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 § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (US 20200039626 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).
Regarding Claim 2, Johnson teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and 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 teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and 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 teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and 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 teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and 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. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (US 20200039626 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).
Regarding Claim 15, Johnson teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 14 and 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 teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 15 and further discloses the base plinth is configured to accommodate a single aircraft seat (Shown in Figs. 3/4).
Regarding Claim 17, Johnson teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 15 and 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 teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 14 and 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. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (US 20200039626 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).
Regarding Claim 20, Johnson teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 19 and 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.
Conclusion
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