, wherein the slots are configured to allow for emission of light therethrough (Merlaku, figure 1-2, item 1 and 2, lights in slots of the ceiling).
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Saint-Jalmes ‘018 are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft passenger accommodation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compartment(s) of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Saint-Jalmes ‘018 with the empty overhead area with slots in the ceiling for lighting of Merlaku with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide lighting for the passengers.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dowty (US 11077947 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead teaches the lounge system of claim 1, wherein the one or more desks comprise a first desk (Saint-Jalmes, figure 8, items 66), except:
wherein the one or more desks also comprises a second desk.
Dowty (US 11077947 B2) teaches a second desk within the compartment (Dowty, figure 1, item 118, left and right desks).
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Dowty are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft passenger accommodation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lounge system of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead with the second desk of Dowty with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a desk space for multiple passengers in the lounge.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2), in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, or in the alternative further in view of Jerome (FR 3095190 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead teaches the lounge system of claim 1, wherein the one or more side partition walls comprise a first side partition wall separated from a second side partition wall by a threshold, wherein the threshold leads into the egress area (Saint-Jalmes, figure 1 and 8, item 18, walls adjoining the compartment door).
Alternatively, Jerome (FR 3095190 A1) teaches a compartment (Jerome, figure 2, item 100) with one or more side partition walls comprise a first side partition wall (Jerome, figure 1, item 90a) separated from a second side partition wall (Jerome, figure 1, item 90b) by a threshold (Jerome, figure 2, item 51), wherein the threshold leads into the egress area (Jerome, figure 2, item 51)
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Jerome are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft passenger accommodation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lounge system of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead with side partition walls separated by a threshold of Jerome with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide privacy for occupants.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2) or over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2) and Jerome (FR 3095190 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jerome (FR 3095190 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead teaches / Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Jerome teaches the lounge system of claim 14, except:
further comprising a pair of doors slidably coupled to the first side partition wall and the second side partition wall and wherein the slidable doors are slidable between an open position in which the threshold is open, and a closed position in which the threshold is closed.
Jerome (FR 3095190 A1) also teaches a pair of doors slidably coupled to the first side partition wall and the second side partition wall (Jerome, figure 3, items 70a-b), and wherein the slidable doors are slidable between an open position in which the threshold is open, and a closed position in which the threshold is closed (Jerome, figure 4, items 70a-b, slidable doors slide between open and closed positions).
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Jerome are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft passenger accommodation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lounge system of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead with pair of sliding doors of Jerome with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide optional privacy for occupants without obstructing aisles.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hagiwara (WO 2023187961 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Johnson teaches the lounge system of claim 1, except:
further comprising one or more foot rests underneath the one or more desks.
Hagiwara (WO 2023187961 A1) teaches one or more foot rests underneath the one or more desks (figure 8, items 12 and 16).
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Hagiwara are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft passenger accommodation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compartment of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead with the desk and footrest underneath the desks of Hagiwara with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a desk with higher passenger comfort.
Claim(s) 18 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2), Merlaku (DE 20203007 U1), Dowty (US 11077947 B2), and Cazalis (US 20240034474 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Saint-Jalmes discloses an aircraft comprising:
an internal cabin having a single aisle (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 38);
a monument within the internal cabin (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 34, lavatory); and
a lounge system within the internal cabin, the lounge system comprising:
a compartment bounded by a wall common to the monument (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 46), an interior outboard wall of the internal cabin (Saint-Jalmes, figures 2 and 8, item 16), one or more side partition walls (Saint-Jalmes, col 3, lines 36-46, door in opening of wall separating the module from the aisle), and one or more end partition walls (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 36, wall separates adjacent compartments);
a first seat (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, items 40) and a second seat (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 42/44) within the compartment, wherein the second seat is coupled to the one or more end partition walls (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 2, at least coupled with the wall through the compartment), wherein the second seat is oriented at an angle in relation to a longitudinal plane of the internal cabin (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 42/44, at an angle with respect to the longitudinal plane of the cabin);
a first desk (Saint-Jalmes, figure 8, item 66) and a second desk within the compartment, wherein the first desk is coupled to the interior outboard wall (Saint-Jalmes, figure 8, item 66, desk is coupled to the outboard wall via the compartment);
one or more screens within the compartment, wherein the one or more screens are connected to the interior outboard wall (Saint-Jalmes, col 7 lines 58-67, screens); and
an egress area within the compartment, wherein the open overhead area extends above the egress area (Saint-Jalmes, figure 8, item 64, egress door), except:
a lower luggage stowage area underneath the first seat;
wherein the one or more screens are directly connected to the interior outboard wall;
an open overhead area over the first seat, wherein the open overhead area is devoid of an overhead stowage bin, and wherein slots are formed within a ceiling of the open overhead area, wherein the slots are configured to allow for emission of light therethrough;
a second desk within the compartment, wherein both of the first desk or the second desk is coupled to the interior outboard wall;
wherein the second seat is oriented at an angle between 30-60 degrees in relation to a longitudinal plane of the internal cabin.
Muirhead (US 8171862 B2) teaches a one or more screens (Muirhead, figure 1, item 11) wherein the one or more screens are directly connected to the interior outboard wall (Muirhead, figure 1, items 4 and 5, screen connected to the wall; col 1 lines 34-46, wall may be part of the internal cabin wall)
Saint-Jalmes and Muirhead are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the screen of Saint-Jalmes with the direct attachment of the screen to the interior outboard wall of Muirhead with a reasonable expectation of success in order to attach the screen to the aircraft.
Merlaku (DE 20203007 U1) teaches an open overhead area over the first seat (Merlaku, figure 1, item 4), wherein the open overhead area is devoid of an overhead stowage bin and wherein the open overhead area extends above the egress area (Merlaku, figure 1, no overhead storage);
wherein slots are formed within a ceiling of the open overhead area, wherein the slots are configured to allow for emission of light therethrough (Merlaku, figure 1-2, item 1 and 2, lights in slots of the ceiling).
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Merlaku are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft passenger accommodation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compartment(s) of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead with the empty overhead area with slots in the ceiling for lighting of Merlaku with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide lighting and an open feeling for passengers.
Dowty (US 11077947 B2) teaches a second desk within the compartment (Dowty, figure 1, item 118, left and right desks).
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Merlaku and Dowty are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft passenger accommodation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lounge system of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Merlaku with the second desk of Dowty with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a desk space for multiple passengers in the lounge.
Cazalis (US 20240034474 A1) teaches a seat oriented at an angle between 30-60 degrees in relation to a longitudinal plane of the internal cabin (Cazalis, ¶61, seat at a 45 degree angle with respect to the central axis of the aircraft cabin).
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead, Merlaku, and Dowty and Cazalis are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second seat of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead, Merlaku, and Dowty with the seat at a 45 degree angle with respect to the longitudinal plane of the cabin of Cazalis with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase clearance for the egress area or to increase passenger comfort during maneuvering.
Regarding claim 22, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead, Merlaku, Dowty, and Cazalis teaches the aircraft of claim 18, wherein the interior outboard wall has windows that allow viewing outside of the commercial passenger aircraft (Saint-Jalmes, figure 6, item 16, windows in the wall of aircraft), wherein the one or more screens (Muirhead, figure 1, item 11) extend into the compartment from the interior outboard wall (Muirhead, col 1 lines 34-46, wall may be part of the internal cabin wall).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2), Merlaku (DE 20203007 U1), Dowty (US 11077947 B2), and Cazalis (US 20240034474 A1), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Mittlemann (EP 0035955 A2).
Regarding claim 19, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead, Merlaku, Dowty, and Cazalis teaches the aircraft of claim 18, wherein the internal cabin of the aircraft having the single aisle is devoid of any other aisle (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 38, single aisle aircraft), except:
wherein the lounge system is between a cross-aisle extending between doors and a first row of passenger seats, wherein the passengers doors allow passengers to enter and exit the commercial passenger aircraft.
Mittlemann (EP 0035955 A2) teaches a lounge system (Mittleman, figure 2, item 10) which is disposed within the internal cabin between a cross-aisle extending between doors (Mittelmann, figure 2, items 7 and 8, aft door and associated cross aisle) and a first row of passenger seats (Mittelmann, figure 2, item 12), wherein the passenger doors allow passengers to enter and exit the aircraft (Mittelmann, figure 2, items 8, door allows for ingress or egress of the aircraft).
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead, Merlaku, Dowty, and Cazalis and Mittlemann are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft cabin layout. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead, Merlaku, Dowty, and Cazalis with the row of seats of Mittlemann with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase passenger capacity of the aircraft.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2), Merlaku (DE 20203007 U1), Dowty (US 11077947 B2), and Cazalis (US 20240034474 A1), as applied to claim 18 above, and/or in the alternative further in view of Jerome (FR 3095190 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead, Merlaku, Dowty, and Cazalis teaches the aircraft of claim 18, wherein the one or more side partition walls comprise a first side partition wall separated from a second side partition wall by a threshold, wherein the threshold leads into the egress area (Saint-Jalmes, figure 1 and 8, item 18, walls adjoining the compartment door), wherein one or more doors are moveably coupled to one or both of the first side partition wall or the second side partition wall (Saint-Jalmes, figure 8, item 64), and wherein the one or more doors are moveable between an open position in which the threshold is open, and a closed position in which the threshold is closed (Saint-Jalmes, figure 8, item 64, door can be opened or closed).
Alternatively, Jerome (FR 3095190 A1) teaches a compartment (Jerome, figure 2, item 100) with one or more side partition walls comprise a first side partition wall (Jerome, figure 1, item 90a) separated from a second side partition wall (Jerome, figure 1, item 90b) by a threshold (Jerome, figure 2, item 51), wherein the threshold leads into the egress area (Jerome, figure 2, item 51)
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead, Merlaku, Dowty, and Cazalis and Jerome are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft passenger accommodation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the lounge system of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead, Merlaku, Dowty, and Cazalis with side partition walls separated by a threshold of Jerome with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide privacy for occupants.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2) and Cazalis (US 20240034474 A1) or, in the alternative over Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) in view of Muirhead (US 8171862 B2), Cazalis (US 20240034474 A1), and Merlaku (DE 20203007 U1).
Regarding claim 21, Saint-Jalmes (US 9796473 B2) discloses a lounge system within an internal cabin of an aircraft having a single aisle (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 38), the lounge system comprising:
a compartment bounded by a wall (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 46) common to a monument that is distinct from the lounge system (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, item 34, lavatory), an interior outboard wall of the internal cabin (Saint-Jalmes, figures 2 and 8, item 16), one or more side partition walls (Saint-Jalmes, figure 1 and 8, item 18), and one or more end partition walls (Saint-Jalmes, figure 6, item 14);
a first seat within the compartment (Saint-Jalmes, figure 6, items 40); and
a second seat within the compartment (Saint-Jalmes, figure 2, items 42/44);
an egress area within the compartment (Saint-Jalmes, figure 8, item 64, egress door), wherein an open overhead area extends above the egress area, wherein the open overhead area is devoid of an overhead stowage bin (Saint-Jalmes, figures 2 and 8, item 40, seat is not shown with an overhead storage bin above it or above the egress area), except:
one or more screens within the compartment, wherein the one or more screens are directly connected to the interior outboard wall;
wherein the second seat is oriented at an angle between 30-60 degrees in relation to a longitudinal plane of the internal cabin.
Muirhead (US 8171862 B2) teaches a one or more screens (Muirhead, figure 1, item 11) wherein the one or more screens extend into the compartment from the interior outboard wall (Muirhead, figure 1, item 4, col 1 lines 34-46, wall may be part of the internal cabin wall), and wherein the one or more screens are directly connected to the interior outboard wall (Muirhead, figure 1, item 5, screen connected to the wall)
Saint-Jalmes and Muirhead are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the screen of Saint-Jalmes with the direct attachment of the screen to the interior outboard wall of Muirhead with a reasonable expectation of success in order to attach the screen to the aircraft.
Cazalis (US 20240034474 A1) teaches a seat oriented at an angle between 30-60 degrees in relation to a longitudinal plane of the internal cabin (Cazalis, ¶61, seat at a 45 degree angle with respect to the central axis of the aircraft cabin).
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Cazalis are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft seating. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second seat of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead with the seat at a 45 degree angle with respect to the longitudinal plane of the cabin of Cazalis with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase clearance for the egress area or to increase passenger comfort during maneuvering.
Alternatively, Merlaku (DE 20203007 U1) teaches an open overhead area over the first seat (Merlaku, figure 1, item 4), wherein the open overhead area is devoid of an overhead stowage bin and wherein the open overhead area extends above the egress area (Merlaku, figure 1, no overhead storage).
Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Cazalis and Merlaku are both considered analogous art as they are both in the same field of aircraft passenger accommodation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the compartment(s) of Saint-Jalmes as modified by Muirhead and Cazalis with the empty overhead area with slots in the ceiling for lighting of Merlaku with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide lighting and an open feeling for passengers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7 of applicant’s reply, filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the drawing objection for not showing “wherein the one or more screens extending into the compartment from the outboard wall” been fully considered and are persuasive. This objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of applicant’s reply, filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 14-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bernard (FR 3122143 A1) teaches a lounge system
Woodington (US 20210347483 A1) teaches a compartment arrangement with multiple seats and desks; one of the seats can rotate with respect to the longitudinal axis up to 180.
Dowty (US 20210245886 A1) teaches an under seat storage compartment (fig 1b, item 112).
Gill (US 10301027 B2) fig 5 teaches monitor attached to shell
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 RYAN ANDREW YANKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9979. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30 - 5:00.
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 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.
/RYAN ANDREW YANKEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642