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 § 112
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 1-11 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.
The term “substantially side-by-side” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially side-by-side” 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. Because an aircraft fuselage is generally narrow it is unclear what falls within the scope of “substantially side-by-side”, therefore any structure within the fuselage is interpreted as “substantially side-by-side”.
Claim 12 line 1 requires the phrase “in each case” it is unclear how this phrase modifies the preceding clause.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegenbart et. al (US 2023/0057345 A1) in view of Lynch et. al (US 2011/0000569 A1).
With respect to claim 1 Hegenbart discloses a fuselage [reference character 4] having an air distribution system, comprising: a fuselage primary structure [reference character 6], two air distribution lines [reference character 26] which are arranged substantially parallel to one another and substantially side-by-side [see paragraph 0048], and extend substantially in a longitudinal direction of the fuselage [see paragraph 0048].
Hegenbart does not disclose that the air distribution lines are each formed from a fluid-tight and flexible material, each and each have a plurality of detachable fixing devices which are capable of fixing the air distribution lines to the fuselage or of fixing a first of the air distribution lines to a second of the air distribution lines in each case, wherein the fixing devices are each arranged on one of the two air distribution lines along at least two fixing lines which extend in the longitudinal direction of the air distribution line and are at a distance from one another in a transverse direction of the air distribution line.
Lynch discloses an air distribution system having air distribution lines [reference character 12] are each formed from a fluid-tight and flexible material [see paragraph 0012], each and each have a plurality of detachable fixing devices [reference characters 14] which are capable of fixing the air distribution lines to the fuselage [see Fig. 11], wherein the fixing devices are each arranged on one of the two air distribution lines along at least two fixing lines which extend in the longitudinal direction of the air distribution line and are at a distance from one another in a transverse direction of the air distribution line [see Fig. 11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the air distribution system taught by Hegenbart by replacing the rigid ducts with the flexible ducts and suspension system taught by Lynch, because the flexible ducts “…are relatively inexpensive and seem to inhibit the formation of condensation. In addition, the porosity of fabric and the ease of locating additional ventilation openings along the length of fabric duct work, allows fabric duct work to broadly and evenly disperse air throughout the room or building being conditioned or ventilated” [paragraph 0002 of Lynch].
With respect to claim 2 the combination of Hegenbart and Lynch disclose that fixing devices which are arranged along a first of the at least two fixing lines [reference character 34 of Lynch] of one of the air distribution lines, fix the air distribution line to the fuselage primary structure.
With respect to claim 4 the combination of Hegenbart and Lynch disclose that the fuselage further comprises a fuselage secondary structure [see annotated Fig. below] which is fixed to the fuselage primary structure, the fixing devices which are arranged along a first of the at least two fixing lines of an air distribution line [in combination the duct of Lynch would be suspended in this way], fixing the air distribution line to the fuselage secondary structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
481
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 5 the combination of Hegenbart and Lynch disclose that the fuselage secondary structure is a frame structure having a modular construction for receiving cabin monuments [see annotated Fig. above].
With respect to claim 6 the combination of Hegenbart and Lynch disclose that the fixing devices are formed as tabs made of a flexible material [see paragraph 0023, where Lynch specifically discloses “straps”].
With respect to claim 7 the combination of Hegenbart and Lynch do not disclose that the fixing devices are formed of textile hook-and-loop fasteners; however, the use of hook and loop fasteners for suspension is interpreted as an obvious matter of design choice since hook and look fasteners would be available to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and a person having ordinary skill in the art could suspend the fabric duct of Lynch with hook and loop fasteners with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to modify the system taught by Hegenbart and Lynch by forming the fixing devices from textile hook-and-loop fasteners absent some recitation that the use of hook-and-loop fasteners is significant.
With respect to claim 8 the combination of Hegenbart the Lynch disclose that the fluid-tight and flexible material is a woven material [paragraph 0023 of Lynch].
With respect to claim 9 the combination of Hegenbart and Lynch disclose that the air distribution lines have a substantially oval shape [see Fig. 3C of Hegenbart and Fig. 11 of Lynch, where circular is interpreted as substantially oval].
With respect to claim 10 Hagenbart discloses that the air distribution lines are arranged in an overhead region of an upper deck of the fuselage [see Fig. 2d of Hagenbart].
With respect to claim 11 Hagenbart does not disclose that the air distribution lines are arranged in a triangular region of a lower deck of the fuselage, the air distribution lines being arranged vertically. However, moving the air distribution lines to a lower deck of the fuselage, where a triangular region can be arbitrarily defined, is interpreted as an obvious rearrangement of parts of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to move the ventilation lines to the lower deck of the fuselage, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762