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 .
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.
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) 1-16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankrithi (US 2021/0129992 A1) in view of Harrington et al (US 2006/0186268 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sankrithi teaches
a lift system, i.e., galley cart stowage system (104) for an aircraft (10), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, for example, the lift system (104) comprising:
a first galley cart (110), noting the plurality of galley carts (110) in figure 2, for example;
a second galley cart (110);
a third galley cart (110);
a floor deck, i.e., cabin floor (18), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, for example;
a frame, i.e., galley (500), as illustrated in figure 12, that defines a first storage zone, i.e., lower cart compartment (506), a second storage zone, i.e., lower cart compartment (504), and a third storage zone, i.e., under deck cart compartment (502), as illustrated in figure 12, wherein the second storage zone (504) is above the first storage zone (506),
wherein a bottom end of the first storage zone (506) and a bottom end of the third storage zone (502) are aligned with the floor deck (18), and a top end of the first storage zone (506) and a top end of the third storage zone (502) are aligned with a bottom end of the second storage zone (504); and
a lift, i.e., left and right vertical conveyance devices (130, 132), as illustrated in figures 2 and 12, for example, configured to move the second galley cart (110) from the first storage zone (506) to the second storage zone (504),
wherein the first storage zone (506) is configured to receive the first galley cart (110) and the third storage zone (502) is configured to receive the third galley cart (110) while the second galley cart (110) is within the second storage zone (504), as illustrated in figures 2, 10 and 12, for example.
Regarding Claim 1, Sankrithi does not expressly teach
the third storage zone is forward or aft of the first storage zone.
Regarding Claim 1, Sankrithi does not expressly teach, but Harrington teaches
the third storage zone, i.e., either forward section (24) or rearward/aft section (26), is forward or aft of the first storage zone, i.e., galley storage unit (22) located on the main deck submodule (16), as illustrated in figure 2 and as mentioned at paragraph 33, for example.
Regarding Claim 1, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the third storage zone is forward or aft of the first storage zone, as taught by Harrington, in Sankrithi’s aircraft lift system for the purpose of using an alternative cart storage module configuration that optimizes space for a particular aircraft cabin design.
Regarding Claim 2, Sankrithi does not expressly teach wherein the third storage zone is forward or aft of the second storage zone.
Regarding Claim 2, see the rejection of Claim 1, noting that it would have also been obvious to have located the third storage zone forward or aft of the second storage zone based upon Harrington’s teaching described above.
Regarding Claim 3, Sankrithi does not expressly teach wherein the third galley cart is smaller than the first galley cart and the second galley cart.
Note that it has been held that a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of skill in the art. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 3, Sankrithi does not expressly teach wherein the third galley cart is smaller than the first galley cart and the second galley cart.
Regarding Claim 3, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the third galley cart is smaller than the first galley cart and the second galley cart as a matter of design choice for the purpose of increasing the flexibility of storage of various sizes of items by having various sized galley carts.
Regarding Claim 4, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 5, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 6, see the rejection of Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 7, Sankrithi teaches wherein the lift (130) comprises a tray, i.e., engagement device (202), as illustrated in figures 5 and 6 and as mentioned at paragraph 38, for example, that is configured to house the second galley cart (110) in the second storage zone (504) while the third galley cart (110) is positioned in the third storage zone (502) and the first galley cart (110) is positioned in the first storage zone (506).
Regarding Claim 8, Sankrithi teaches further comprising:
a fourth galley cart (110);
a fifth galley cart (110); and
a sixth galley cart (110), noting again figures 2 and 12 illustrates multiple carts (110) in all zones.
Regarding Claim 8, Sankrithi does not expressly teach
wherein the frame further defines a fourth storage zone that is starboard of the first storage zone, a fifth storage zone that is starboard of the second storage zone, and a sixth storage zone that is starboard of the third storage zone, the lift system further comprising:
a second lift configured to move the fifth galley cart from the fourth storage zone to the fifth storage zone,
wherein the fourth storage zone is configured to receive the fourth galley cart and the sixth storage zone is configured to receive the sixth galley cart while the fifth galley cart is within the fifth storage zone.
Note that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 8, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the frame further defines a fourth storage zone that is starboard of the first storage zone, a fifth storage zone that is starboard of the second storage zone, and a sixth storage zone that is starboard of the third storage zone, the lift system further comprising:
a second lift configured to move the fifth galley cart from the fourth storage zone to the fifth storage zone,
wherein the fourth storage zone is configured to receive the fourth galley cart and the sixth storage zone is configured to receive the sixth galley cart while the fifth galley cart is within the fifth storage zone as a matter of design choice, in Sankrithi’s aircraft lift system for the purpose of providing duplicate additional zones and lifts and galley carts as needed to handle increased demand for food to be served during flights of larger aircraft, for example.
Regarding Claim 9, see the rejection of Claims 1 and 8, above.
Regarding Claim 10, Sankrithi teaches wherein the first galley cart (110) and the second galley cart (110) are substantially equal in size, as illustrated in figures 1, 2 and 12, for example.
Regarding Claim 11, Sankrithi does not expressly teach wherein the third storage zone is narrower than the first storage zone in a forward-aft direction.
Regarding Claim 11, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the third storage zone is narrower than the first storage zone in a forward-aft direction as a matter of design choice, in Sankrithi’s aircraft lift system for the purpose of providing zones that are adjusted in size in the narrow or other dimensions so as to hold less lifts and galley carts as needed to handle decreased demand for food to be served during flights of larger aircraft as well as to adjust for various aircraft cabin designs with less space available, for example.
Regarding Claim 12, see the rejection of Claim 11, above.
Regarding Claim 13, see the rejection of Claim 11, above.
Regarding Claim 14, see the rejection of Claim 11, above.
Regarding Claim 15, see the rejection of Claims 1 and 8, noting that Sankrithi teaches
wherein the first storage zone is configured to receive the first galley cart in a direction that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the aircraft and the third storage zone is configured to receive the third galley cart in the direction while the second galley cart is within the second storage zone, as illustrated in figures 1, 2 and 8-12, for example.
Regarding Claim 16, see the rejection of Claim 2, above.
Regarding Claim 18, Sankrithi does not expressly teach wherein the frame forms a countertop workstation above the third storage zone.
Regarding Claim 18, Sankrithi does not expressly teach, but Harrington teaches wherein the frame forms a countertop workstation above the third storage zone (24), noting the shelf area above zone (24), as illustrated in figure 4b, for example.
Regarding Claim 18, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the frame forms a countertop workstation above the third storage zone, as taught by Harrington, in Sankrithi’s aircraft lift system for the purpose of incorporating the lift system within the galley work area, as is common in the field of aircraft design.
Regarding Claim 19, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Regarding Claim 20, see the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sankrithi (US 2021/0129992 A1) in view of Harrington et al (US 2006/0186268 A1) and further in view of Freyling (US 2022/0024606 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Sankrithi teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 17, Sankrithi does not expressly teach wherein the aircraft is a single-aisle aircraft, and wherein the direction is parallel to a single aisle of the aircraft that separates two sections of passenger seating.
Regarding Claim 17, Sankrithi does not expressly teach, but Freyling teaches wherein the aircraft is a single-aisle aircraft, as illustrated in figures 2a and 2b, and wherein the direction is parallel to a single aisle of the aircraft that separates two sections of passenger seating, as illustrated in figures 2a or 2b and as mentioned at paragraphs 52-56, for example, and noting that paragraph 53 in particular states as follows.
[0053] As shown in FIG. 2A, the internal cabin 30 includes two aisles 50 and 52 that lead to the aft section 44. Optionally, the internal cabin 30 may have less or more aisles than shown. For example, the internal cabin 30 may include a single aisle that extends through the center of the internal cabin 30 that leads to the aft section 44.
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner should there be any questions about this rejection or in an endeavor to explore potential amendments or potential allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Saint-Jalmes ‘960 is cited as a further example of an aircraft galley with a counter (12) and with lift device (30) with galley carts (10) being stored in storage areas (22, 24, as illustrated in figures 1-21, for example.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 6:30PM.
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 Y 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.
/JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
July 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights