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 .
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) 1-3, 5, 6, 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dryburgh et al. (6,059,364).
Regarding claim 1, Dryburgh et al. disclose an aircraft seat unit comprising a backshell 41 and a seat 2, the seat having a seat pan portion 43 connected to a back portion 42, wherein the seat is configured to slide within the backshell between an upright configuration (figure 14), where a passenger can sit on the seat pan portion in a sitting position with their back supported by the back portion of the seat, and a bed configuration (figure 16), where the passenger can lie on the seat pan and seat back portions.
Regarding claim 2, Dryburgh et al. disclose space occupied by the back portion 42 of the seat when in the upright configuration becomes space available for the passenger's use when the back portion is in the bed configuration (figure 16).
Regarding claim 3, Dryburgh et al. disclose the seat is supported by a slider 56 to assist with the translation of the seat between the upright configuration and the bed configuration.
Regarding claim 5, Dryburgh et al. disclose an actuator (col. 5, lines 60-65) to slide the seat between the upright configuration and the bed configuration.
Regarding claim 6, Dryburgh et al. disclose one or more guide slots 50 to guide the seat between the upright configuration and the bed configuration.
Regarding claim 9, Dryburgh et al. disclose the seat pan 43 and seat back 42 comprise two separate portions attached together.
Regarding claim 10, Dryburgh et al. disclose an aircraft seat unit according to claim 1 and a leg rest 44.
Regarding claim 11, Dryburgh et al. disclose a method of moving an aircraft seat unit according to claim 1 from an upright configuration to a bed configuration or vice versa, the method comprising the step of: a. sliding the seat from one configuration to the other configuration (see figures 14-16).
Regarding claim 12, Dryburgh et al. disclose the step of sliding the seat comprises manually sliding the seat (col. 5, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 13, Dryburgh et al. disclose the seat slides within the backshell 41 of the seat unit, such that space occupied by the back portion of the seat when in the upright configuration becomes space available for the passenger's use when the back portion is in the bed configuration.
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) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dryburgh et al. in view of Kodati et al. (12,187,437).
Regarding claim 4, Kodati et al. disclose a handle 162 for manually sliding the seat between the upright configuration and the bed configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kodati et al. and a use handle to manually operate the seat of Dryburgh et al. because it is simple and cost efficient.
Regarding claim 14, Kodati et al. disclose a method of moving an aircraft seat unit according to claim 11 comprising the step of locking (via locking mechanism 158) the seat when the seat is in the upright configuration and/or in the bed configuration, and unlocking the seat for moving the seat from one configuration to the other configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kodati et al. and a use a locking mechanism in the seat of Dryburgh et al. in order to prevent any accidental injuries or damages.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dryburgh et al. in view of Beroth et al. (7,607,732).
Regarding claim 7, Beroth et al. disclose the seat comprises a foam cushion (col. 2, lines 60-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Beroth et al. and use a foam cushion in the invention of Dryburgh et al. because it is lightweight and cost efficient.
Regarding claim 8, Beroth et al. disclose the seat pan 46 and seat back 44 is one integrated portion (figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Beroth et al. and use integrated seat pan and back in the invention of Dryburgh et al. because it is simple and efficient.
Furthermore, applicant discloses the integrated seat pan and seat back are an obvious modification of separate seat pan and back.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636