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 Amendments
The amendment filed 1st April 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 lines 18-19, “…than the cross-sectional shape…” should read “…than a cross-sectional shape…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Smith (US 2010/0170997).
Regarding claim 1, Smith ‘997 teaches (figure 7) a method for using an air distribution system/air distribution and recirculation system (33) in a fuselage (Para 0033, 0122), the method comprising steps of:
providing the air distribution system/ air distribution and recirculation system (33) (Para 0122),
which has an air distribution line/inflatable duct extending in a longitudinal direction of the fuselage (clearly shown in the figure below) (Para 0122),
which is formed at least in part from a fluid-tight and flexible material (Para 0122; inflatable duct is inflatable/flexible and air exits only from air outlets (clearly shown in the figure below)),
wherein the air distribution line/inflatable duct, is configured to switch from a first state in which the flexible material is substantially taut, to a second state in which the flexible material is substantially slack (Para 0122; air distribution line/inflatable duct is inflated/taut when air is actively conducted through the air distribution line/inflatable duct i.e., first state; air distribution line/inflatable duct is deflated/slacked when air is not actively conducted through the air distribution line/inflatable duct and an external atmospheric pressure continues to push air out of the air distribution line/inflatable duct till the air pressure inside the air distribution line/inflatable duct matches the atmospheric pressure creating a slack of the air distribution line/inflatable duct i.e., second state),
wherein the first state is achieved by conducting air through the distribution line/inflatable duct (air is actively conducted through the air distribution line/inflatable duct in the first state), and the second state is achieved by removing air from the air distribution line/inflatable duct (an external atmospheric pressure continues to push/remove air out of the air distribution line/inflatable duct till the air pressure inside the air distribution line/inflatable duct matches the atmospheric pressure),
wherein a first shape of the air distribution line/inflatable duct changes from a minimum volume in the second state to a second shape having an increased volume in the first state (inflated air distribution line/inflatable duct occupies more volume than deflated/slacked air distribution line/inflatable duct; deflated/slacked air distribution line/inflatable duct has a minimum volume as an external atmospheric pressure push/remove maximum air out of the air distribution line/inflatable duct to match the air pressure inside the air distribution line/inflatable duct to the atmospheric pressure),
wherein the air distribution line/inflatable duct has a cross-sectional shape taken transverse to the longitudinal direction of the fuselage in the first state that is different than a cross-sectional shape taken transverse to the longitudinal direction of the fuselage in the second state (cross-sectional shape of the distribution line depends on the air volume inside the connecting line, thus cross-sectional shape in the first state is greater than the cross-sectional shape in the second state as the presence of air stretches the air distribution line/inflatable duct increasing its cross-sectional shape taken transverse to the longitudinal direction),
arranging the air distribution line/inflatable duct in a place of installation in the fuselage (clearly seen in figure 7), and
adapting the first state of the air distribution line/inflatable duct in order to operate the air distribution system (the air distribution line/inflatable duct supplies air in the first state to the additional cabin from the original cabin).
PNG
media_image1.png
307
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Smith ‘997 teaches (figure 7) the method wherein the first state is achieved by compressing the air distribution line/inflatable duct with air from the air distribution system (Para 0122; air flows through the air distribution line/inflatable duct).
Regarding claim 3, Smith ‘997 teaches (figure 7) the method wherein the second state is achieved by letting air out of the air distribution line/inflatable duct (air exiting through air outlets slacks the air distribution line/inflatable duct).
Regarding claim 8, the method wherein the second state is achieved by generating a negative pressure in the air distribution system (claim 8 is optional claim due to “at least one of” clause in claim 1).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2010/0170997) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reisbach (US 2009/0298408).
Regarding claims 4-5, Smith ‘997 teaches (figure 7) the method of claim 1 but it is silent about the method wherein a region above an overhead luggage compartment is selected as a place of installation, and the air distribution line is arranged therein, and
wherein a ceiling region of an upper deck of the fuselage is selected as the place of installation, and the air distributing line is arranged therein.
Reisbach ‘408 teaches (figures 1-5) ventilating system (10) comprises an air supply pipe (12) arranged/installed outside the cabin above an overhead luggage compartment on a ceiling region (clearly seen in figure 5) (overhead luggage compartment is within a cabin and air supply pipe is outside the cabin (Para 0042)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith ‘997 to incorporate the teachings of Reisbach ‘408 to configure the method wherein a region above an overhead luggage compartment is selected as a place of installation, and the air distribution line is arranged therein, and
wherein a ceiling region of an upper deck of the fuselage is selected as the place of installation, and the air distributing line is arranged therein.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would position the air distribution line above the fuselage which enables to provide the air from the air distribution line to a wider area of the fuselage.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2010/0170997) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Laue (US 2009/0152399).
Regarding claim 6, Smith ‘997 teaches (figure 7) the method according to claim 1 but it is silent about the method wherein a triangular region of a lower deck of the fuselage is selected as the place of installation, and the air distribution line is arranged therein.
Laue ‘399 teaches (figure 1) a fuselage (3) of an aircraft comprising a triangular receiving region (4) arranged on the lower end of the fuselage (3) wherein a line system (2) for air condition systems is arranged within each receiving region (4) (clearly seen in figure 1) (Para 0022-0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith ‘997 to incorporate the teachings of Laue ‘399 to configure the method wherein a triangular region of a lower deck of the fuselage is selected as the place of installation, and the air distribution line is arranged therein.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would utilize a triangular region of a lower deck of the fuselage which might otherwise be unused due to its shape and location.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2010/0170997) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lohmar (US 2018/0354628).
Regarding claim 7, Smith ‘997 teaches (figure 7) the method according to claim 1 but it is silent about the method wherein a woven material is used as the fluid-tight and flexible material.
Lohmar ‘628 teaches the line walls of the first air supply line and/or second air supply line and/or mixed air distribution system are formed at least partially from a flexible material, in particular from a flexible woven fabric material (Para 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith ‘997 to incorporate the teachings of Lohmar ‘628 to configure the method wherein a woven material is used as the fluid-tight and flexible material.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable the air distribution line to adapt to the space available and/or the volume available (Para 0022).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1st April 2026 with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Smith (US 2010/0170997).
Applicant’s argument with respect to Smith (US 2010/0170997) is not persuasive and are explained in the rejection above.
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 ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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 J Michener can be reached at (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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights