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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/11/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections have been addressed and are therefore withdrawn.
The 112 issues have been addressed and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Braca have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that in Braca, “the window seat is angled towards the cabin wall”. While this appears to be shown in Fig. 8, the applicant has not addressed the specification which states that the window seat may be angled toward the aisle. Para 0007 states that the angle between the two seats may be “between 1° and 25°, preferably equal to 12°” and Para 0050 states that the angle of the bisecting line a’ between seat may be “between 2° and 20° , preferably equal to 8°”. Therefore, if the bisecting line is at the preferred angle of 8 deg and the difference between seats is at the preferred angle of 12 deg, each seat will be angled in the same direction toward the aisle. That is the preferred embodiment, and does not even account for the more extreme angles toward the aisle which Braca discloses – if the angle between the seats is 1 deg and the angle of the bisecting line between seats is 20 deg then both seats would essentially be angled at 20 degrees toward the aisle.
Applicant states “it is essential for the window seat of the seat units of Braca to be angled towards the window”. Of course, since Braca discloses these angles, this statement cannot be true. Applicant’s arguments for it are that “the footrest (10) could not be located behind the window seat in front because this would not align with the seat when relined, the central element (14) could not be provided centrally because the window seat would need to cross the central line when reclining, and the partition wall (15) could not be curved symmetrically as shown because this would prevent the window seat from fully reclining”. None of these are found convincing. The footrest could be located behind the window seat or to the side of the seats, or anywhere it is needed. The central element 14 would of course be angled with the seat unit and would be between the seats along the bisecting line. The partition wall could be curved in anyway necessary for alignment, it does not need to be symmetric. Applicant has not provided any evidence for these statements. As further evidence that such angles could be achieved by the seats, an additional 103 rejection has been provided with a reference to teach what it would look like.
Applicant argues that Braca does not disclose a “staggered herringbone pattern”. This is not found convincing. To note, applicant has broadly interpreted this term. As shown in the image provided by the applicant on 1/9/26 a herringbone pattern is generally defined by the two interlocking sides which are staggered and offset from one another. The instant application does not disclose such two columns, only one. So in this case, we interpret the term to only refer to one half of the herringbone pattern. Therefore, as applicant agrees we can define it as “units in a given column are parallel and adjacent to one another”. The seat units of Braca are angled as there is a defined angle of the bisecting line of the two seats which refers to the angle of the seat unit as a whole. Also, the seat units are adjacent one another, as shown in Fig. 8. The footrest of the window seat which is located on the right side of the forward window seat does not detract from the overall configuration of the seat units. As applicant has stated, it is the seat units and not the individual seats which have the claimed herringbone pattern. And yet, it is the applicant who is looking to the individual seats for their argument. Further, this does not even address the fact that the Braca discloses that the window seat unit is in fact angled toward the aisle, as explained above and in the rejection, so the seat units and each seat is angled toward the aisle and they all meet the definition of staggered herringbone pattern. Therefore, this argument is not convincing.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 states “four seat units arranged in about a X-shaped configuration to provide a group seating area”. Are these the same as the four seat units already claimed in claim 21? Aren’t they already in an X-shaped configuration? If they are the same seat units, how does this further limit claim 21?
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
(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) 1, 4-6, 8-11, and 13-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Braca et al (US 20170036765 A1).
