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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-13, and 15 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the second action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 6/5/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1, which claim 13 depends upon has been amended to teach that the structural element of claim 1 is an internal component for an aircraft. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlueter (PGPub #2019/0193829) in view of Schaefer et al. (PGPub #2017/0152043).
Regarding claim 1, Schlueter teaches a structural element for a passenger cabin of an aircraft (Paragraph 26), the structural element comprising: a structure (11-18); and a functional component (20); wherein the structure comprises at least one accommodating space (11, and 20 as seen in figure 2B, and Paragraphs 30, and 39, as can be seen in the figures, the structures forms spaces between the elements of the structure to accommodate functional components, and further teaches that the elements can be formed as ducts that have an interior space that can carry a functional component); wherein the functional component is arranged within the at least one accommodating space (11, and 20 as seen in figure 2B, and Paragraphs 30, and 39); and wherein the structure comprises a load topology optimized structure based on a bioinspired generative design configured to enable the structural integrity of the structural element while simultaneously providing integrated functionalities via the functional component (11, and 20 as seen in figure 2B, and Paragraphs 14, and 23), and wherein the structural element forms an interior component for the passenger cabin of the aircraft (11 as seen in figure 2B, as can be seen the structural element forms the inner wall panels of the aircraft). But does not explicitly teach that the structure is generatively-designed; and wherein the interior component is one of the following: an aircraft galley; a lavatory; or a cabin monument.
However, Schaefer does teach that the structure is generatively-designed (Paragraph 13); and wherein the interior component is one of the following: an aircraft galley; a lavatory; or a cabin monument (Paragraph 39, this teaches that the component can act as a cabin divider which is the functionality of some cabin monument). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the structure be generatively-designed, and to have the component be a cabin monument because Schlueter and Schaefer are both aircraft structures made with bionic modeling. The motivation for having the structure be generatively-designed is that it allows a computer to generate and optimize the structure to improve weight and strength, and the motivation for having the component be a cabin monument is that it can allow the system to be used to divide the aircraft into multiple areas which can improve the useability of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 2, Schlueter as modified by Schaefer teaches the structural element of claim 1, wherein the functional component comprises at least one of the following: a fluid conduit (Paragraph 39 of Schlueter); a cable channel (Paragraph 39 of Schlueter); a wiring harness; a sensor; a heating and/or cooling element; a thermally insulating element; or an exhaust channel.
Regarding claim 3, Schlueter as modified by Schaefer teaches the structural of claim 1, wherein the at least one accommodating space comprises a plurality of accommodating spaces (11-18 as seen in figure 2A, and 11 as seen in figure 2B of Schlueter), wherein the plurality of accommodating spaces are interconnected with each other so as to build a network of accommodating spaces (11-18 as seen in figure 2A, and 11 as seen in figure 2B of Schlueter, as can be seen the structures form a plurality of spaces between the elements that create a network of spaces).
Regarding claim 6, Schlueter as modified by Schaefer teaches the structural element of claim 1, wherein the generatively-designed structure comprises a plurality of tube-like members interconnected with each other (11 as seen in figure 2B, and Paragraph 39 of Schlueter, this teaches that the structure is made up of hollow tube-like members); wherein each of the plurality of tube-like members includes at least one accommodating space for accommodating a functional component (Paragraph 39 of Schlueter).
Regarding claim 7, Schlueter as modified by Schaefer teaches the structural element of claim 6, wherein the plurality of tube-like members together build a truss structure that builds the generatively-designed structure (11 as seen in figure 2B of Schlueter).
Regarding claim 8, Schlueter as modified by Schaefer teaches the structural element of claim 6, but does not teach a plurality of node elements; wherein the plurality of tube-like members are interconnected with each other by the plurality of node elements. However, Schaefer does teach a plurality of node elements (C1 as seen in figures 6, and 7); wherein the plurality of tube-like members are interconnected with each other by the plurality of node elements (C1 and the tube-like members as seen in figure 7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tube-like members connected by node elements because Schlueter and Schaefer are both aircraft structures made with bionic modeling. The motivation for having the tube-like members connected by node elements is that it allows separate structural elements to be connected in a structural manner.
Regarding claim 9, Schlueter as modified by Schaefer teaches the structural element of claim 8, but Schlueter does not teach that at least one of the plurality of node elements is configured to interconnect at least one accommodating space of at least a first tube-like member with a corresponding accommodating space of at least a second tube-like member so as to build a common accommodating space that extends between the at least first tube-like member and the at least second tube-like member. However, Schaefer teaches teach that at least one of the plurality of node elements is configured to interconnect at least one accommodating space of at least a first tube-like member with a corresponding accommodating space of at least a second tube-like member so as to build a common accommodating space that extends between the at least first tube-like member and the at least second tube-like member (C1 and the tube-like members as seen in figure 7, as can be seen in figure 7, the node, C1, is hollow which allows the hollow interior space of the first tube to be joined with the hollow interior of the second tube and can allow elements to pass from the first to second hollow space). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the node interconnect the accommodating spaces of the joined tube-like members because Schlueter and Schaefer are both aircraft structures made with bionic modeling. The motivation for having the node interconnect the accommodating spaces of the joined tube-like members is that it allows the functional component to be extended along the combined length of the structure.
Regarding claim 10, Schlueter as modified by Schaefer teaches the structural element of claim 8, but Schlueter does not teach that at least one of the plurality of node elements comprises an attachment member for fixing components to the corresponding node element. But Schaefer does teach that at least one of the plurality of node elements comprises an attachment member for fixing components to the corresponding node element (C, H1, and H2 as seen in figure 7, the threaded ends of the node elements allow for the tube-like members to be attached to the node). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have attachment members on the node to fixing components to the node because Schlueter and Schaefer are both aircraft structures made with bionic modeling. The motivation for having attachment members on the node to fixing components to the node is that it allows the node to be secured to the tube-like members to secure the connection.
Regarding claim 11, Schlueter as modified by Schaefer teaches the structural element of claim 6, further comprising at least one cover panel (Paragraphs 40, and 64 of Schlueter, this teaches that the structure has a skin that functions as the cover panel); wherein the at least one cover panel is arranged within a gap between at least two tube-like members of the plurality of tube-like members (11 as seen in figures 2A, and 2B, and Paragraphs 40, and 64 of Schlueter, this teaches that the structure has a skin that functions as the cover panel and the skin extends across the spaces formed between the tubes of the structure).
Regarding claim 12, Schlueter as modified by Schaefer teaches the structural element of claim 1, wherein at least one of the accommodating spaces comprises at least two sub-spaces separated from each other to accommodate multiple functional components (11, and 20 as seen in figure 2B of Schlueter, as can be seen the structure has multiple discrete spaces that can each contain a separate functional component).
Regarding claim 13, Schlueter as modified by Schaefer teaches an interior component for an aircraft, wherein the interior component comprises at least one structural element according to claim 1 (11 as seen in figure 2B of Schlueter, as can be seen the structural element forms the inner wall panels of the aircraft).
Regarding claim 15, Schlueter as modified by Schaefer teaches an aircraft, comprising: a fuselage (120 of Schlueter); a passenger cabin (The interior of 120 as seen in figure 2B, and Paragraph 26 of Schlueter); and at least one interior component of claim 13 (11 as seen in figure 2B of Schlueter, as can be seen the structural element forms the inner wall panels of the aircraft); wherein the passenger cabin is enclosed by the fuselage (120 as seen in figure 2B of Schlueter); and wherein the passenger cabin comprises the at least one structural element and/or the at least one interior component (11 as seen in figure 2B of Schlueter, as can be seen the structural element forms the inner wall panels of the aircraft which forms the edge of the passenger cabin).
Claims 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlueter (PGPub #2019/0193829) as modified by Schaefer et al. (PGPub #2017/0152043) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beentjes et al. (PGPub #2009/0159744).
Regarding claim 4, Schlueter as modified by Schaefer teaches the structural element of claim 1, but does not teach at least one panel, wherein the at least one panel includes at least one accommodating space that is part of the at least one panel. However, Beentjes does teach at least one panel (1), wherein the at least one panel includes at least one accommodating space that is part of the at least one panel (1, and 8 as seen in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one panel with an accommodating space because Schlueter and Beentjes are both aircraft with passenger compartments. The motivation for having at least one panel with an accommodating space is that it allows additional lines to be hidden away from the passengers to help improve the appearance of the cabin and protect the lines.
Regarding claim 5, Schlueter as modified by Schaefer, and Beentjes teaches the structural element of claim 4, but Schlueter does not teach that the at least one panel comprises a plurality of panels; wherein at least two panels of the plurality of panels each comprises at least one accommodating space integrated within the corresponding panel as part of the corresponding panel; and wherein the plurality of panels are interconnected with each other such that at least two accommodating spaces of the individual panels together build a network of accommodating spaces. However, Beentjes does teach that the at least one panel comprises a plurality of panels (1 as seen in figure 7); wherein at least two panels of the plurality of panels each comprises at least one accommodating space integrated within the corresponding panel as part of the corresponding panel (1, and 8 as seen in figure 1); and wherein the plurality of panels are interconnected with each other such that at least two accommodating spaces of the individual panels together build a network of accommodating spaces (1, and 9 as seen in figure 7, interconnecting the panels as shown in figure 7 while interconnect the spaces and form a continuous network of spaces). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of interconnected panels with interconnected spaces because Schlueter and Beentjes are both aircraft with passenger compartments. The motivation for having a plurality of interconnected panels with interconnected spaces is that it allows the panel to be manufactured in smaller pieces which can simplify the manufacturing and installation of the panel by not requiring it to be a single element and can allow the system to be installed in aircraft of different lengths.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claim 1 has been amended to show how the examiner believes that the prior art of record teaches the amendments to the claim.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
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 WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights