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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to applicant’s remarks that “applicant has clarified that the aircraft seat is configured for use with a side ledge in an aircraft cockpit” – the amendments to claims 1, 10, and 16 still create confusion as to whether the subcombination (aircraft seat) or combination (aircraft seat with some part of the aircraft cockpit, e.g. side ledge, side stick controller, aircraft cockpit display) is being claimed. If applicant wishes to claim the subcombination, recitations of the aircraft cockpit (e.g. side ledge, side stick controller, aircraft cockpit display) in the body of the claim(s) should be amended to make clear that they are purely functional element(s), e.g. “…arm support is configured for positioning over a side ledge…”, etc. Conversely, if applicant wishes to claim the combination, the preamble of the claims should be changed to “An aircraft crew seat in combination with an aircraft cockpit, the combination comprising…” or similar. As to claims 1 and 10 (and their dependent claims), the claims are interpreted as being drawn to the subcombination intended for use with some part of an aircraft cockpit (as evidenced by the “configured for use…” language in the preamble; and the “configured to” language in the body of claim 10). However, specifically with regards to claim 16, applicant’s remarks state claim 16 “recites additional features of the aircraft seat…’the side ledge disposed in the aircraft…’”). The disclosure states that the “side ledge” is -not part of the aircraft seat, but rather a part of the aircraft cockpit (0041: “side ledges 124 and 124A of the aircraft are shown. Side ledge 124 and side ledge 124A are disposed on the leftmost and rightmost sides of the aircraft cockpit 200 respectively”). Thus, the claims and remarks create ambiguity as to whether the aircraft seat alone, or in combination with the aircraft (cockpit) is being claimed. Nonetheless, to further prosecution, both interpretations of claim 16 (and its dependent claims) have been rejected as set forth below. Thus, Hemmelrath (and as modified) teaches the claimed seat as detailed below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/6/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the side ledge comprises a side stick controller” which are elements of an aircraft (cockpit). It is unclear as to what structure, i.e. the full scope of the invention as claimed, the Applicant wishes to seek Patent protection for, i.e. the broad in scope sub combination of an “an aircraft crew seat” that is "configured to extend above a side ledge of an aircraft cockpit” or the combination of “an aircraft crew seat and side ledge”. The language of the claims is to give the public clear notice as to the full scope of patent protection sought. Do the Applicants seek protection for the “an aircraft crew seat” whether "the side ledge (aircraft cockpit)” is present or not? Applicants should either amend the preamble to clearly indicate that the full combination of the “aircraft crew seat” with “the side ledge” is within the scope for which Patent protection is sought or amend the body of the claim to make clear that the “side ledge” is purely a functional element and is not within the scope of Patent protection sought. Since the Applicants appear to be seeking Patent protection for the “aircraft crew seat” alone as indicated by the preamble of claims 1, 10, and 16* (“An aircraft crew seat configured for…”) for purposes of examination the Examiner has considered the claims to be drawn solely to the broad sub combination of the “aircraft crew seat” and any recitation drawn to some “side ledge” as being purely functionally recited and not a required structure within the scope of the claims (*as noted above in the remarks, claim 16 is rejected under both interpretations). Similar issues also apply to claims 3, 7, and 9-18 - i.e. it is unclear whether an aircraft crew seat is being claimed in combination with some part of the cockpit (e.g. side ledge, side stick controller, aircraft cockpit display, etc). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 16, and 18-19 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hemmelrath et al. (US D869871). Hemmelrath et al. teach an aircraft crew seat configured for use with a side ledge in an aircraft cockpit, the aircraft crew seat comprising: a support extension extending upwards and outwards from a seat bottom; and an arm support extending horizontally outwards from a top portion of the support extension, wherein the arm support is configured to extend above a side ledge of an aircraft cockpit.
PNG
media_image1.png
615
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, the side ledge comprises a side stick controller and the arm support is positioned over the side ledge for a crew member sitting in the aircraft seat to reach the side stick controller with a hand while resting their forearm on the arm support.
In regards to claim 3, Hemmelrath et al. disclose a first angel formed between the seat bottom and the support extension; a first gap configured between the support extension and side ledge; a second angle formed between the support extension and the arm support; and a second gap configured between the arm support and the side ledge.
With regards to claim 6, a seat extension extends upwards and outwards from the seat bottom, the seat extension being disposed opposite from the support extension.
Regarding claim 7, the arm support is configured to support a user’s arm while the user operates the side stick controller.
Regarding claim 16 (as best understood), Hemmelrath et al. disclose an aircraft seat configured for use with a side ledge in an aircraft cockpit, the aircraft seat comprising: the side ledge disposed in the aircraft cockpit; a seat bottom of the aircraft seat adapted with a support extension extending away from the seat bottom; an arm support configured to extend from the support extension at an angle, wherein the angle allows the arm support to be parallel to a top surface of a side ledge in an aircraft cockpit; and the support extension has a length allowing the arm support to extend over the top surface of the side ledge.
With regards to claim 18, the arm support is configured to be aligned with a side stick controller located on the side ledge such that the arm support aligns with the side stick controller.
In regards to claim 19, a seat extension extends from the seat bottom opposite the support extension.
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) 4-5, 10-14, and 17 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmelrath et al. (US D869871) in view of Chang (US 7156466). Hemmelrath et al. teach the invention of claim 1. However, Hemmelrath et al. do not teach wherein the arm support is vertically adjustable. Chang teaches an arm support comprising a tongue (42) extending outwards from the arm support (10, 41) and is configured to be received into the top portion of the support extension (3a, 3b) to attach the arm support to the support extension. Hemmelrath et al. and Chang are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. seats/chairs. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify Hemmelrath et al.’s arm support/support extension as taught by Chang. The motivation would have been to provide height adjustability for the arm support, thus increasing the comfort level of the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Hemmelrath et al. as specified in claim 4.
With regards to claim 5, sliding the tongue (Chang: 42) out of the support extension adjusts the height of the arm support.
Regarding claim 10, Hemmelrath et al. as modified (see above discussion), teaches an aircraft seat configured for use with a side ledge in an aircraft cockpit, the aircraft seat comprising: a support extension configured to extend upwardly and outwardly from a seat bottom of the aircraft seat; and an arm support configured to extend over the side ledge in the aircraft cockpit, wherein the side ledge protrudes out from a cockpit wall of the aircraft cockpit; wherein a height of the arm support is adjustable via a tongue (Chang: 42) that inserts into the support extension.
In regards to claim 11, the support extension extends at a first angle away from the seat bottom, the arm support extends at a second angle away from the support extension and aligns the arm support with a side stick controller configured on the side ledge.
With regards to claim 12, the tongue (Chang: 42) attaches the arm support to the support extension and the arm support is parallel to the side ledge.
In regards to claim 13, while Hemmelrath et al. do not teach wherein the support extends upwardly and outwardly from a left-hand side of the seat bottom such that the support arm extends over a left side edge, such construction/arrangement would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hemmelrath’s support extension and arm support to extend from the left side of the seat. The motivation would have been to provide support for the left arm of a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Hemmelrath et al. as specified in claim 13.
With regards to claim 14, the support extension extends upwardly and outwardly from a right-hand side of the seat bottom such that the arm support extends over a right side ledge.
Regarding claim 17, the length of the support extension is adjustable to raise the arm support above the side ledge (as modified by Chang).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmelrath et al. (US D869871) in view of Zapf (US 4285544). Hemmelrath et al. teach the invention of claim 1, but is silent to whether a support frame inserts in a groove formed into a seat back. Zapf teaches a chair comprising a support frame (e.g. 22, 24, 42, 44, 52, 54) that is inserted in a groove (16a-c and/or 18a-c and/or 20a) formed into a seat back (16, 18, 20) for integrating the support frame with the seat back. Hemmelrath et al. and Zapf are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. chairs/seats. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Hemmelrath et al. as taught by Zapf. The motivation would have been to provide a means to secure the seat back to the support frame. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Hemmelrath et al. as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmelrath et al. (US D869871) in view of Zapf (US 4285544), and in further view of Niikura (US 6616230). Hemmelrath et al. as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8. However, Hemmelrath et al. as modified does not teach wherein the support frame is movable. Niikura teaches a chair comprising a movable support frame (col. 2 lines 52-64). Hemmelrath et al. and Niikura are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. seats/chairs. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Hemmelrath et al. as taught by Niikura. The motivation would have been to increase the comfort of the user (by providing positioning adjustability of the seat/chair). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Hemmelrath et al. as specified in claim 9. Accordingly, Hemmelrath et al. teach wherein the support frame is movable to adjust a distance between the support frame and an aircraft cockpit display.
Claim(s) 15 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmelrath et al. (US D869871) in view of Chang (US 7156466), and in further view of Niikura (US 6616230). Hemmelrath et al. as modified, teaches the invention of claim 11. However, Hemmelrath et al. as modified do not teach wherein the seat bottom is mounted to a support frame configured to track in the inboard, outboard, fore, and aft directions. Niikura teaches a seat comprising a seat bottom (12) mounted to a support frame configured to track in the inboard, outboard, fore, and aft directions (col. 2 lines 52-64). Hemmelrath et al. and Niikura are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. seats/chairs. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Hemmelrath et al. as taught by Niikura. The motivation would have been to increase the comfort of the user (by providing positioning adjustability of the seat/chair). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Hemmelrath et al. as specified in claim 15. Accordingly, Hemmelrath et al. as modified teaches wherein the seat bottom is mounted to a support frame configured to track in the inboard, outboard, fore, and aft directions such that a user may adjust a position of the arm support for reaching the side stick controller.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmelrath et al. (US D869871) in view of Niikura (US 6616230). See above discussions with respect to claim 9 and 15.
Claim(s) 16 and 18-19 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmelrath et al. (US D869871) in view of Sibuet et al. (US 20180289989). Hemmelrath et al. teach a vehicle seat configured for use with a side ledge in an aircraft cockpit (see above explanation/rejection of claim 16). However, Hemmelrath et al. do not teach wherein the seat is in a cockpit, i.e. with a side ledge disposed within an aircraft cockpit. Sibuet et al. teach an aircraft seat in an aircraft cockpit with a side ledge (figure 1). Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to use Hemmelrath’s seat in an aircraft cockpit with a side ledge. The motivation would have been to provide a comfortable seat for pilots. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the invention to Hemmelrath et al. as specified in claim 16.
With regards to claim 18, the arm support is configured to be aligned with a side stick controller located on the side ledge such that the arm support aligns with the side stick controller.
In regards to claim 19, a seat extension extends from the seat bottom opposite the support extension.
Claim(s) 17 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmelrath et al. (US D869871) in view of Sibuet et al. (US 20180289989), and in further view of Chang (US 7156466). See above explanation/rejection of claim 17 with respect to Hemmelrath et al. and Chang.
Claim(s) 20 (as best understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemmelrath et al. (US D869871) in view of Sibuet et al. (US 20180289989), and in further view of Niikura (US 6616230). See above explanation/rejection of claims 9, 15, and 20 with respect to Hemmelrath et al. and Niikura.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thurs, 6-6.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631