For claim 1, Braca discloses a passenger seating arrangement for an aircraft cabin Fig. 8, comprising:
a plurality of seat units pairs of seats each comprising at least a first reclining seat and a second reclining seat 2 and 3 and located in a column adjacent to a longitudinal aisle of the aircraft cabin aisle next to seats, wherein
the first reclining seat and the second reclining seat of the seat units are configured to have a same plan view contour Fig. 8: each seat contour looks the same from above and a mirror image side-by-side alignment when similarly reclined Fig. 8: when fully reclined they overlap in a side-by-side manner, mirrored about the bisector line a’,
the reclined position of the first and second reclining seats provides a lie flat configuration Fig. 8,
the first reclining seat, the second reclining seat, and the seat units are angled towards the aisle Fig. 8: shows that the seat unit is angled toward the aisle; while both seats are not shown as being angled in the same direction, Para 0007 states that the angle between the two seats may be “between 1° and 25°, preferably equal to 12°” and Para 0050 states that the angle of the bisecting line a’ between seat may be “between 2° and 20° , preferably equal to 8°”; therefore if the bisecting line is at the preferred angle of 8 deg and the difference between seats is at the preferred angle of 12 deg, each seat will be angled in the same direction toward the aisle to provide a direct access from the aisle to the first and second reclining seats of the seat units in the lie flat configuration Fig. 8-9: access space 8 in Fig. 9, also shown in Fig. 9 in the lie flat position, and
the seat units in the column are arranged in a staggered herringbone configuration relative to the aisle Fig. 8.
If applicant does not agree that the first seat, the second seat, and the seat unit are angled toward the aisle, a 103 rejection is further applied below.
For claim 4, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1 wherein the first reclining seat and the second reclining seat of the seat units are independently moveable relative to each other between an upright position and a fully reclined position Fig. 9.
For claim 5, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of any claim 4 wherein the plan view of the second reclining seat in the fully reclined position is a mirror image of the first reclining seat in the fully reclined position Fig. 8.
For claim 6, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1 wherein the second reclining seat of the seat units is located closer to the aisle than the first reclining seat, the difference in the distance to the aisle being defined by the angle of the seat unit to the aisle Fig. 8.
For claim 8, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1 wherein the first and second passenger seats are modestly angled “modestly angled” is interpreted as being defined in the claim as an angle from 0 to 25 degrees relative to each other in the seat unit, the maximum angle between the seats being 25 degrees Para 0037: “Said first angle α′ or α″ may be between 1° and 25°”.
For claim 9, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the angle between the seat units and the aisle measured as an angle between the centre line between the two reclining seats and the centre line of the longitudinal aisle is 20-50 degrees Para 0050: “second angle β′ or β″ ranging between 2° and 20°”.
The ranges appear to overlap at 20 degrees, but if applicant argues otherwise, this is also rejected under 103 later.
For claim 10, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein, in the column of staggered seat units, the first seat of a seat unit and the second seat of the subsequent seat unit in the column of staggered seat units at least partially overlap Fig. 8: the footrest portion of the left seat laterally overlaps the headrest portion of the next seat unit.
For claim 11, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1 comprising a separate egress for each of the first and second seats of the angled seat units for the direct access to the aisle Fig. 8: one egress direct to the aisle seat and one egress around the footrest to the window seat.
For claim 13, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, comprising a shared egress for the first and second reclining seats of the seat units for access to the aisle Fig. 9: each egress is a shared egress as it could be used by either passenger.
For claim 14, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein a shape of at least one corner of the first or second reclining seat is formed depending on the positioning of the seat units relative to the cabin walls and/or the aisle Fig. 8: the shape of the seats, including the corners, is formed with the positioning of the seats in mind as they relate to the wall and aisle – i.e. they fit within the wall and do not impede into the aisle.
For claim 15, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, comprising additional seat units in the column these seats units may take any form, and therefore each seat in the next set of two is considered a seat unit wherein the additional seat units are at an angle relative to each other Fig. 8: seats at an angle to each other.
For claim 16, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 15, wherein the additional seat units form a group seating area as they are a group of seats.
For claim 18, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 15 configured to provide direct access between two successive seat units without needing to enter the aisle Fig. 8.
For claim 19, Braca disclose a passenger seating arrangement for an aircraft cabin Fig. 8-9, comprising a plurality of seat units pairs of seats each comprising at least a first reclining seat and a second reclining seat 2 and 3 and located adjacent to a longitudinal aisle of the aircraft cabin aisle next to seats, wherein the first reclining seat and the second reclining seat of the seat units are configured to have a same plan view contour Fig. 8: each seat contour looks the same from above and a mirror image side-by-side alignment when similarly reclined Fig. 8: when fully reclined they overlap in a side-by-side manner, mirrored about the bisector line a’, the reclined position of the first and second reclining seats provide a lie flat configuration Fig. 8, the first reclining seat, the second reclining seat, and the seat units are angled towards the aisle Fig. 8: shows that the seat unit is angled toward the aisle; while both seats are not shown as being angled in the same direction, Para 0007 states that the angle between the two seats may “between 1° and 25°, preferably equal to 12°” and Para 0050 states that the angle of the bisecting line a’ between seat may be “between 2° and 20° , preferably equal to 8°”; therefore if the bisecting line is at the preferred angle of 8 deg and the difference between seats is at the preferred angle of 12 deg, each seat will be angled in the same direction toward the aisle to provide a direct access from the aisle to the first and second reclining seats of the seat units in the lie flat configuration Fig. 8-9: access space 8 in Fig. 9, also shown in Fig. 9 in the lie flat position, and the seat units are in a configuration where two successive seat units in a column are at an angle relative to each other Para 0037: “the divergence angle α′ between the pair of seats 2′-3′ of a first row 4′ may differ with respect to the angle α″ of divergence between the pair of seats 2″-3″ of the second row 4″; therefore the angle of the seats are different for each seat unit.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braca et al (US 20170036765 A1) in view of Rousse et al (US 20230002056 A1).
For claim 1, Braca discloses a passenger seating arrangement for an aircraft cabin Fig. 8, comprising:
a plurality of seat units pairs of seats each comprising at least a first reclining seat and a second reclining seat 2 and 3 and located in a column adjacent to a longitudinal aisle of the aircraft cabin aisle next to seats, wherein
the first reclining seat and the second reclining seat of the seat units are configured to have a same plan view contour Fig. 8: each seat contour looks the same from above and a mirror image side-by-side alignment when similarly reclined Fig. 8: when fully reclined they overlap in a side-by-side manner, mirrored about the bisector line a’,
the reclined position of the first and second reclining seats provides a lie flat configuration Fig. 8,
the first reclining seat, the second reclining seat, and the seat units are angled towards the aisle Fig. 8: shows that the seat unit is angled toward the aisle; while both seats are not shown as being angled in the same direction, Para 0007 states that the angle between the two seats may “between 1° and 25°, preferably equal to 12°” and Para 0050 states that the angle of the bisecting line a’ between seat may be “between 2° and 20° , preferably equal to 8°”; therefore if the bisecting line is at the preferred angle of 8 deg and the difference between seats is at the preferred angle of 12 deg, each seat will be angled in the same direction toward the aisle to provide a direct access from the aisle to the first and second reclining seats of the seat units in the lie flat configuration Fig. 8-9: access space 8 in Fig. 9, also shown in Fig. 9 in the lie flat position, and
the seat units in the column are arranged in a staggered herringbone configuration relative to the aisle Fig. 8.
If applicant does not agree that Braca discloses that the first seat, the second seat, and the seat unit are angled toward the aisle, then Rousse is applied to teach that it is known for pairs of seats to be angled as claimed such that they fit with the seat units front and behind them.
Rousse teaches a seating arrangement in which seat units, and two seats are angled toward an aisle Fig. 2 without causing any issues of alignment or impeding on reclining as applicant has argued. Braca does appear to already teach this by stating specific angles that would align the seats in this way (without showing them in figures), but nevertheless Rousse shows what this would look like. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Braca by orienting the seats in a way that they are angled toward the aisle as disclosed by Rousse. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to make it easier for the passenger in the window seat to see/communicate with the flight attendant or their companion in the seat next to them or see other components or safety info in the cabin, since they will not be angled away from the cabin.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-11, and 13-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20210188441 A1) in view of Braca et al (US 20170036765 A1).
For claim 1, Lee as modified discloses a passenger seating arrangement for an aircraft cabin Fig. 1-6, comprising:
a plurality of seat units pairs of seats 200A/B each comprising at least a first reclining seat and a second reclining seat 200A/B and located in a column adjacent to a longitudinal aisle of the aircraft cabin Fig. 1, wherein
the first reclining seat and the second reclining seat of the seat units are configured to have a same plan view contour Fig. 1: same shape of seat as viewed from above,
the reclined position of the first and second reclining seats provides a lie flat configuration Fig. 3C,
the first reclining seat, the second reclining seat, and the seat units are angled towards the aisle Fig. 1: shows 200B as angled, and Para 0026 describes that 200A may also be angled to provide a direct access from the aisle to the first and second reclining seats of the seat units in the lie flat configuration direct aisle access via paths 20 and 20’, and
the seat units in the column are arranged in a staggered herringbone configuration relative to the aisle Fig. 2A.
Lee fails to disclose that the seats have a mirror image side-by-side alignment when similarly reclined. However, Braca teaches a pair of seats with a mirror image side-by-side alignment when similarly reclined Fig. 8. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Lee by aligning the seat so they have mirror image alignment as disclosed by Braca. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to align passengers that may be travelling together directly next to each other to ease communication between them.
For claim 4, Lee as modified discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1 wherein the first reclining seat and the second reclining seat of the seat units are independently moveable relative to each other between an upright position and a fully reclined position Fig. 3B-3C.
For claim 5, Lee as modified discloses the passenger seating arrangement of any claim 4 wherein the plan view of the second reclining seat in the fully reclined position is a mirror image of the first reclining seat in the fully reclined position Fig. 3C, as modified.
For claim 6, Lee as modified discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1 wherein the second reclining seat of the seat units is located closer to the aisle than the first reclining seat, the difference in the distance to the aisle being defined by the angle of the seat unit to the aisle Fig. 1.
For claim 8, Lee as modified discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1 wherein the first and second passenger seats are modestly angled “modestly angled” is interpreted as being defined in the claim as an angle from 0 to 25 degrees relative to each other in the seat unit, the maximum angle between the seats being 25 degrees Para 0025-0026: 200A may be angled at 10 degrees from the aisle and 200B may be at 30 degrees, therefore the different is less than 25 degrees.
For claim 9, Lee as modified discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the angle between the seat units and the aisle measured as an angle between the centre line between the two reclining seats and the centre line of the longitudinal aisle is 20-50 degrees Para 0025-0026: 200A may be angled at 10 degrees from the aisle and 200B may be at 30 degrees, therefore the centerline may be at 20 degrees from the aisle.
For claim 10, Lee as modified discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein, in the column of staggered seat units, the first seat of a seat unit and the second seat of the subsequent seat unit in the column of staggered seat units at least partially overlap Fig. 2A: overlap in a longitudinal direction, at least.
For claim 11, Lee as modified discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1 comprising a separate egress for each of the first and second seats of the angled seat units for the direct access to the aisle Fig. 1: 20/20’.
For claim 13, Lee as modified discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, comprising a shared egress for the first and second reclining seats of the seat units for access to the aisle Fig. 1: 20 may be used by both.
For claim 14, Lee as modified discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein a shape of at least one corner of the first or second reclining seat is formed depending on the positioning of the seat units relative to the cabin walls and/or the aisle Fig. 1: the shape of the seats, including the corners, is formed with the positioning of the seats in mind as they relate to the wall and aisle – i.e. they fit within the wall and do not impede into the aisle.
For claim 15, Lee as modified discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, comprising additional seat units in the column (these seat units may take any form as they are not defined to be the same as the previous seat units) 2A: each additional seat is considered a seat unit, such as 200C and other of seats 200A and 200B wherein the additional seat units are at an angle relative to each other Fig. 2A: additional seats 200A, 200B, and 200C are at angles to one another.
