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
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20200039626 A1) in view of Giesa et al. (WO 2021219693 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Johnson teaches a securing apparatus comprising: a base plinth (Fig. 4 element 104) having at least one cavity and configured to be mounted with a track fitting for securing at least one seat thereon (Fig. 4 connection between seat and base 104), wherein the at least one seat includes a seatback and a base that is foldable against the seatback to accommodate a person with reduced mobility (PRM) device (Fig. 4 shows seat base folded to accommodate a wheelchair); and a latching mechanism in the at least one cavity of the base plinth and configured to secure the PRM device to the base plinth when the PRM device is positioned proximate to the seatback and on the base plinth (Fig. 4 latch system coupling the base to the wheelchair).
Johnson fails to explicitly teach the latching mechanism is configured to be partially stowed within the at least one cavity and to be deployed from the base plinth.
However, Giesa teaches the latching mechanism is configured to be partially stowed within the at least one cavity and to be deployed from the base plinth (Fig. 5 shows latch mechanism deployed from within the base plinth cavity).
Johnson and Giesa are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of wheelchair securing structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the latch mechanism of Johnson to be deployable from a cavity within the base plinth as disclosed by Giesa. Doing so would simplify the securing system and reduce the risk of tangle as the deployable latch mechanism would be stored within the base plinth. This would also reduce the time it would take the user to secure the wheelchair to the base plinth as the latching mechanism would not have to be provided and set up separately.
Regarding Claim 2, Johnson and Giesa teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Johnson further discloses the at least one cavity comprises a plurality of seat leg cavities that accommodate a plurality of seat legs of the at least one seat (Fig. 4 connection between seat and base 104).
Regarding Claim 3, Johnson and Giesa teach the limitations set forth in Claim 2.
Johnson further discloses the plurality of seat leg cavities are configured to secure the plurality of seat legs of a single aircraft seat (Shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Johnson and Giesa teach the limitations set forth in Claim 2.
Johnson further discloses the base plinth is configured to span a plurality of passenger seats in an aircraft and includes the plurality of seat leg cavities for securing the plurality of passenger seats to the track fitting (Fig. 4 shows base 104 spanning multiple passenger seats).
Regarding Claim 5, Johnson and Giesa teach the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Johnson further discloses the at least one seat is configured to accommodate a passenger in a vehicle in a first position in which the base is unfolded and to accommodate the PRM device in the vehicle in a second position in which the base is folded against the seatback to allow the PRM device to be secured to the base plinth using the latching mechanism (Figs. 3-4 show the foldable seat to accommodate a wheelchair).
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20200039626 A1) in view of Giesa et al. (WO 2021219693 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Johnson teaches a seat securing apparatus comprising: a seat having at least one leg, a seatback, and a base that is foldable against the seatback to accommodate a person with reduced mobility (PRM) device (Fig. 4 shows seat base folded to accommodate a wheelchair); a base plinth having at least one first cavity configured to accommodate the at least one leg of the seat and at least one second cavity (Fig. 4 connection between seat and base 104); and a latching mechanism placed at the at least one second cavity and configured to secure the PRM device to the base plinth when the PRM device is positioned proximate to the seatback and on the base plinth (Fig. 4 latch system coupling the base to the wheelchair).
Johnson fails to explicitly teach the latching mechanism is configured to be partially stowed within the at least one first cavity and to be deployed from the base plinth.
However, Giesa teaches the latching mechanism is configured to be partially stowed within the at least one first cavity and to be deployed from the base plinth (Fig. 5 shows latch mechanism deployed from within the base plinth cavity).
Johnson and Giesa are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of wheelchair securing structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the latch mechanism of Johnson to be deployable from a cavity within the base plinth as disclosed by Giesa. Doing so would simplify the securing system and reduce the risk of tangle as the deployable latch mechanism would be stored within the base plinth. This would also reduce the time it would take the user to secure the wheelchair to the base plinth as the latching mechanism would not have to be provided and set up separately.
Regarding Claim 15, Johnson and Giesa teach the limitations set forth in Claim 14.
Johnson further discloses the seat is configured to accommodate a passenger in a vehicle in a first position in which the base is unfolded and to accommodate the PRM device in the vehicle in a second position in which the base is folded against the seatback to allow the PRM device to be secured to the base plinth using the latching mechanism (Figs. 3-4 show the foldable seat to accommodate a wheelchair).
Regarding Claim 16, Johnson and Giesa teach the limitations set forth in Claim 15.
Johnson further discloses the base plinth is configured to accommodate a single aircraft seat (Shown in Figs. 3/4).
Regarding Claim 17, Johnson and Giesa teach the limitations set forth in Claim 15.
Johnson further discloses the base plinth is configured to span a plurality of passenger seats in an aircraft and includes a plurality of first cavities for securing the plurality of passenger seats to a seat track fitting in the aircraft (Shown in Figs. 3/4).
Regarding Claim 18, Johnson and Giesa teach the limitations set forth in Claim 14.
Johnson further discloses the latching mechanism protrudes from the at least one second cavity that is near or proximate to an edge of the base plinth (Latch system shown in Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20200039626 A1) in view of Giesa et al. (WO 2021219693 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Johnson teaches a method comprising: positioning a person with reduced mobility (PRM) device on a base plinth having at least one cavity and configured to be mounted with a track fitting for securing a seat of a passenger (Fig. 4 connection between seat and base 104), wherein the seat includes a seatback and a base that is foldable against the seatback (Figs. 3-4 show the foldable seat to accommodate a wheelchair); and securing the PRM device to the base plinth using a latching mechanism in the at least one cavity when the PRM device is positioned proximate to the seatback and on the base plinth (Fig. 4 latch system coupling the base to the wheelchair).
Johnson fails to explicitly teach the latching mechanism is configured to be partially stowed within the at least one cavity and to be deployed from the base plinth.
However, Giesa teaches the latching mechanism is configured to be partially stowed within the at least one cavity and to be deployed from the base plinth (Fig. 5 shows latch mechanism deployed from within the base plinth cavity).
Johnson and Giesa are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of wheelchair securing structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the latch mechanism of Johnson to be deployable from a cavity within the base plinth as disclosed by Giesa. Doing so would simplify the securing system and reduce the risk of tangle as the deployable latch mechanism would be stored within the base plinth. This would also reduce the time it would take the user to secure the wheelchair to the base plinth as the latching mechanism would not have to be provided and set up separately.
Regarding Claim 20, Johnson and Giesa teach the limitations set forth in Claim 19.
Johnson further discloses releasing a lock to fold the base of the seat against the seatback of the seat to allow the PRM device to be positioned on the base plinth (“the seat bottom 126 may reside against the front of the backrest 124 and may lock in place” Par. [0045] lines 14-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-13 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14 and 19 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection relying on Giesa et al. (WO 2021219693 A1) as shown in the rejection above.
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 ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights