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 1-15 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first 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(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 1-15 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 1 states “a generative structure”, it is not clear to the examiner what limitations are imparted on the structure by it being a generative structure. While the claim does provide additional structure to the generative structure, the examiner believes that the “generative” language is a product-by-process limitation and will be treated as such.
Claim 6 is currently written in a manner where the plurality of tube-like members are introduced as an additional element that is separate from the generative structure, however, claim 7 states that the tube-like members form the generative structure. It is not clear to the examiner how the tube-like members can be both separate from the structure and forming the structure, the examiner believes that the tube-like members are intended to be the forming elements of the structure and the claims will be interpreted in that manner.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the plurality of node elements" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner believes that this claim should depend upon claim 8.
Claims 2-5, 8, and 10-15 are rejected due to their respective dependencies on claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schlueter (PGPub #2019/0193829).
Regarding claim 1, Schlueter teaches a structural element for a passenger cabin of an aircraft (Paragraph 26), the structural element comprising: a generative structure (11-18); and a functional component (20); wherein the generative 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 generative 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).
Regarding claim 2, Schlueter teaches the structural element of claim 1, wherein the functional component comprises at least one of the following: a fluid conduit (Paragraph 39); a cable channel (Paragraph 39); a wiring harness; a sensor; a heating and/or cooling element; a thermally insulating element; or an exhaust channel.
Regarding claim 3, Schlueter 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), 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, as can be seen the structures form a plurality of spaces between the elements that create a network of spaces).
Regarding claim 6, Schlueter teaches the structural element of claim 1, further comprising a plurality of tube-like members interconnected with each other (11 as seen in figure 2B, and Paragraph 39, 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).
Regarding claim 7, Schlueter teaches the structural element of claim 6, wherein the plurality of tube-like members together build a truss structure that builds the generative structure (11 as seen in figure 2B).
Regarding claim 11, Schlueter teaches the structural element of claim 6, further comprising at least one cover panel (Paragraphs 40, and 64, 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, 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 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, as can be seen the structure has multiple discrete spaces that can each contain a separate functional component).
Regarding claim 13, Schlueter 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, as can be seen the structural element forms the inner wall panels of the aircraft).
Regarding claim 14, Schlueter teaches the interior component of claim 13, wherein the interior component is one of the following: an aircraft galley; a lavatory; a cabin monument; or a wall panel (11 as seen in figure 2B, as can be seen the structural element forms the inner wall panels of the aircraft).
Regarding claim 15, Schlueter teaches an aircraft, comprising: a fuselage (120); a passenger cabin (The interior of 120 as seen in figure 2B, and Paragraph 26); and at least one interior component of claim 13 (11 as seen in figure 2B, 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); 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, as can be seen the structural element forms the inner wall panels of the aircraft which forms the edge of the passenger cabin).
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 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlueter (PGPub #2019/0193829) in view of Beentjes et al. (PGPub #2009/0159744).
Regarding claim 4, Schlueter 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 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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlueter (PGPub #2019/0193829) Schaefer et al. (PGPub #2017/0152043).
Regarding claim 8, Schlueter 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.
Conclusion
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