For claim 16, Lee as modified discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 15, wherein the additional seat units form a group seating area as they are a group of seats.
For claim 18, Lee as modified discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 15 configured to provide direct access between two additional seat units without needing to enter the aisle Fig. 2A: for any group of three seats 200A/B/C there is a shared path to access any seat.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braca in view of Goode (US D850131 S).
For claim 3, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the first and second reclining seats are arranged to provide a double bed style configuration in the lie flat position. Braca does disclose that the angle between the seats may be as minimal as 1° (Para 0037).
However, Goode teaches a seat unit with separate reclinable seats that can optionally be a double bed style configuration by lowering a partition Fig. 4-5.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Braca by allowing for the beds to become a double bed style configuration by lowering a partition as disclosed by Goode. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide additional comfort for passengers traveling together.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braca et al (US 20170036765 A1).
For claim 7, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1 but fails to disclose that the first and second reclining seats are arranged in a parallel configuration in the seat unit. Braca does disclose that “said first angle can be comprised between 1° and 25°” (Para 0007), but not exactly parallel.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the seat parallel, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braca in view of Collins et al (US 20230286655 A1).
For claim 12, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 11, but fails to disclose that the seat units comprise doors in the separate egresses for preventing access to the first and second reclining seats.
However, Collins teaches an aircraft seat unit with a door in an entrance. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Braca by using a door in each entrance to a seat unit as disclosed by Collins. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide privacy and increased safety by being able to close all access to a seat unit.
Claim(s) 17 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braca in view of Ryan (US 20220063812 A1).
For claim 17, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 15, but fails to disclose a moveable divider between at least two of the additional seat units.
However, Ryan teaches an aircraft cabin Fig. 13 with a column of seat units and a movable divider between at least two of the additional seat units movable panel 164.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Braca by including a movable divider between seat units by Ryan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for increased privacy.
For claim 24, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1 but fails to disclose a hanging partition configured for flexible operation between a closed position and a stowed position.
However, Ryan teaches a hanging partition configured for flexible operation between a closed position and a stowed position Fig. 13: 164. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Braca by having a hanging partition configured for flexible operation between a closed position and a stowed position as disclosed by Ryan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide privacy between the seats in the seat unit.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dowty (US 20170240283 A1) in view of Braca ‘959 (US 20180281959 A1).
For claim 21, Dowty discloses a passenger seating arrangement for an aircraft cabin Fig. 14, comprising seats on one side of an aisle Fig. 23.
However, Braca 959’ teaches that it is known to mirror seating units from one side of an aisle to the other side Fig. 2. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Dowty by having the same seat units on the other side of the aisle as disclosed by Braca ‘959. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide more seating.
As modified, Dowty discloses:
four seat units as shown below located adjacent to a longitudinal aisle of the aircraft cabin, wherein two seat units are in a first column and two seat units are in a second column, each seat unit comprises at least two reclining seats, the reclined position of the at least two seats provides a lie flat configuration, the first reclining seat, the second reclining seat, and the seat units are angled toward the aisle each seat is angled with feet toward the aisle and the seat unit is angled directly toward the aisle at 90 degrees to provide access from the aisle to the at least two reclining seats of the seat units in the lie flat configuration, and the four seat units are arranged in an X-shaped configuration to provide a group seating area as shown.
PNG
media_image1.png
694
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 20, Dowty as modified discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 21 comprising four seat units arranged in about a X-shaped configuration to provide a group seating area as shown.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braca in view of Wallace et al (US 20130242523 A1).
For claim 25, Braca discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1 but fails to disclose at least one moveable monitor configured for turning between a substantially portrait display orientation and a substantially landscape display orientation.
However, Wallace teaches a moveable monitor configured for turning between a substantially portrait display orientation and a substantially landscape display orientation Fig. 2-5. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Braca by including a moveable monitor as disclosed by Wallace. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a display that can display information in both portrait and landscape mode depending on the information and the phase of flight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. 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 J 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642