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 .
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 11 and 18-21 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.
For Claim 11, lines 4-5 define the potable water interfaces in floor sections of the monument and line 6 defines openings in a floor section of the aircraft cabin, but the Examiner believes that these should be reversed as they are in the Claims 1 and 10 and disclosed in the specification and figures. The Examiner believes that it should be the potable water interfaces in the floor section of the aircraft cabin and openings in a floor section of the monument. As such the Claim is indefinite. Claims 18-21 are indefinite as depending on Claim 11.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent #4521925) in view of Dominguez (US Patent #7014148) and Le Polotec (US PgPub #2020/0300398).
For Claim 11, the figures of Chen ‘925 disclose a method for installing a potable water system in an aircraft to feed potable water from a potable water tank to a consumer equipment (10 and 200) in an aircraft cabin, the method comprising: installing a plurality of potable water interfaces at defined locations in a floor section (209) of the monument; providing openings in a floor section of the aircraft cabin to establish a fluid connection to the consumer equipment of the monument; connecting the consumer equipment to the potable water interfaces of the plurality of potable water interfaces that are accessible through the openings via a potable water monument line (210); and connecting needed potable water interfaces of the of the plurality of potable water interfaces to a potable water main line (212).
While Chen ‘925 discloses providing potable water to consumer equipment (10 and 200) it is silent about the consumer equipment being in a monument having a floor section with an opening. However, figures 2 and 9 of Dominguez ‘148 teaches providing openings in a floor section of the monument (12) to establish a fluid connection to the consumer equipment (24), installing the monument in the aircraft cabin; and connecting the consumer equipment to the potable water inface that is accessible through the opening via the potable water monument line (20). Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chen ‘925 with the monument housing consumer equipment having an opening in the floor of the monument to connect the consumer equipment to the toilet as taught by Dominguez ‘148. The motivation to do so would be to provide privacy for the consumer.
While Chen ‘925 is not specific about installing the water interfaces before the monument is installed. However, paragraph [0006] of Le Polotec ‘398 teaches that the monument is installed after the connecting the various water pipes to the water tank. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chen ‘925 with the installation method of Le Polotec ‘398. The motivation to do so would be to install the aircraft water infrastructure before connecting monument units to it.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent #4521925) in view of Dominguez (US Patent #7014148) and Le Polotec (US PgPub #2020/0300398) as applied to claims 11 above, and further in view of Gonnsen (US Patent #7931047).
For Claims 18-19, while Chen ‘925 discloses the openings spaced apart it is silent about them being spaced apart along the pitch direction. However, figure 1 of Gonnsen ‘047 teaches openings (4-4E) in a pitch direction by which rows of passenger seats are spaced apart from each other along a longitudinal axis of the aircraft cabin and are spaced apart from a nearest adjacent opening of the plurality of openings is a same distance as a minimum adjustment distance of the passenger seats along a seat rail (2) that secures the passenger seat in position within the aircraft cabin. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chen ‘925 with opening spacing of Gonnsen ‘047. The motivation to do so would be to provide the ability to have different configurations.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent #4521925) in view of Dominguez (US Patent #7014148), Le Polotec (US PgPub #2020/0300398), and Gonnsen (US Patent #7931047) as applied to claims 18-19 above, and further in view of Grendahl (US Patent #4047689).
For Claims 20-21, while Chen ‘925 in view of Gonnsen ‘047 disclose openings spaced from one another, it is silent about the spacing being an inch apart. However, column 3, lines 14-22 of Grendhal ‘689 teach that it is well known to have rail spacing of one inch. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chen ‘925 in view of Gonnsen ‘047 with the one inch spacing as taught by Grendhal ‘689. The motivation to have one inch spacing would be to coincide with the one inch rail connection spacing so that the monument can be moved with a seat so as to reduce wasted space on the aircraft.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For Claim 1, there is not prior art nor reasons to modify any prior art to have an aircraft comprising: an aircraft cabin; at least one monument in the aircraft cabin, the at least one monument comprising a consumer equipment; a potable water tank; a potable water system configured to feed potable water from the potable water tank to the consumer equipment; and a plurality of potable water interfaces that are in a floor section of the aircraft cabin and are fluidically connected to the potable water tank; wherein the floor section of the at least one monument comprises, formed through an entire thickness of the floor section a plurality of openings configured to allow a fluid connection between one of the plurality of potable water interfaces and the consumer equipment; wherein at least one potable water interface of the plurality of potable water interfaces is accessible through at least one opening of the plurality of openings; wherein each opening of the plurality of openings is spaced apart by a distance from a nearest adjacent opening of the plurality of openings in a pitch direction, by which rows of passenger seats are spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft cabin; wherein each potable water interface of the plurality of potable water interfaces is spaced apart from a nearest adjacent potable water interface of the plurality of potable water interfaces by the distance in the pitch direction; and wherein, when the at least one monument is installed in the aircraft cabin, one or more of the plurality of potable water interfaces are accessible through one or more of the plurality of openings and a remainder of the plurality of potable water interfaces are covered by the floor section of the at least one monument. Claims 2-4, 6-9, and 12-13 are allowable as being dependent on Claim 1.
For Claim 10, there is not prior art nor reasons to modify any prior art to have a method for installing a potable water system in an aircraft to feed potable water from a potable water tank to a consumer equipment of a monument in an aircraft cabin, the method comprising: installing a plurality of potable water interfaces at defined locations in a floor section of the aircraft cabin, each potable water interface being spaced apart from a nearest adjacent potable water interface by a distance in a pitch direction along which rows of passenger seats are spaced apart from each other along a longitudinal axis of the aircraft cabin; providing, in a floor section of the monument, a plurality of openings formed through an entire thickness of the floor section of the monument, each opening being spaced apart from a nearest adjacent opening by the distance in the pitch direction; installing the monument in the aircraft cabin, wherein, when the monument is installed in he aircraft cabin, one or more of the plurality of potable water interfaces are accessible through one or more of the plurality of openings and a remainder of the plurality of potable water interfaces are covered by the floor section of the monument; connecting the consumer equipment to the potable water interfaces of the plurality of potable water interfaces that are accessible through the plurality of openings via at least one potable water monument line; and before installing the monument in the aircraft cabin, connecting one or more potable water interfaces of the plurality of potable water interfaces to a potable water main line. Claims 14-17 are allowable as being dependent on Claim 10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-13, filed 5/18/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1 and 10 has been withdrawn.
The Examiner reaches out the Applicant as Claim 11 was not amended nor where there arguments for it. Attached are argument from the Applicant and below is the response to them.
With respect to the first argument that Chen does not teach equipment within a monument, the Examiner respectfully agrees as was stated in the last office action and is also stated in this action above.
With respect to the second argument the Gonnsen does not teach the claimed subject matter of openings in the floor of the Monument. The Examiner agrees that it is not clear if this is the case with Gonnsen, as such a new non-final is written above in view of Dominquez.
With respect to the third argument that Le Polotec does not teach “before installing the monument in the aircraft cabin, connecting potable water interfaces of the plurality of potable water interfaces to a potable water main line”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0006] of Le Polotec teaches “the system line may be installed in a longitudinal direction of the aircraft, and multiple monuments/consumers may be connected thereto at various locations within the aircraft”. As such it can clearly be seen that a monument is connected after the water lines are placed.
With respect to the fourth argument for Claims 18-19 the Gonnsen does not disclose the spaced apart openings with the seats, the Examiner holds that Gonnsen teaches water lines along the row of passengers. The Examiner points out there is also indefinite language as pointed out above which may be an issue between the rejection and the arguments.
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 8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights