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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, and 11 are objected to for inconsistent terminology, the claims recite “the flexible drapes” which should instead read --the one or more flexible drapes--.
Claim 16 is objected to for lacking an article before “weighted roller” which should instead read --a weighted roller--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 11-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mansouri et al. (WO 2022/046107), hereinafter referred to as Mansouri.
Regarding claim 1, Mansouri discloses a vehicle (aircraft) comprising:
an internal cabin (Fig 1) having a main deck cargo compartment (main deck includes cargo storage bins); and
a barrier system (divider partitions shown in Figs 2-5; equivalent alternative systems 128, 136, 436, or 536; Fig 3 copied below) within the internal cabin (Figs 2-5),
PNG
media_image1.png
988
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
600
1024
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the barrier system comprises one or more flexible drapes (each of 128, 136, 436, and 536 have a plurality of curtains) moveable between an open position and a closed position (paragraph [0026] – system 122; paragraph [0035] – system 136; paragraph [0038] – system 436; or paragraph [0040] – system 536).
Regarding claim 2, Mansouri teaches wherein the one or more flexible drapes are configured to be selectively moved between the open position and the closed position to selectively open and close the main deck cargo compartment from one more other areas of the internal cabin (each closed off area is closed off from other areas such as different seating areas and different cargo bin areas) (Figs 1-5; paragraph [0026] – system 122; paragraph [0035] – system 136; paragraph [0038] – system 436; or paragraph [0040] – system 536).
Regarding claim 3, Mansouri teaches wherein the one or more flexible drapes are configured to be selectively moved between the open position and the closed position to selectively open and close the main deck cargo compartment into separate areas (main deck has multiple cargo compartments with the plurality of overhead bins and the drapes cover separate areas) (Figs 1-5; paragraph [0026] – system 122; paragraph [0035] – system 136; paragraph [0038] – system 436; or paragraph [0040] – system 536).
Regarding claim 4, Mansouri discloses wherein the vehicle is an aircraft (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 5, Mansouri discloses wherein the one or more flexible drapes comprise two or more flexible drapes (Figs 2-5).
Regarding claim 6, Mansouri discloses wherein the barrier system further comprises an openable interface configured to selectively couple and uncouple the two or more flexible drapes (a first flexible drape is coupled via 130c and a second flexible drape is coupled via 130d as shown in Fig 2; a first flexible drape is coupled via 130d and a second flexible drape is coupled via 130e as shown in Fig 3; a first flexible drape is coupled via 430c and a second flexible drape is coupled via 430b as shown in Fig 4; a first flexible drape is coupled via 530c and a second flexible drape is coupled via 530a as shown in Fig 5; the interfaces couple or uncoupled the two or more flexible drapes to their respective mounts)..
Regarding claim 11, Mansouri discloses a method for a vehicle comprising:
an internal cabin (Fig 1) having a main deck cargo compartment (main deck includes cargo storage bins); and
a barrier system (divider partitions shown in Figs 2-5; 128, 136, 436, or 536) within the internal cabin (Figs 2-5), wherein the barrier system comprises one or more flexible drapes (each of 128, 136, 436, and 536 have a plurality of curtains) moveable between an open position and a closed position (paragraph [0026] – system 122; paragraph [0035] – system 136; paragraph [0038] – system 436; or paragraph [0040] – system 536).
wherein the method comprises:
moving the one or more flexible drapes between the open position and the closed position (Figs 1-5; paragraph [0026] – system 122; paragraph [0035] – system 136; paragraph [0038] – system 436; or paragraph [0040] – system 536; each of the different embodiments teach moving the curtains between open and closed positions).
Regarding claim 12, Mansouri discloses wherein said moving comprises selectively opening and closing the main deck cargo compartment in relation to one more other areas of the internal cabin (each closed off area is closed off from other areas such as different seating areas and different cargo bin areas) (Figs 1-5; paragraph [0026] – system 122; paragraph [0035] – system 136; paragraph [0038] – system 436; or paragraph [0040] – system 536).
Regarding claim 13, Mansouri discloses wherein said moving comprises selectively opening and closing the main deck cargo compartment in relation to separate areas (main deck has multiple cargo compartments with the plurality of overhead bins and the drapes cover separate areas) (Figs 1-5; paragraph [0026] – system 122; paragraph [0035] – system 136; paragraph [0038] – system 436; or paragraph [0040] – system 536; each of the different embodiments teach moving the curtains between open and closed positions).
Regarding claim 14, Mansouri discloses wherein the one or more flexible drapes comprise two or more flexible drapes, the method further comprising engaging an openable interface (mounting means include openable interfaces such as buttons, snaps, hook and loop fasteners; paragraphs [0029], [0035], [0043]) to selectively couple and uncouple the two or more flexible drapes (to their respective mounts).
Regarding claim 19, Mansouri discloses a barrier system configured for an internal cabin of a vehicle, wherein the internal cabin has a main cargo deck compartment, the barrier system comprising:
one or more flexible drapes moveable between an open position and a closed position (each of 128, 136, 436, and 536 have a plurality of curtains moveable between an open position and a closed position; paragraph [0026] – system 122; paragraph [0035] – system 136; paragraph [0038] – system 436; or paragraph [0040] – system 536).
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11-13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Falk (US 3,638,450).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Falk discloses a vehicle (truck, col 1, lines 9-10) comprising:
an internal cabin (interior of truck) having a main deck cargo compartment (interior of chamber, Fig 1); and
PNG
media_image3.png
566
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a barrier system (Fig 4) within the internal cabin (Fig 1), wherein the barrier system comprises one or more flexible drapes (5, flexible fabric partition is a drapery) moveable between an open position and a closed position.
