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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “hinge bracket” and “latch bracket” of claim 2 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “comprises:” in line 2, which is legal phraseology of a claim. 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 Objections
Claims 10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites “combined combined” in line 2, and is suggested to read --combined-- in order to avoid redundancy.
Claim 15 recites “and /or” in line 4, and is suggested to read --and/or-- in order to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “at least one fixing element for fixing” in claim 11 lines 1-2.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
According to the Applicant’s specification para. [00146], the limitation of “at least one fixing element for fixing” in claim 11 lines 1-2 is being interpreted as connection clips that are elastic/resilient, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-5, 8, 13, and 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “an oxygen mask container support bracket” in line 2, “an oxygen source support bracket” in line 4, “an oxygen supply system controller support bracket” in line 6, “a hinge bracket” in line 8, and “a latch bracket” in line 10 are confusing, as it is unclear whether these are meant to be a part of or separate from “a functional support component bracket” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "in particular" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, the phrases "in particular" in line 3 and “more particularly” in line 4 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following these phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Moreover, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “about 9.525 mm” in line 5, and the claim also recites “(3/8 inch)” in line 5 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "in particular" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "in particular" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrases "in particular" in line 3 and “further in particularly” in line 4 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following these phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “an aircraft emergency oxygen supply system” in line 1 is confusing, as it is unclear whether this is meant to be the same as or different from “an aircraft emergency oxygen supply system” in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, they will be interpreted as the same limitation. Moreover, the limitations “an oxygen mask container support bracket” in line 3 and “an oxygen source support bracket” in line 5 are confusing, as it is unclear whether these are meant to be a part of or separate from “a functional support component bracket” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "in particular" in lines 1 and 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "in particular" in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-2, 5, 10, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohling et al. (US 4,840,171) in view of Tropper (US 2017/0172295 A1), or alternatively over Rohling in view of Tropper and Pond et al. (US 2003/0038525 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rohling discloses a modular support framework for an aircraft emergency oxygen supply system (oxygen supply unit with a reinforcing frame 2 installed on an aircraft) (abstract; col. 13 lines 38-43), the modular support framework comprising:
a plurality of support bars of different lengths (reinforcing frame 2 is rectangular, and so has bars of different lengths; additionally, there are bars for strut 5) (Fig. 1);
a support grid, defining a plurality of functional component fields (the bars of frame 2 and strut 5 form a grid with fields in which there are the functional components of the oxygen generator 7 and half-masks 4) (Fig. 1; col. 3 lines 18-31);
wherein, in at least one of the plurality of functional component fields, a functional component support bracket is arranged, with the functional component support bracket being attached to at least one adjacent support bar of the support grid and with the functional component support bracket being configured for holding a functional component of the aircraft emergency oxygen supply system (in the field inside the bars of strut 5 there is a holding band 6 attached to the bars of strut 5, wherein the holding band 6 holds the oxygen generator 7; additionally or alternatively, in the field inside the bars of strut 5 there is a holder 8 attached to a bar of strut 5, wherein the holder 8 holds the bundled mask suspension lines 19) (Fig. 1; col. 3 lines 23-33).
Rohling does not disclose a plurality of T-connectors, with each of the plurality of T-connectors coupling two or three of the plurality of support bars to each other, and a plurality of L-connectors, with each of the plurality of L-connectors coupling two of the plurality of support bars to each other; wherein the plurality of support bars, the plurality of T-connectors, and the plurality of L-connectors form a support grid.
However, Tropper teaches a pipe rack system, wherein a rack system is a framework for items to be position on or suspended from (Tropper; abstract; para. [0025]), including a plurality of T-connectors, with each of the plurality of T-connectors coupling two or three of the plurality of support bars to each other, and a plurality of L-connectors, with each of the plurality of L-connectors coupling two of the plurality of support bars to each other; wherein the plurality of support bars, the plurality of T-connectors, and the plurality of L-connectors form a support grid (three-way tee-fittings would be able to connect three pipe sections together; elbow-fittings would be able to connect two pipe sections together; these single-plane couplings and pipe sections would form a grid when assembled) (Tropper; Figs. 1-4; para. [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rohling by substituting the Rohling frame 2 and strut 5 connections for a plurality of T-connectors, with each of the plurality of T-connectors coupling two or three of the plurality of support bars to each other, and a plurality of L-connectors, with each of the plurality of L-connectors coupling two of the plurality of support bars to each other; wherein the plurality of support bars, the plurality of T-connectors, and the plurality of L-connectors form a support grid, as taught by Tropper, for the purpose of providing an alternate modular frame structure which would allow for additional variations in shape, size, and construction (Tropper; para. [0005]; para. [0036]).
Alternatively, if Rohling is not seen as definitely disclosing its holding band 6 is a functional component support bracket, Pond teaches a pulse oxygen system (Pond; abstract), including wherein its holding band 6 is a functional component support bracket (oxygen tank is held by support brackets 74, restraining arms 82, and L-shaped piece 78) (Pond; Figs. 3-4; para. [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rohling by substituting the Rohling holding band 6 for a functional component support bracket, as taught by Pond, for the purpose of providing an alternative suitable holding structure capable of providing greater support and stability to the oxygen tank.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified Rohling teaches comprising at least one of: an oxygen source support bracket, configured for holding an oxygen source of the aircraft emergency oxygen supply system; wherein each of the at least one of the oxygen source support bracket is arranged in a respective one of the plurality of functional component fields (Rohling was previously modified by substituting the Rohling holding band 6 for the Pond support brackets 74, restraining arms 82, and L-shaped piece 78 to hold the Rohling oxygen generator 7; as the Rohling holding band 6 was in the field defined by the bars of strut 5, so too would the Pond support brackets 74, restraining arms 82, and L-shaped piece 78 be in this field after the modification) (Rohling, Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 23-33; Pond, Figs. 3-4, para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified Rohling teaches wherein the plurality of support bars have a circular cross-section (pipe sections 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 54 have circular cross-sections) (Pond; Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Rohling teaches wherein the plurality of support bars are a plurality of support tubes having a hollow core (pipe sections are plumping pipes, and so are tubes that are hollow inside) (Pond; Figs. 1-3; para. [0004]; para. [0040]).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Rohling teaches wherein the plurality of T-connectors and L-connectors comprise at least one combined combined T-and-L-connector (five-way pipe fitting 10 has combined a T-shape to connect pipe sections 22, 26, 28 and an L-shape to connect pipe sections 24, 30) (Pond; Fig. 1; para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, the modified Rohling teaches an aircraft emergency oxygen supply system (an aircraft is installed with the oxygen supply unit) (Rohling; abstract; col. 13 lines 38-43) comprising: the modular support framework according to claim 1 (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 above); an oxygen mask container, supported by an oxygen mask container support bracket of the modular support framework (half-shell 3 contains the half-masks 4; rail system 17 supports the half-shell 3 when installed) (Rohling; Fig. 1; col. 3 lines 20-23, 41-43); and an oxygen source, supported by an oxygen source support bracket of the modular support framework (Rohling previously modified by substituting the Rohling holding band 6 for the Pond support brackets 74, restraining arms 82, and L-shaped piece 78 to hold the Rohling oxygen generator 7) (Rohling, Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 23-33; Pond, Figs. 3-4, para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 14, Rohling discloses a method of assembling a modular support framework for an aircraft emergency oxygen supply system (oxygen supply unit with a reinforcing frame 2 installed on an aircraft, and so is assembled) (abstract; col. 13 lines 38-43), wherein the method includes:
providing a plurality of support bars (bars of the reinforcing frame 2 and strut 5) (Fig. 1);
forming a support grid from the plurality of support bars, the support grid defining a plurality of functional component fields (the bars of frame 2 and strut 5 form a grid with fields in which there are the functional components of the oxygen generator 7 and half-masks 4) (Fig. 1; col. 3 lines 18-31);
in at least one of the plurality of functional component fields, arranging a functional component support bracket, with the functional component support bracket being attached to at least one adjacent support bar of the support grid and with the functional component support bracket being configured for holding a functional component of the aircraft emergency oxygen supply system (in the field inside the bars of strut 5 there is a holding band 6 attached to the bars of strut 5, wherein the holding band 6 holds the oxygen generator 7; additionally or alternatively, in the field inside the bars of strut 5 there is a holder 8 attached to a bar of strut 5, wherein the holder 8 holds the bundled mask suspension lines 19) (Fig. 1; col. 3 lines 23-33).
Rohling does not disclose providing a plurality of T-connectors and a plurality of L-connectors; forming a support grid from the plurality of support bars, the plurality of T-connectors, and the plurality of L-connectors.
However, Tropper teaches a pipe rack system, wherein a rack system is a framework for items to be position on or suspended from (Tropper; abstract; para. [0025]), including providing a plurality of T-connectors and a plurality of L-connectors; forming a support grid from the plurality of support bars, the plurality of T-connectors, and the plurality of L-connectors (three-way tee-fittings would be able to connect three pipe sections together; elbow-fittings would be able to connect two pipe sections together; these single-plane couplings and pipe sections would form a grid when assembled) (Tropper; Figs. 1-4; para. [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rohling by substituting the Rohling frame 2 and strut 5 connections for a plurality of T-connectors and a plurality of L-connectors; forming a support grid from the plurality of support bars, the plurality of T-connectors, and the plurality of L-connectors, as taught by Tropper, for the purpose of providing an alternate modular frame structure which would allow for additional variations in shape, size, and construction (Tropper; para. [0005]; para. [0036]).
Alternatively, if Rohling is not seen as definitely disclosing its holding band 6 is a functional component support bracket, Pond teaches a pulse oxygen system (Pond; abstract), including wherein its holding band 6 is a functional component support bracket (oxygen tank is held by support brackets 74, restraining arms 82, and L-shaped piece 78) (Pond; Figs. 3-4; para. [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rohling by substituting the Rohling holding band 6 for a functional component support bracket, as taught by Pond, for the purpose of providing an alternative suitable holding structure capable of providing greater support and stability to the oxygen tank.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, the modified Rohling teaches further comprising the step of attaching a functional component of the aircraft emergency oxygen supply system to the functional component support bracket (Rohling was modified by substituting the Rohling holding band 6 for the Pond support brackets 74, restraining arms 82, and L-shaped piece 78 to attach to the Rohling oxygen generator 7) (Rohling, Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 23-33; Pond, Figs. 3-4, para. [0018]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohling in view of Tropper and Pond as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eichelberger et al. (US 2017/0135470 A1).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified Rohling teaches the invention as previously claimed, including wherein the plurality of support bars are made of metal (pipes and couplings made of metals) (Tropper; para. [0047]), but does not teach wherein the plurality of support bars are in particular made of aluminum.
However, Eichelberger teaches a modular aviation equipment rack (Eichelberger; abstract) including wherein the plurality of support bars are made of aluminum (tubing members 100 made of aviation-standard aluminum) (Eichelberger; para. [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Rohling plurality of support bars to be made of aluminum, as taught by Eichelberger, for the purpose of providing them with a specific suitable material which is aviation standard and which can be anodized to increase corrosion and wear resistance (Eichelberger; para. [0036]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohling in view of Tropper and Pond as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Newman (US 2019/0239646 A1).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the modified Rohling teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein the plurality of support bars have a cross-sectional extension in the range of between 8 mm and 12 mm; wherein the plurality of support bars in particular have a cross-sectional extension in the range of between 9.25 mm and 9.75 mm; wherein plurality of support bars more particularly have cross-sectional extension of about 9.525 mm (3/8 inch).
However, Newman teaches a kit with rod and shelf supports (Newman; abstract) wherein the plurality of support bars have a cross-sectional extension in the range of between 8 mm and 12 mm; wherein the plurality of support bars in particular have a cross-sectional extension in the range of between 9.25 mm and 9.75 mm; wherein plurality of support bars more particularly have cross-sectional extension of about 9.525 mm (3/8 inch) (rod supports 1020, 1020A have a diameter of about 3/8 inches) (Newman; Figs. 23-24; para. [0190]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Rohling plurality of support bars to have a cross-sectional extension in the range of between 8 mm and 12 mm; wherein the plurality of support bars in particular have a cross-sectional extension in the range of between 9.25 mm and 9.75 mm; wherein plurality of support bars more particularly have cross-sectional extension of about 9.525 mm (3/8 inch), as taught by Newman, for the purpose of providing a specific suitable cross-sectional extension dimension which one of ordinary skill in the art could feasibly expect to perform reasonably well for support rods or bars.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohling in view of Tropper and Pond as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gill (US 2012/0186586 A1)
Regarding claim 6, the modified Rohling teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein the plurality of support bars have lengths in the range of between 50 mm and 300 mm, wherein the modular support framework in particular includes support bars having lengths of 50 mm, 75 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm, 150 mm, 175 mm, 200 mm, 225 mm, 250 mm, 275 mm and/or 300 mm.
However, Gill teaches a method and apparatus for storing breathing masks (Gill; abstract) including wherein the plurality of support bars have lengths in the range of between 50 mm and 300 mm, wherein the modular support framework in particular includes support bars having lengths of 50 mm, 75 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm, 150 mm, 175 mm, 200 mm, 225 mm, 250 mm, 275 mm and/or 300 mm (frame 14 is approximately 8.5 inches long by 5.5 inches tall, i.e. 215.9 mm long by 139.7 mm tall, and so has support bars of those lengths) (Gill; Figs. 1A-1C; para. [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Rohling plurality of support bars such that the plurality of support bars have lengths in the range of between 50 mm and 300 mm, wherein the modular support framework in particular includes support bars having lengths of 50 mm, 75 mm, 100 mm, 125 mm, 150 mm, 175 mm, 200 mm, 225 mm, 250 mm, 275 mm and/or 300 mm, as taught by Gill, for the purpose of providing specific support bar lengths suitable for holding breathing masks and for mounting in an overhead compartment of an aircraft which one of ordinary skill in the art could feasibly expect to perform reasonably well (Gill; para. [0025]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohling in view of Tropper and Pond as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gregory et al. (US 2013/0032560 A1).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the modified Rohling teaches the invention as previously claimed, including wherein the plurality of T-connectors and the plurality of L-connectors are made of a plastics material (pipes and couplings made of plastics) (Tropper; para. [0047]), but does not teach wherein the plurality of T-connectors and the plurality of L-connectors are in particular made by molding, further in particular by injection molding.
However, Gregory teaches a shelving system (Gregory; abstract) wherein the plastic parts are in particular made by molding, further in particular by injection molding (plastic attachment brackets and clamps can be manufactured via injection molding) (Gregory; para. [0097]; para. [0108]; para. [0120]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Rohling plastic plurality of T-connectors and the plurality of L-connectors to be made by molding, further in particular by injection molding, as taught by Gregory, for the purpose of providing a specific suitable method of manufacture for making plastic shelving parts which one of ordinary skill in the art could feasibly expect to perform reasonably well.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohling in view of Tropper and Pond as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jersey et al. (US 2004/0245200 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Rohling teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach wherein the plurality of support bars are fixed to the plurality of T-connectors and the plurality of L-connectors by press-fitting and/or by gluing.
However, Tropper does teach wherein the plurality of support bars are fixed to the plurality of T-connectors and the plurality of L-connectors by threads (pipe fittings have threaded female sockets to receive male threaded ends of pipe sections) (Tropper; Fig. 1; abstract; para. [0031]). Moreover, Jersey teaches a fluid container rack (Jersey; abstract) wherein a threaded fastening mechanism can be substituted for press-fitting and/or gluing (rails 22 can be connected to vertical supports 20 in any manner including screws, pins, gluing, inter-engaging or snap-fitting fingers, etc.) (Jersey; para. [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified Rohling plurality of support bars such that the plurality of support bars are fixed to the plurality of T-connectors and the plurality of L-connectors by press-fitting and/or by gluing, as taught by Jersey, for the purpose of providing a known alternative fastening mechanism to threads which one of ordinary skill in the art would feasibly expect to be able to perform similarly well.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohling in view of Tropper and Pond as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hessling-Von Heimendahl et al. (US 2017/0088264 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Rohling teaches the invention as previously claimed, but does not teach further comprising at least one fixing element for fixing the modular support framework to a support structure within an aircraft.
However, Hessling-Von Heimendahl teaches an aircraft passenger service unit kit for an aircraft (Hessling-Von Heimendahl; abstract) including at least one fixing element for fixing the modular support framework to a support structure within an aircraft (elastic fixing element 8 attached the passenger service unit panel 2 to mounting rail 10 of an aircraft support structure) (Hessling-Von Heimendahl; Figs. 1-5; paras. [0029-0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Rohling apparatus to include at least one fixing element for fixing the modular support framework to a support structure within an aircraft, as taught by Hessling-Von Heimendahl, for the purpose of providing the system with a mechanism to help provide fast and easy installation in the aircraft (Hessling-Von Heimendahl; para. [0014]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohling in view of Tropper and Pond as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Barker et al. (US 6,089,230).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the modified Rohling teaches the invention as previously claimed, including an aircraft, in particular an airplane or a helicopter (an aircraft is installed with the oxygen supply unit) (Rohling; abstract; col. 13 lines 38-43), comprising the aircraft emergency oxygen supply system according to claim 12 (see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 12 above), but does not teach wherein the aircraft emergency oxygen supply system is in particular provided within a passenger cabin of the aircraft.
However, Barker teaches an oxygen delivery unit (Barker; abstract) wherein the aircraft emergency oxygen supply system is in particular provided within a passenger cabin of the aircraft (the housing of the oxygen delivery unit 20 is mounted in the passenger cabin of commercial passenger aircraft) (Barker; col. 3 lines 14-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Rohling aircraft emergency oxygen supply system to be provided within a passenger cabin of the aircraft, as taught by Barker, for the purpose of providing oxygen to an individual in a commercial passenger aircraft when a primary source of oxygen is contaminated or depleted (Barker; col. 3 lines 14-23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0203856 A1 by Dunn et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses an aircraft passenger service unit with oxygen tank and drop-down masks in their own sections on the frame.
US 8,297,450 B2 by Zavidniak et al. is considered to be relevant as it discloses a modular rack for mounting avionics equipment.
US 5,816,244 by Aulgur is considered to be relevant as it discloses an aircraft personal service unit wherein the oxygen dispensing components are in their own sections of the frame.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:00.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at 571-272-5139. 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.
/JACQUELINE M PINDERSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights