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
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 18/640,375, filed 4/19/2024.
Claims 1-14 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/19/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "120/128" and “129” have been used to designate the same element in Fig. 2 yet element 128 is a bracket in an additional embodiment of Fig. 3). The drawings should be amended to delete reference character 128 from Fig. 2. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there is no foreign priority data.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, change “each rod connector” to “each of the rod connectors”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hupperich(EP2520490; cited on IDS filed 4/19/2024) in view of Basmadji(4,662,421; cited on IDS filed 4/19/2024).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 13-14, Hupperich discloses an aircraft (see para. [0001]) with a mounting system, the mounting system comprising:
a curtain rail(4, see Figs. 1-2 and 10-11);
a cabin divider(54, see Fig. 2), the curtain rail configured to hold and guide the cabin divider(54, see Fig. 2);
a holding structure(7, see Figs. 10-11) arranged at the curtain rail; and
a stretcher frame(5, 6) mounted to the holding structure(see Fig. 10-11).
Hupperich lacks a fabric cover spanned over the stretcher frame and covering the holding structure.
Basmadji discloses a mounting system having a rail(1), a fabric cover(8), and flexible protrusion(17, see column 4, line 58 thru column 5, line 2 and Fig. 1) attached to a holding structure/frame(1) for holding the cover on the frame, the cover over the protrusion(see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the system of Hupperich with a cover with a flexible protrusion, such as disclosed by Basmadji, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have covered and obstructed the mounting elements from view and provided an aesthetic look for the system given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 3, Hupperich and Basmadji disclose the mounting system of claim 1, wherein the stretcher frame(5, 6 of Hupperich) comprises two side stretcher frames(5, 6) each arranged on a respective lateral side of the holding structure(see Figs. 10-11) and/or a top stretcher frame arranged on a top side of the holding structure.
Regarding claim 4, Hupperich and Basmadji disclose the mounting system of claim 1, wherein the stretcher frame(5, 6 of Hupperich) comprises at least one longitudinal section(vertical sides of 5, 6, see Figs. 10-11) arranged parallel to the curtain rail(4, see Figs. 10-11) and at least one spacer frame(18, see Fig. 10) connecting the at least one longitudinal section with the holding structure, and wherein the at least one spacer frame is flexible and or configured to push the at least one longitudinal section away from the holding structure(the stretcher frame has stiffeners 8 therefore implying that the frame has some flexibility; also GFRP which makes up the frame are well known as being flexible meeting the claim limitation). Also, the spacer frame 18 being flexible would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to allow the holding structure to be placed within the stretcher frame to hold the rail
Regarding claim 5, Hupperich and Basmadji disclose the mounting system of claim 1, wherein Hupperich lacks the holding structure(7) comprises a plurality of brackets configured to hold the stretcher frame, wherein each of the plurality of brackets is mounted to the curtain rail, and Basmadji discloses a holding structure(20) comprising brackets .
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hupperich and Basmadji, as evidenced by Tremaine(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2011/0296774; cited on PTO 892).
Hupperich and Basmadji disclose the mounting system of claim 1, but lack a sign mounted to the holding structure and/or to the stretcher frame.
The use of a cover having a welting and cord for securement to a frame is considered well known in the partition as evidenced by Tremaine(see Fig. 1a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to have provided a cord and rail attachment with the system of Hupperich and Basmadji to provide a secure attachment of the cover to the under structure given the intended use of the system, and design requirements thereof.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hupperich and Basmadji, as evidenced by Radacovici(10,793,276; cited on PTO 892).
Hupperich and Basmadji disclose the mounting system of claim 1, but lack a sign mounted to the holding structure and/or to the stretcher frame.
The use of a sign is considered well known in the partition as evidenced by Radacovici(see column 5, lines 3-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to have provided signage with the system of Hupperich and Basmadji to provide notification to the passengers such as where the exit is or when to buckle the user’s seatbelt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 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.
No prior art of record shows a system having a curtain rail, holding structure having at least one rod parallel to the rail and rod connectors, a stretcher frame and a fabric cover, nor any motivation to do so
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. STEPHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
BETH A. STEPHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Stephan/