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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/27/2026 has been entered.
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 installed cover of a seat rail extends laterally over the cavity that extends on top of and vertically above the cabin floor as defined in Claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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.
Claim 3 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.
For Claim 3, it is not clear how the potable water monument line is inside a cavity that extends on top of and vertically above the cabin floor and an installed cover of a seat rail extend laterally over the cavity as such the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Polotec (US PgPub #2020/0300398) in view of Herzog (US PgPub #2010/0116934).
For Claims 1-2 and 6, the figures and paragraph [0035] of Le Polotec ‘398 disclose an aircraft comprising: a potable water tank (inherent); an aircraft cabin (5); a monument (50) in the aircraft cabin, the monument comprising a consumer equipment (70); a potable water system configured to feed potable water from the potable water tank to the consumer equipment, the potable water system comprising: at least one potable water interface (110 and 120) positioned in a cabin floor (7) of the aircraft cabin and in fluid connection the potable water tank; and at least one potable water monument line (161) that extends between the potable water interface and the consumer equipment and is routed partially over a length of the at least one potable water monument line that extends on top of and vertically above the cabin floor.
While Le Polotec ‘398 discloses that the potable water monument line extends on top of and vertically above the cabin floor so that it is not coplanar with the floor panels (7), it is silent about it being inside a cavity, however, figures 1 and 3 of Herzog ‘934 teach pipes located at various positions of the aircraft including below the floor, at the ceiling, and above the floor inside a cavity (fig. 3) so that it is not coplanar with the floor and fixed at discrete positions. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Le Polotec ‘398 with the pipe located within a cavity above the floor as taught by Herzog ‘934. The motivation to do so would to protect the pipes while allowing easier access to them instead of them being in the floor.
For Claim 4, while Le Polotec ‘398 is silent about an installed cover of a seat rail extends laterally over the cavity, the figures of Herzog ‘934 teach a cover (2) of a seat rail extending laterally over the cavity.
For Claim 5, paragraph [0062] of Le Polotec ‘398 discloses using lids or caps to close the potable water interface.
For Claim 8, the figures of Le Polotec ‘398 disclose that the potable water monument line is fed through a monument wall section.
For Clam 11, the figures of Le Polotec ‘398 disclose that further monuments can be connected with additional potable water monument lines (161).
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Polotec (US PgPub #2020/0300398) in view of Herzog (US PgPub #2010/0116934) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winkelbach (US PgPub #2004/0129445).
For Claim 3, while Le Polotec ‘398 in view of Herzog ‘934 teaches a U-shaped cavity (1 and 2, Herzog ‘934) it is silent about a U-shaped cavity with bottom and two opposite side walls. However, figure 4 of Winkelbach ‘445 teach a U-shaped cavity with a bottom (12) and two opposite side walls (122) that provide space for lines (7). Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Le Polotec ‘398 in view of Herzog ‘934 with the U-shaped cavity of Winkelbach ‘445. The motivation to do so would be to provide a space for lines to run through that provide protection.
For Claim 7, while Herzog ‘934 teach water and electric cables in the cavity, Le Polotec ‘398 is silent about the lines being positioned on opposite side of a central seat rail area. However, figure 4 of Winkelbach ‘445 teach a system (10) with a cavity that allows for spaces for lines to on opposite sides of a central seat rail area (5). Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Le Polotec ‘398 in view of Herzog ‘934 with the cavity area of Winkelbach ‘445. The motivation to do so would be to provide space near the seat rail to run protected lines through for easy access in an unused space.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Polotec (US PgPub #2020/0300398) in view of Herzog (US PgPub #2010/0116934) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
For Claim 13, while Le Polotec ‘398 is silent about a water branch line connecting the tank below the floor to water monument line and the water interface. The AAPA teaches that it is well known in the art to have a water system that includes a large tank below the floor that is connected to various water lines to provide water to the entire aircraft. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Le Polotec ‘398 with the known entire aircraft water system that has a large tank below the floor and a series of pipes and connections throughout the aircraft. The motivation to do so would be to provide water to the entire aircraft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims16-22 are allowed.
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-18, filed 3/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Le Polotec ‘398 in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 18-20, filed 3/27/2026, with respect to Claim 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 of Claim 16 in view of the amendments has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 4/14/2026
Prosecution Insights