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
Applicant's arguments filed in remarks/arguments on 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicants’ representative states “Mulders in view of Stolfig fail to disclose the control unit housing made of magnesium”. However, the office disagrees.
The office notes that paragraph [0045] of Mulders states “In this regard, the base plate 122 may be formed from, but is not limited to, aluminum, steel, titanium, and the like. Furthermore, it is contemplated herein that the control unit housing 121 (e.g., the base plate 122 and the control unit cover 130) may be fabricated as a single structure (e.g., single machined or casted aluminum structure)”. Mulders discloses the metal used for the housing and baseplate is “not limited to aluminum, steel, titanium, and the like”, such that it does not negate the use of magnesium for the purpose of reducing weight.
Additionally, the applicants’ representative asserts that Stolfig details the application of magnesium alloys in the construction of vehicle and aircraft, specifically for components such as seats, windows, and door frames. The office concurs with the assessment, but also notes Stolfig disclosure that magnesium can also be utilized for specialized parts and/or housings where weight reduction is critical, particularly in the design of an energy efficient vehicle. Given this disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend the advantages of utilizing magnesium as the material for the control housing unit. Therefore, the arguments presented are not persuasive.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulders (U.S 2021/0291986 A1) in view of Stolfig (U.S 2011/0048169 A1).
In regards to Claim 1, Mulders discloses an aircraft galley insert control module comprising: an electronics module (Fig.4a-4c, #120 is an electronic control module) for controlling an aircraft galley appliance (Fig.4a-4c, #102) is a and an aluminum housing (Fig.4a-4c, #121 and paragraph [0043]) for the electronics module.
Mulders does disclose the use of other metal materials not listed (See paragraph [0043]).
However, Mulders fails to disclose: A magnesium alloy housing.
However, Stolfig discloses: A magnesium alloy housing (Paragraph [0018 & 0043], which discloses for housings magnesium alloy can be used, as such the office notes that with the combination of Mulders in view of Stolfig, the aluminum housing for the control module (as taught by Mulders) would be modified to be made of magnesium alloy (as taught by Stolfig) to produce a lighter housing for said module).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the aluminum housing for the control module (as taught by Mulders) to be made of magnesium alloy (as taught by Stolfig) to produce a lighter housing for said module. By using magnesium alloy, would produce a high strength and low weight housing, which would reduce energy usage for said aircraft (Stolfig, paragraph [0002-0003]).
Furthermore, MPEP 2143.02 (I) notes that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention could have combined and/or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination and/or modification would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. As such, by modifying the housing from aluminum to magnesium would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed as Hsiang discloses an metallic housing to protect the control module. By utilizing magnesium, would lower the weight while also provide high strength to ensure the control module is protected (See MPEP 2143.02, citing, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
In regards to Claim 2, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 1, wherein the electronics module (Mulders, Fig.4a-4c and #7, #120) is supported in thermal contact with the magnesium alloy housing (Mulders, Fig.4a & 7, #120 is in thermal contact with the magnesium housing see paragraph [0044-0045], which discloses the pieces are attached to the housing).
In regards to Claim 3, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 1, wherein the magnesium alloy housing defines an outer groove arranged to provide air flow over the housing (Mulders, Fig.4c, #121 includes an outer groove which would allow airflow over the housing #121).
In regards to Claim 4, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 1, wherein the electronics module is fixedly connected to the magnesium alloy housing (Mulders, Fig.4c and 7, #120 which includes #138 is attached directly to the housing #121).
In regards to Claim 5, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 1, wherein the magnesium alloy housing comprises one or more internal ribs arranged to locate the electronics module (Mulders, Fig.6, #122 is the base of housing #121 which includes one or more internal ribs #134b to arrange and locate module #120).
In regards to Claim 7, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 1, wherein the magnesium alloy housing is a one-piece housing (Mulders, Fig.4a-4c and paragraph [0043], discloses the housing can be made of a single structure).
