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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/21/2026 has been entered.
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)(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) 27 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rankin (US Patent #8519824).
For Claim 27, the figures and column 11, line 47 thru column 12, line 2 and column 19, lines 44-61 of Rankin ‘824 disclose an aircraft galley, comprising: : a frame, which is attached to walls of a cabin of an aircraft in a horizontal axis direction of the aircraft and has an open accommodating space (800-1400), wherein the accommodating space has a predetermined width in the horizontal axis direction, a predetermined length in a longitudinal axis direction of the aircraft, and a predetermined height in a vertical axis direction of the aircraft; a first cabinet assembly; a second cabinet assembly; a third cabinet assembly, wherein the sizes of the first cabinet assemblies, the second cabinet assemblies, the third cabinet assemblies and the accommodating space are in a predetermined proportion to each other, such that the accommodating space can be filled with different combinations formed by at least two of the first, second, and third cabinet assemblies, and the different combinations differ in at the types of cabinet assemblies; and a galley configuration system (440 and 2018) communicatively connected to the frame and comprising a memory storing cabinet assembly inventory data and passenger-related service demand data (2024, 2026, 2028), wherein the galley configuration system is configured to automatically determine a galley cabinet assembly configuration for a flight, based at least in part on the passenger-related service demand data and the cabinet assembly inventory data, the galley cabinet assembly configuration indicating: a selected number of each of the first, second, and third cabinet assemblies, and spatial placement data defining arranged positions of the selected cabinet assemblies within the accommodating space.
For Claim 30, the figures and column 11, line 47 thru column 12, line 2 and column 19, lines 44-61 of Rankin ‘824 disclose that the galley configuration system determines the number and spatial placement data by applying a trained model to at least the passenger-related service demand data and the cabinet assembly inventory data.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rankin (US Patent #8519824) in view Dannenberg (US PgPub #2014/0041110).
For Claim 1, the figures and column 11, line 47 thru column 12, line 2 and column 19, lines 44-61 of Rankin ‘824 disclose an aircraft galley, comprising: a frame, which is attached to walls of a cabin of an aircraft in a horizontal axis direction of the aircraft and has an open accommodating space (800-1400), wherein the accommodating space has a predetermined width in the horizontal axis direction, a predetermined length in a longitudinal axis direction of the aircraft, and a predetermined height in a vertical axis direction of the aircraft; one first cabinet assembly, which is detachably connected to the frame; one second cabinet assembly, which is detachably connected to the frame, and one third cabinet assembly, which is detachably connected to the frame; and wherein the sizes of the first cabinet assembly, the second cabinet assembly, the third cabinet assembly, and the accommodating space can be filled with different combinations formed by at least two of the first, second, and third cabinet assembles, and the different combinations differ in the types of cabinet assemblies.
While Rankin ‘824 discloses that the first cabinet assembly comprises an exterior cabinet structure, and wherein the first cabinet assembly is detached from the frame and pulled out of the accommodating space of the frame, it is silent about it being supported by wheels. However, the figures and paragraphs [0066, 0068, and 0077] of Dannenberg ‘110 teach that it is known to have wheels on the base of a module so that they can easily be rolled in and out of position. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rankin ‘824 with the wheeled modules of Dannenberg ‘110. The motivation to do so would be to make movement of the modules easier.
For Claim 2, the figures of Rankin ‘824 disclose that the accommodating space can be filled with different combination formed by at least to the of the first, second, and third assemblies: the accommodating space can be fully filled with different combinations formed by at least two of the first, second, and third cabinet assemblies.
For Claim 3, the figures of Rankin ‘824 disclose that the first cabinet assembly can be detachably connected to the second cabinet assembly.
For Claim 4, figures 4 and 14 and column 8, lines 30-59 of Rankin ‘824 discloses that the cabinet assemblies are detachably connected in a snap-fit manner.
For Claim 6, the figures of Rankin ‘824 disclose that the sizes of the first, second, and third cabinet assembles are in the predetermined proportion to each other such that the first and third cabinet assembles have the same size and the first and third cabinet assemblies have different structural compositions.
