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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to Amendments made on 4/3/2026, in which: claims 1, 10, 12 are amended, claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, 13 are previously presented, and claim 5 is cancelled.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to speculative applications of the invention, such as “can be”, “can (include)”, “can be”, can (include)”, “can (store)” and “can (release)”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-4, 6-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 16 states the term “can be” which is indefinite as it is unclear if a portion of the spring leaf is required to be wound during mechanical energy storage or not. Applicant should amend and reevaluate the usage of the term “can be” within the claim in order to clearly and distinctly point out the limitations of the claim.
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 1-3, 6, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe (GB 2576505) in view of Benson (US 5659999).
Regarding claim 1-3, Howe discloses a removable closing device for a space in particular for an aircraft cabin, the removable closing device comprising: - a frame (18) comprising a housing (28), and - a movable door (24) capable of moving in translation relative to the frame (18) between a stored position (Figs. 3, 5) in which the movable door (24) is inside the housing (28) and a deployed position (Figs. 4, 6) in which the movable door (24) is outside the housing (28), wherein the removable closing device (22) further comprises a return system (38) comprising a cable reel (42) around which a cable (44) is wound, said cable (44) having ends (each end of the cable element 44) being connected from one of the ends to the movable door (24), and - a spring system (Page 6, line 19, a spring mechanism) configured to (i) store mechanical energy (Page 6 lines 19-34) when the cable (44) is in an unwound state (Figs. 4, 6) due to a movement of the door (24) towards the deployed position (Figs. 4, 6), and (ii) to release the mechanical energy (Page 6 lines 19-34) so as to automatically return the movable door (24) from the deployed position (Figs. 4, 6) to the stored position (Figs. 3, 5) due to a release of the movable door (24), but does not expressly disclose wherein the spring system comprises a spring reel around which a spring leaf is wound at least in part, said spring leaf also being connected to the cable reel, wherein said cable reel includes a portion around which the cable is wound and an axially adjacent portion around which a portion of the spring leaf can be wound during mechanical energy storage and wherein the cable reel is rotatably connected to a pinion meshing with a reduction pinion, wherein the reduction pinion is coupled with a damping pinion so as to control a return speed of the movable door to the stored position.
However, Benson discloses a similar door assembly wherein the spring system (40, 41, 42) comprises a spring reel (48) around which a spring leaf (40) is wound at least in part, said spring leaf (40) also being connected to the cable reel (via 40a and 48a), wherein said cable reel (45) includes a portion (46a’, fig. 11) around which the cable (44) is wound and an axially adjacent portion (46’, fig. 11) around which a portion (any portion of element 40, fig. 11) of the spring leaf (40) can be wound during mechanical energy storage (when door is closed) and a cable reel (45) that is rotatably connected to a pinion (73) meshing with a reduction pinion (71), wherein the reduction pinion (71) is coupled with a damping pinion (70) so as to control a return speed of the movable door to the stored position (Column 13, lines 23-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Howe, by making the spring system comprise a spring reel around which a spring leaf is wound at least in part, said spring leaf also being connected to the cable reel, wherein said cable reel includes a portion around which the cable is wound and an axially adjacent portion around which a portion of the spring leaf can be wound during mechanical energy storage and wherein the cable reel is rotatably connected to a pinion meshing with a reduction pinion, wherein the reduction pinion is coupled with a damping pinion so as to control a return speed of the movable door to the stored position, as taught by Benson, for the purpose of providing the device with the ability to control the speed of the door based on the set tension of the reel. (Column 13, lines 23-30)
Regarding claim 6, Howe discloses further comprising a device (Page 6 line 35 through page 7 line 3, drive mechanism for mechanical control of the door from the stored to deployed position) for locking and unlocking the movable door (24) in the stored position (Figs. 3, 5).
Regarding claim 9, Howe discloses further comprising a device (Page 6 line 35 through page 7 line 3, drive mechanism for mechanical control of the door from the stored to deployed position) for holding the door (24) in the deployed position (Figs. 4, 6).
Regarding claim 10, Howe discloses wherein the frame (18) comprises a panel (14) having a cavity (interior cavity of element 28).
Regarding claim 11, Howe discloses wherein the movable door (24) comprises a panel made of a flexible material (Page 4 lines 33-35) and two finishing panels (60) on either side other of the flexible panel (Page 4 lines 33-35).
Regarding claim 12, Howe discloses a seat unit (10) for an aircraft cabin, the seat unit )10) comprising a removable closing device (22) as defined according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Howe discloses an aircraft cabin comprising an aisle (Page 2, lines 39-40), at least one seat unit (10) provided with a removable closing device (22) as defined according to claim 1 capable of selectively closing or clearing an access passage to the aisle(Page 2, lines 39-40).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe (GB 2576505) and Benson (US 5659999) in view of Thomas (WO 2020/126696)
Regarding claim 4, Howe/Benson disclose the invention substantially as set forth above, but do not expressly disclose wherein the movable door comprises a toothed wheel meshed with a rack fixed to the frame.
However, Thomas discloses a similar door structure (Figs. 1-13) having a movable door (21) with a toothed wheel (39) meshed with a rack (40) fixed to the frame (Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Howe, by making the movable door comprise a toothed wheel meshed with a rack fixed to the frame, as taught by Thomas, for the purpose of providing dampened movement of the door in an unlocked state from a stored to deployed position.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe (GB 2576505) and Benson (US 5659999) in view of Papenroth (US 2019/0383062).
Regarding claims 7-8, Howe/Benson disclose the invention substantially as set forth above, but do not expressly disclose wherein the locking and unlocking device comprises a handle for cooperating with a counter-form in the frame and the locking and unlocking device comprises a rotary latch provided with a projecting portion, said projecting portion being intended to be inserted inside a corresponding housing in the handle when the device is in a locked state.
However, Papenroth discloses a similar movable door structure (22) having a locking and unlocking device comprises a handle (62, 95) for cooperating with a counter-form in the frame (Fig. 5c) and the locking and unlocking device (62, 95) comprises a rotary latch (95) provided with a projecting portion (96), said projecting portion (96) being intended to be inserted inside a corresponding housing (cavity formed in element 95) in the handle (62, 95) when the device (22) is in a locked state (Fig. 5c).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Howe, by making locking and unlocking device comprises a handle for cooperating with a counter-form in the frame and the locking and unlocking device comprises a rotary latch provided with a projecting portion, said projecting portion being intended to be inserted inside a corresponding housing in the handle when the device is in a locked state, as taught by Papenroth, for the purpose of providing secure positional locking of the door structure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-13 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
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 AARON M RODZIWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 pm.
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 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.
/AARON M RODZIWICZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights