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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10th July 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 2, “…comprising the steps…” should read “…comprising steps…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2010/0170997) in view of Nielsen et al. (US 2025/0128829).
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)), and
arranging the air distribution line/inflatable duct in a place of installation in the fuselage (clearly seen in figure 7)
PNG
media_image1.png
307
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the method comprising steps of:
providing the air distribution system,
wherein the air distribution line, 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,
wherein the first state is achieved by conducting air through the distribution line, and the second state is achieved by removing air from the air distribution line and generating a negative pressure in the distribution line,
wherein a first shape of the air distribution line changes from a minimum volume in the second state to a second shape having an increased volume in the first state,
wherein the distribution line 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,
adapting the first state of the air distribution line/inflatable duct in order to operate the air distribution system, or
adapting the second state of the air distribution line in order to carry out maintenance in a spatial region near the place of installation.
Nielsen et al. ‘829 teaches (figures 1-2) air hose/air distribution line (1) for supplying air to an aircraft comprising a first component (11) and a second component (12),
wherein the air hose (1) is operable between deflated or retracted condition/second state (figure 1), wherein the first component (11) is slack, and the hose is flat, and the inflated or extended condition/first state (figure 2), where the first component (11) is taut between fastening positions and the hose is extended,
wherein the air hose/air distribution line (1) is inflated by pumping air through the air hose (1) (Para 0037-0042).
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 Nielsen et al. ‘829 to configure the method comprising steps of:
providing the air distribution system,
wherein the air distribution line, 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,
wherein the first state is achieved by conducting air through the distribution line, and the second state is achieved by removing air from the air distribution line (an external atmospheric pressure continues to push/remove air out of the air distribution line till the air pressure inside the air distribution line matches the atmospheric pressure) ,
wherein a first shape of the air distribution line changes from a minimum volume in the second state to a second shape having an increased volume in the first state (the hose is flat i.e., has minimum volume in second state and extended i.e., increased volume in first state),
wherein the distribution line 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 (the hose is flat in second state and extended in first state, thus two states have different cross-sectional shape),
adapting the first state of the air distribution line in order to operate the air distribution system, or
adapting the second state of the air distribution line in order to carry out maintenance in a spatial region near the place of installation (in second state the air distribution line has minimum volume, thus frees up space around the air distribution line which enables carrying out maintenance in the spatial region near the place of installation).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would ease the process of hose installation as the hose can be rolled out easily.
Regarding claim 2, modified 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 (as modified by Nielsen et al. ‘829; compressed air is pumped into air distribution line).
Regarding claim 3, modified Smith ‘997 teaches (figure 7) the method wherein the second state is achieved by letting air out of the air distribution line/inflatable duct (as modified by Nielsen et al. ‘829; air exiting through air outlets slacks the air distribution line/inflatable duct).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2010/0170997) and Nielsen et al. (US 2025/0128829) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reisbach (US 2009/0298408).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified 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 distribution 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 further 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 distribution 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) and Nielsen et al. (US 2025/0128829) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Laue (US 2009/0152399).
Regarding claim 6, modified 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) and Nielsen et al. (US 2025/0128829) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lohmar (US 2018/0354628).
Regarding claim 7, modified 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 further 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).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2010/0170997) and Nielsen et al. (US 2025/0128829) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reiss et al. (US 2014/0349561).
Regarding claim 8, modified Smith ‘997 teaches (figure 7) the method of claim 1 but it is silent about the method wherein the at least one of removing air from the distribution line and generating a negative pressure in the distribution line is generating a negative pressure in the air distribution line.
Reiss et al. ‘561 teaches a ventilation system for an interior room, an aircraft comprising a first air suction device, a second air suction device, a suction volume control device comprising a first airflow throttling unit, a first air conduction pipe, a second air conduction pipe, a vacuum generating device and a control unit wherein the vacuum generating device is adapted to generate negative pressure in the first air conduction pipe and in the second air conduction pipe so that the first suction volume can be removed by suction by way of the first air suction device, and the second suction volume can be removed by suction via the second air suction device (Para 0008-0010).
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 further modified Smith ‘997 to incorporate the teachings of Reiss et al. ‘561 to configure the method wherein the at least one of removing air from the distribution line and generating a negative pressure in the distribution line is generating a negative pressure in the air distribution line.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to pull the air from inside a hose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10th July 2026, with respect to Smith ‘997 teaching an inflatable duct have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Para 0122 clearly teaches an air distribution and recirculation system may comprise inflatable duct i.e., air distribution and recirculation system with an inflatable duct is an embodiment of the air distribution and recirculation system.
Applicant’s other arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 10th July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 have also been fully considered. Though the argued subject matter are inherent properties of an inflatable duct, the examiner refers to Nielsen et al. (US 2025/0128829) which explicitly teaches argued subject matter. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn, and a new ground(s) of rejection is made as explained in the rejection above.
Conclusion
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