For Claim 7, the figures of Rankin ‘824 disclose that the first and the third cabinet assemblies have different structural compositions comprising: the first cabinet assembly comprises two identical cuboid units and a housing covering the tow cuboid units, and the third cabinet assembly comprises a single cuboid unit.
For Claim 8, the figures of Rankin ‘824 disclose that each of the first cabinet assembly, the second cabinet assembly, and the third cabinet assembly is used for storing a predetermined type of object and the object comprises meals.
For Claim 9, the figures of Rankin ‘824 disclose that the cabinet assembly further comprises a sensor (418) on an inner wall of the corresponding cabinet assembly and is configured to monitor (2022) the amount of inventory of object stored in the corresponding cabinet assembly.
For Claim 10, the figures of Rankin ‘824 disclose that the combination, which is used for filling the accommodating space and is formed by at least two of the first cabinet assemblies, the second cabinet assemblies, and the third cabinet assemblies, varies with the flight of the aircraft.
For Claim 11, the figures of Rankin ‘824 disclose that the combination, which is used for filling the accommodating space and is formed by at least two of the first, second, and third cabinet assemblies, is determined based on the information on a flight to be executed by the aircraft and a configuration requirement of an airline for the flight, the information on the flight comprises departure date and time, origin and destination, flight duration and a passenger list, and the configuration requirement for the flight comprises whether meals are required.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rankin (US Patent #8519824) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
For Claim 5, while the figures of Rankin ‘824 disclose that the first, second, and third cabinet assemblies have the same width in the horizontal direction, it is silent about the second cabinet assembly having a length that is have the length of the first cabinet assembly in the longitudinal axis. However, the AAPA teaches that it is well known to have different length cabinet assemblies as generally galley carts are longer then coffee maker assemblies or storage areas. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rankin ‘824 with the claimed cabinet assembly dimensions. The motivation do so would be to be able to use known cabinet assemblies in the predefined frame.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rankin (US Patent #8519824) in view of Van Loon (US PgPub #2006/015442).
For Claim 26, the figures and column 11, line 47 thru column 12, line 2 and column 19, lines 44-61 of Rankin ‘824 disclose an aircraft galley, comprising: a frame, which is attached to walls of a cabin of an aircraft in a horizontal axis direction of the aircraft and has an open accommodating space (800-1400), wherein the accommodating space has a predetermined width in the horizontal axis direction, a predetermined length in a longitudinal axis direction of the aircraft, and a predetermined height in a vertical axis direction of the aircraft; one first cabinet assembly, which is detachably connected to the frame; one second cabinet assembly, which is detachably connected to the frame, and one third cabinet assembly, which is detachably connected to the frame; and wherein the sizes of the first cabinet assembly, the second cabinet assembly, the third cabinet assembly, and the accommodating space can be filled with different combinations formed by at least two of the first, second, and third cabinet assembles, and the different combinations differ in the types of cabinet assemblies.
While Rankin ‘824 discloses that the first cabinet assembly comprises an exterior cabinet structure, and wherein the first cabinet assembly is detached from the frame and pulled out of the accommodating space of the frame, it is silent about it being supported by wheels and that the first and second cabinet assemblies can be wheeled together. However, the figures and paragraphs [0026, 0038, and 0041] of Van Loon ‘442 teach that it is known to have wheels on the base of a module (10, 11, and 12) so that they can easily be rolled in and out of position, it also teaches using wheels (71) that can be used to move connected modules (10, 11, and 12). Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rankin ‘824 with the connected wheeled modules of Van Loon ‘442. The motivation to do so would be to make movement of the modules easier.
Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rankin (US Patent #8519824) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Berenstein, 2018.
For Claim 28-29, while Rankin ‘824 discloses that the galley configuration system determines the number and spatial placement data based on data received, it is silent the passenger related service demand data comprising aggregated passenger preference data which is represented as a knowledge graph generated by clustering knowledge graphs of individuals. However, Berenstein, 2018 teaches that it is well known in the art to use data learning and aggregated preference data with knowledge graph of group people by clustering knowledge graphs to known individual preferences. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rankin ‘824 with the known data learning system of Berenstein, 2018. The motivation to do so would be to provide a system that can learn what individual preferences are which then can be used to provide what the individuals prefers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 1/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 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 Rankin ‘824 in view of Dannenberg ‘110.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 2/20/2026