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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/24/2026 has been entered.
Claims 21, 23, and 31-32 are amended. Claim 1-20 remain cancelled. Claims 21-40 are currently pending and are under examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “window within the wall” recited in claim 23 and 32 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation “window within the wall” in claim 23 and 32 is not supported by the specification and/or the drawings. In para. [0087] od the specification as filed recites “structural element 608 may include one or more doors and/or windows.”, but does not recite the window to be within the wall. Therefore, the amended limitation is considered new matter.
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) 21-23, 28-29, 31-32, and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Marc et al. (US 2018/0334254) in view of Van der Voet et al. (doc. “Configuration of the Mult bubble Pressure Cabin in Blended Wing Body Aircraft”).
Regarding Claim 21, Saint-Marc discloses a blended wing body aircraft (Fig. 3), comprising:
a plurality of wings (wings, Fig. 3); and
a main body (body, Fig. 3), wherein the main body comprises:
a first passenger loading door (68A, Fig. 3-4);
a first passenger unloading door (68B, Fig. 3-4);
a first lateral aisle (see annotated Fig. 4 below) between the first passenger loading door and the first passenger unloading door (Fig. 3-4) and
a longitudinal structural element (i.e., running lengthwise rather than across, 22, Fig. 1-3) comprising a wall that extends from a floor of the main body to an upper skin of the aircraft and extends continuously along a longitudinal length of the main body (i.e. as seen from Fig. 1-2, the wall 22 runs from the floor to the inside ceiling in turn into upper skin of the aircraft).
Saint-Marc is silent, but Van der Voet teaches a blended wing body aircraft cabin with a longitudinal structural element (Fig. 16, Fig. 18; Fig. 29, page 1004, second column under ‘compartment walls and Pillars”, Fig. 16, Fig. 18) wherein the longitudinal structural element is structured to redistribute a load applied on at least an aircraft skin during flight (i.e. when structures are touching and supported a load would clearly be redistribute/distributed, functional limitation) and wherein the longitudinal structural element separates a passenger cabin into a first bay and a second bay (Fig. 29) ,and a lateral aisle passing through the longitudinal structural element ( there is a latera aisle passing through the longitudinal structural element between the EC-seating and the BC-seating, Fig. 29).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the longitudinal structural element of the main body of the blended wing body aircraft disclosed in Saint-Marc with the longitudinal structural element with the lateral isle taught in Van der Voet with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows cabin separation, air circulation as well as passenger access between the separated bays of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Saint-Marc discloses a blended wing body aircraft (Fig. 3) wherein there is no clear demarcation between the wings and body of the blended wing body aircraft along a leading edge of the blended wing body aircraft (Saint-Marc, para. [0002], blended wing body (BWB)).
Regarding Claims 23 and 32, broadly interpreted, modified Saint-Marc discloses a blended wing body aircraft (Fig. 3) wherein the longitudinal structural element comprises a wall and a window within a wall (i.e., considering the vertical pillars a part of the longitudinal structural element, the open space between the two vertical pillars and below the ceiling and above the longitudinal element, Fig. 29 is considered as a window).
Regarding Claims 28 and 37, modified Saint-Marc is silent, but Van der Voet teaches a blended wing body aircraft cabin with wherein the lateral aisle( i.e., later isle space between opposite passenger exit doors in class on the left, Fig. 23) runs in a straight line from the first bay to a second bay across the longitudinal structural element (122, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main body of the blended wing body aircraft disclosed in Saint-Marc with the straight line running lateral isle as taught in Van der Voet with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows the connection of first passenger loading door to the first passenger unloading door in a shortest distance possible with un interrupted visibility.