Regarding claim 2, Falk discloses wherein the one or more flexible drapes are configured to be selectively moved between the open position and the closed position to selectively open and close the main deck cargo compartment from one more other areas of the internal cabin (5 partitions the space, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Falk discloses wherein the flexible drapes are configured to be selectively moved between the open position and the closed position to selectively open and close the main deck cargo compartment into separate areas (5 partitions the space, Fig 1).
Regarding claim 7, Falk discloses wherein the one or more flexible drapes (5) comprise one or more ropes (23; Fig 4) configured to secure the one or more drapes in the open position (col 3, lines 66-75 and col 4, lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 9, Falk discloses wherein the one or more flexible drapes comprise one or more coupling interfaces at a bottom end (interface on drape that couples to 7), wherein the one or more coupling interfaces are configured to removably couple to one or more reciprocal interfaces (7) on a floor of the internal cabin (col 6, lines 65-68).
Regarding claim 11, Falk discloses a method for a vehicle comprising:
an internal cabin having a main deck cargo compartment (Fig 1); and
a barrier system (Fig 4) within the internal cabin (Fig 1), wherein the barrier system comprises one or more flexible drapes (5) moveable between an open position and a closed position,
wherein the method comprises:
moving the flexible drapes (5) between the open position and the closed position.
Regarding claim 12, Falk discloses wherein said moving comprises selectively opening and closing the main deck cargo compartment in relation to one more other areas of the internal cabin (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Falk discloses said moving comprises selectively opening and closing the main deck cargo compartment in relation to separate areas (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, Falk discloses further comprising engaging one or more ropes (23; Fig 4) configured to secure the one or more flexible drapes in the open position (rope is pulled; col 3, lines 66-75 and col 4, lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 16, Falk discloses further comprising rolling the one or more flexible drapes (5) around a weighted roller bar (6; Fig 2, the roller bar has a weight and is understood to be “weighted”) to move the one or more flexible drapes into the closed position.
Regarding claim 17, Falk discloses further comprising removably coupling one or more coupling interfaces of the one or more flexible drapes (interface on drape that couples to 7) to one or more reciprocal interfaces (7) on a floor of the internal cabin (col 6, lines 65-68).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk, as applied in claim 1 above, in further view of Douthitt et al. (US 1,181,120), hereinafter referred to as Douthitt.
Regarding claim 8, Falk discloses wherein the one or more flexible drapes comprise a weighted roller bar. Falk teaches the weighted roller bar is a top end and is for opening and closing the drape. Falk fails to teach that the weighted roller bar is at a bottom end. However, a weighted roller bar located at a bottom end of a drape for opening and closing a drape is known, as taught by Douthitt. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Falk such that the drape has the weighted roller bar located at the bottom end for opening and closing the drape. The device would operate as intended as the modification would allow the drape to open and close. As modified, the drape of Falk would be supported at the upper end to the track (8) and instead of the roller bar being at the top end, it is provided at the bottom end in the manner taught by Douthitt with ropes (14) opening and closing the drape by rolling the roller bar up and down.
Claim 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk, as applied in claims 1 and 11 above, in further view of Breuer et al. (US 9,027,880), hereinafter referred to as Breuer.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Falk fails to teach wherein the one or more flexible drapes comprise a recessed opening configured to fit over a cargo handling track system when the one or more flexible drapes are in the closed position and a method step of fitting a recessed opening of the one or more flexible drapes over a cargo handling track system when the one or more drapes are in the closed position. However, Breuer teaches a flexible drape (17d; Fig 7) having a recessed opening (13; Fig 5) fitting over tracks (12; Figs 5 and 7) of a track system. The arrangement allows for a stronger securement of the drape. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with a reasonable expectation of success to provide Falk with a track system and provide Falk with a recessed opening at a bottom end in order to fit over the tracks in a closed position. Such modification would provide a greater securement to the tracks.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S .C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk, as applied in claim 19 above, in further view of Douthitt and Vermeulen (US 11,691,733).
Regarding claim 20, Falk discloses one flexible drape, wherein the barrier system further comprises:
one or more flexible drapes (5) comprise one or more ropes (23; Fig 4) configured to secure the one or more drapes in the open position (col 3, lines 66-75 and col 4, lines 16-25);
one or more coupling interfaces at a bottom end (interface on drape that couples to 7), wherein the one or more coupling interfaces are configured to removably couple to one or more reciprocal interfaces (7) on a floor of the internal cabin (col 6, lines 65-68).
Falk discloses wherein the one or more flexible drapes comprise a weighted roller bar. Falk teaches the weighted roller bar is a top end and is for opening and closing the drape. Falk fails to teach that the weighted roller bar is at a bottom end. However, a weighted roller bar located at a bottom end of a drape for opening and closing a drape is known, as taught by Douthitt. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Falk such that the drape has the weighted roller bar located at the bottom end for opening and closing the drape. The device would operate as intended as the modification would allow the drape to open and close. As modified, the drape of Falk would be supported at the upper end to the track (8) and instead of the roller bar being at the top end, it is provided at the bottom end in the manner taught by Douthitt with ropes (14) opening and closing the drape by rolling the roller bar up and down.
Falk discloses one flexible drape and lacks two or more flexible drapes, wherein the barrier system further comprises: an openable interface configured to selectively couple and uncouple the two or more flexible drapes. However, Vermeulen teaches that it is known for an isolation divider to have two or more flexible drapes having an openable interface (108) to selectively couple and uncouple the two or more drapes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Falk such that it has two or more drapes and an openable interface between the two or more drapes in order to provide an opening in the drape. Such modification would not lead to any new or unpredictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Radacovici et al. (US 10,793,276)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Johnnie A. Shablack whose telephone number is (571)270-5344. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6am-3pm EST, alternate Friday.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/Johnnie A. Shablack/