In regards to Claim 8, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 7, wherein the one-piece housing (Mulders, Fig.4c, #121) comprises a supporting surface for the electronics module (Mulders, Fig.4c and 6, #122 is the supporting base plate for #138) one or more side surfaces (Mulders, Fig.4c), and one or more bends connecting the supporting surface to the one or more side surfaces (Mulders, Fig.4a-6, housing #121 is a rectangular shaped, which includes bends from the base plate to the one or more side panels (surfaces)).
In regards to Claim 9, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 1, wherein the magnesium alloy housing is manufactured by the process of die-casting and/or CNC machining the magnesium alloy (Mulders, Paragraph [0046], disclose machining or casting, and additionally to the rejection set forth above, claim 9 is classified as a product by process claim, which MPEP 2113 notes "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985), thus the limitation provided above is given no patentable weight since Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the structure in whole (Mulders, Fig.4a/4c, #121).
In regards to Claim 10, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 1, further comprising: a cover (Mulders, Fig.4a-4c, #130) for the electronics module, wherein the magnesium alloy housing and cover are connected together to form an enclosure for the electronics module (Fig.4c and paragraph [0043], which discloses the housing comprises a cover for housing #121).
In regards to Claim 11, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 10, wherein the cover is made from sheet material (Mulders, Paragraph [0043], discloses #130 is made from sheet material, and furthermore, Stolfig, discloses housing made of sheet metal as well, see paragraph [0018]).
In regards to Claim 13, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 1, wherein the electronics module comprises a printed circuit board (Mulders, Fig.7, #138 is part of #120) and a microcontroller (Mulders, Paragraph [0038], which discloses electrical circuits and/or transistors) for an aircraft galley appliance (Mulders, Fig.4a-4c, #102).
In regards to Claim 14, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert comprising: an aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 1; and an aircraft galley appliance (Mulders, Fig.4a-4c, #102) operably connected to the aircraft galley insert control module (Mulders, Fig.4a-4c, #102 is an galley appliance which is connected to #120 via #124).
In regards to Claim 15, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 1, the method comprising: forming magnesium alloy housing (Stolfig, Paragraph [0018], which discloses forming a housing from magnesium allow) such that it includes bosses with threaded screw holes for securing the electronics module to the magnesium alloy housing (Mulders in view of Stolfig, the housing (as modified by Stolfig) includes screw holes to allow screws #131a/b to secure the module #120 (#138) to said housing, see figure 7 and paragraph [0052]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulders (U.S 2021/0291986 A1) in view of Stolfig (U.S 2011/0048169 A1), and further, in view of WU (WO 2020/068045 A1).
In regards to Claim 6, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 1.
Mulders in view of Stolfig fail to explicitly disclose: Wherein the thickness of the magnesium alloy housing is in the range 0.3-2.0 mm.
However, WU discloses: Wherein the thickness of the magnesium alloy housing is in the range 0.3-2.0 mm (Paragraph [0016], which discloses the housing thickness 2 mm which is within range, as such the office notes that with the combination of Mulders in view of Stolfig, the housing comprising the control module (as taught by Mulders) would be modified such that the housing has a thickness of 2 mm ( as taught by Stolfig) to contain said control module).
Therefore, it would of have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have modified the housing comprising the control module (as taught by Mulders) would be modified such that the housing has a thickness of 2 mm ( as taught by Stolfig) to contain said control module. By keeping the thickness small, would reduce the amount of material and weight the aircraft would need to carry.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulders (U.S 2021/0291986 A1) in view of Stolfig (U.S 2011/0048169 A1).
In regards to Claim 12, Mulders in view of Stolfig disclose the aircraft galley insert control module according to claim 1.
Mulders in view of Stolfig fail to explicitly disclose: Wherein the cover is thinner than the magnesium alloy housing.
However, MPEP 2144.04 (IV) A notes that a mere change in size/proportion from the prior art teachings is considered obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, thus wherein the cover is thinner than the housing, is simply a mere change in the thickness of the cover which is obvious as being well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, as such modification would yield predictable results, i.e., reducing overall weight of the housing (See MPEP 2144.04, citing, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)MPEP 2144.04 (IV) A Change in size/proportion).
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 MANDEEP S BUTTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4768. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Jayprakash Gandhi can be reached at 5712723740. 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.
/MANDEEP S BUTTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2835