Regarding Claims 29 and 38, modified Saint-Marc discloses the claimed invention except for locating the first passenger loading door and the first passenger unloading door behind the plurality of wings of the blended wing body aircraft. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the first passenger loading door and the first passenger unloading door behind the plurality of wings of the blended wing body aircraft, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 31, Claim 31 is a method claim that is hereby rejected under the same rational as the rejection of the apparatus claim 21. The modified Saint-Marc also discloses a method wherein unloading comprises unloading passengers with an unloading pattern comprising a path around the wall (unloading/unloading pattern is not a structural limitation and a passenger in the modified Saint-Marc can also go around the wall passing through the lateral aisles as desired).
Claim(s) 24-26 and 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Saint-modified Marc et al. (US 2018/0334254) in view of O’Kell et al. (US 2020/0223355).
Regarding Claims 24 and 33, modified Saint-Marc lacks but O’Kell teaches an aircraft comprising a plurality of directional indicators (12, 14, 18, 20, Fig. 1-6) indicating a path from the first passenger loading door to one or more seats. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blended wing body aircraft disclosed in modified Saint-Marc with the plurality of directional indicators as taught in O’kell with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows safe directing of passengers on and off of the aircraft.
Regarding Claims 25 and 34, modified Saint-Marc discloses a blended wing body aircraft (Fig. 3) with passenger loading and unloading doors (Fig. 1-6) and aircraft seating (Fig. 1-3).
Modified Saint-Marc lacks but O’Kell teaches an aircraft and seatings (Fig. 1) the plurality of directional indicators (12, 14, 18, 20, Fig. 1-6) comprising: a set of directional indicators (12, 14, 18, 20, Fig. 1-6) guiding passengers to aircraft aisle to the seats and to/from exists (abstract, para. [0055], Fig. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first passenger loading and the first passenger unloading doors of the blended wing body aircraft disclosed in modified Saint-Marc with the first and second set of directional indicators respectively as taught in O’kell with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows safe passenger direction on and off of the aircraft.
Regarding Claims 26 and 35, modified Saint-Marc discloses a blended wing body aircraft (Fig. 3) wherein a directional indicator includes a sign indicating an aisle to travel down to reach the one or more seats (abstract, Fig. 1 clearly shows indicator signs indicates the aisle 4).
Claim(s) 27 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Saint- Marc et al. (US 2018/0334254) in view of Fischer et al. (US 2017/0180212).
Regarding Claims 27 and 36, Modified Saint-Marc lacks but Fischer teaches an aircraft wherein a directional indicator includes audio guiding passengers from that permit the pilot and flight attendants to relay (audio communication) to passengers of the aircraft (para. [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the directional indicators of the blended wing body aircraft disclosed in modified Saint-Marc with the directional indicators including audio guidance for passengers as taught in Fischer with a reasonable expectation of success because it allows additional communication to passengers that are blind but can hear to safely directing them on and off of the aircraft including guiding passengers from the first passenger loading door to the one or more seats.
Claim(s) 30 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Saint-Marc et al. (US 2018/0334254) in view of Page et al. (doc. “SINGLE-AISLE AIRLINER DISRUPTION WITH A SINGLE-DECK BLENDED-WINGBODY”).
Regarding Claims 30 and 39, modified Saint-Marc is silent, but Page teaches a blended wing body aircraft comprising: a second passenger loading door (see annotated Fig. 12 below); a second passenger unloading door (see annotated Fig. 12 below); and a second lateral aisle between the second passenger loading door and the second passenger unloading door (see annotated Fig. 12 below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the blended wing body aircraft of modified Saint-Marc with a second passenger loading door, the second passenger unloading door, and a second lateral aisle as taught in Page with a reasonable expectation of success because it expedite loading and unloading of passengers by keeping passengers closer to the exits and have fewer rows between them and the exits.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 40, modified Saint-Marc an aircraft wherein the first passenger loading door and the first passenger unloading door are connected to a first passenger bay (see annotated Fig. 12 above) and the second passenger loading door and the second passenger unloading door are connected to a second passenger bay (see annotated Fig. 12 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 and 31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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 Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights