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 because in FIG. 2, the door is indicated with reference character “156”, which should be “158” and one of the vents is indicated with reference character “158”, which should be “156”; consistent with usage in the specification, in FIGS. 3-6, the door is “158” and each vent is “156”, see paragraphs [0034]-[0035] and [0039].
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 § 102
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) 1-2, 4, 6-8, 11-13, 15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by US 10,059,425 B2to Vetter et al.
Regarding claim 1:
Vetter teaches a barrier system (inflatable partition element 35) for a cargo compartment (7) of an aircraft (c. 5, ℓ. 43-63, c. 6, ℓ. 19-22), the barrier system comprising (see figs. 3-4):
a base (third tube 40) configured to be supported on a floor (9) of the cargo compartment (fig. 3, c. 6, ℓ. 41-44);
a divider wall extending upwardly from the base (fig. 3: formed by second tubes 39 — c. 6, ℓ. 28-40: second tubes 39 are connected with each other and to third tube 40 and entirely fill the area enclosed by outer tube 37 and the floor); and
a closeout membrane (U-shaped outer tube 37) extending around one or more portions of the divider wall (see fig. 3), wherein the closeout membrane is configured to sealingly engage one or more portions of the cargo compartment (c. 6, ℓ. 19-28: “first U- or arc-shaped outer tube 37, which forms the outer circumferential edge of the partition element 35 and sealingly and continuously contacts the sidewall 11 and the ceiling 13 when the partition element 35 is in the inflated condition”),
wherein the barrier system is configured to be moved within the cargo compartment (c. 7, ℓ. 23-43: for installation, the partition element 35 is taken from a storage receptacle to the desired installation location, connected for inflation, and guided into the correct position during inflation; see also c. 8, ℓ. 3-13, c. 3, ℓ. 63–c. 4, ℓ. 15: the partition may be selectively installed at each of a plurality of different axial locations)
to provide an isolation zone within the cargo compartment (c. 7, ℓ. 12-35: when inflated, partition element 35 divides the cargo compartment into two thermally separated portions, see also c. 1, ℓ. 60-65: the partition element provides thermal insulation between different portions of an aircraft compartment).
Regarding claim 11:
Vetter teaches a method for a barrier system (inflatable partition element 35) within a cargo compartment (7) of an aircraft (c. 5, ℓ. 43-63, c. 6, ℓ. 19-22), the barrier system comprising:
a base (third tube 40) supported on a floor (9) of the cargo compartment (fig. 3, c. 6, ℓ. 41-44);
a divider wall extending upwardly from the base (fig. 3: formed by second tubes 39 — c. 6, ℓ. 28-40: second tubes 39 are connected with each other and to third tube 40 and entirely fill the area enclosed by outer tube 37 and the floor); and
a closeout membrane (U-shaped outer tube 37) extending around one or more portions of the divider wall (see fig. 3),
wherein the closeout membrane sealingly engages one or more portions of the cargo compartment (c. 6, ℓ. 19-28: “first U- or arc-shaped outer tube 37, which forms the outer circumferential edge of the partition element 35 and sealingly and continuously contacts the sidewall 11 and the ceiling 13 when the partition element 35 is in the inflated condition”),
the method comprising:
moving the barrier system within the cargo compartment (c. 7, ℓ. 23-43: taking the deflated partition element 35 from a storage receptacle to the desired installation location, unfolding the partition element on the floor and connecting it for inflation, and guiding the partition element into the correct position during inflation)
to provide an isolation zone within the cargo compartment (c. 7, ℓ. 12-35: when inflated, partition element 35 divides the cargo compartment into two thermally separated portions, see also c. 1, ℓ. 60-65: the partition element provides thermal insulation between different portions of an aircraft compartment).
Regarding claim 12:
Vetter teaches an aircraft (1) comprising (see figs. 1-2):
a cargo compartment (7) having a floor (9);
a barrier system (inflatable partition element 35) comprising (see figs. 3-4):
a base (third tube 40) configured supported on the floor of the cargo compartment (see fig. 3, c. 6, ℓ. 41-44);
a divider wall extending upwardly from the base (fig. 3: formed by second tubes 39 — c. 6, ℓ. 28-40: second tubes 39 are connected with each other and to third tube 40 and entirely fill the area enclosed by outer tube 37 and the floor); and
a closeout membrane (U-shaped outer tube 37) extending around one or more portions of the divider wall (see fig. 3),
wherein the closeout membrane is configured to sealingly engage one or more portions of the cargo compartment (c. 6, ℓ. 19-28: “first U- or arc-shaped outer tube 37, which forms the outer circumferential edge of the partition element 35 and sealingly and continuously contacts the sidewall 11 and the ceiling 13 when the partition element 35 is in the inflated condition”),
wherein the barrier system is moveable within the cargo compartment (c. 7, ℓ. 23-43: for installation, the partition element 35 is taken from a storage receptacle to the desired installation location and guided into the correct position during inflation; see also c. 8, ℓ. 3-13, c. 3, ℓ. 63–c. 4, ℓ. 15: the partition may be selectively installed at each of a plurality of different axial locations)
to provide an isolation zone within the cargo compartment (c. 7, ℓ. 12-35: when inflated, partition element 35 divides the cargo compartment into two thermally separated portions, see also c. 1, ℓ. 60-65: the partition element provides thermal insulation between different portions of an aircraft compartment).
Regarding claims 2 and 13:
Vetter teaches the barrier system of claim 1 and the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the cargo system is configured to linearly translate along a length of the cargo compartment (c. 8, ℓ. 3-13: a plurality of different installation positions spaced along the longitudinal axis; c. 7, ℓ. 19-43: partition 35 is taken from a receptacle near the cargo door 21 and carried from the receptacle to the desired installation location along the longitudinal axis, connected for inflation and guided into position during inflation).
Regarding claims 4 and 15:
Vetter teaches the barrier system of claim 1 and the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the base is coupled to a cargo handling system on the floor that is configured to move the barrier system within the cargo compartment (c. 6, ℓ. 16-18: “the floor structure 9 is provided with longitudinally extending seat rails 33 which allow to fix elements on the floor structure 9”; c. 7, ℓ. 44-54: partition element 35 is selectively attachable to seat rails 33; c. 4, ℓ. 5-15: the seat rails provide multiple installation locations for the partition along the longitudinal axis).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 17:
Vetter teaches the barrier system of claim 1 and the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the divider wall comprises one or more vents (fig. 3: window 41), and wherein the barrier system further comprises a door (door element 431) moveably coupled to the divider wall, wherein the door is moveable between an open position and a closed position (c. 6, ℓ. 45-55: door element 41 allows passage through partition element 35 even though the compartment is closed off).
Regarding claims 8 and 18:
Vetter teaches the barrier system of claim 1 and the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the closeout membrane is inflatable (c. 6, ℓ. 19-28, c. 7, ℓ. 4-11: partition element 35 is inflatable by connection with the environmental control system; c. 6, ℓ. 56-64: first tube 37 in fluid communication with terminal 25 of conduit system 23 of the environmental control system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 3, 9, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,059,425 B2 to Vetter et al. in view of US 4,899,962 to Mueller.
Regarding claims 3 and 14:
Vetter teaches the barrier system of claim 1 and the aircraft of claim 12. Vetter discloses that the barrier is taken from a storage receptacle to its desired installation location, but Vetter does not specifically disclose one or more rollers on the base.
Mueller teaches an inflatable separation wall (c. 2, ℓ. 45-59, c. 4, ℓ. 3-16) which divides an aircraft cabin into separate spaces (c. 1, ℓ. 50-67). The separation wall is brought uninflated to be inflated at the desired installation location and may be provided with rollers on its base plate for ease of transport (c. 4, ℓ. 45-53: “For an easy transport, the base plate 12 may be provided with rollers or with skids”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the barrier system or aircraft of Vetter such that the base comprises one or more rollers configured to allow the barrier system to roll over the floor of the cargo compartment, using the teachings of Mueller, for ease of transporting the barrier system to the desired installation location.
Regarding claims 9 and 19:
Vetter teaches the barrier system of claim 1 and the aircraft of claim 12, wherein the divider wall is flexible (c. 7, ℓ. 4-11).
Vetter does not specifically disclose one or more support struts moveable between an extended position supporting the divider wall in a deployed position and a collapsed position supporting the divider wall in a stowed position.
Mueller teaches an inflatable separation wall (c. 2, ℓ. 45-59, c. 4, ℓ. 3-16) comprising a flexible divider wall (c. 2, ℓ. 45-63: separation wall 4 is foldable and inflatable and made of a synthetic fiber webbing or fabric) coupled to one or more support struts (c. 3, ℓ. 1-7: inflatable ribs 8),
wherein the one or more support struts are moveable between an extended position and a collapsed position (c. 1, ℓ. 45-51: inflated and folded positions),
wherein the one or more support struts in the extended position support the divider wall in a deployed position (abstract, c. 5, ℓ. 34-41: the reinforcement ribs are inflated simultaneous with the wall and are inflated when the wall is inflated), and
wherein the one or more support struts in the collapsed position support the divider wall in a stowed position (c. 1, ℓ. 5-6, c. 4, ℓ. 45-48: the ribs are uninflated and folded when the wall is folded).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the barrier system or aircraft of Vetter such that the divider wall is coupled to one or more support struts,
wherein the one or more support struts are moveable between an extended position and a collapsed position,
wherein the one or more support struts in the extended position support the divider wall in a deployed position and
wherein the one or more support struts in the collapsed position support the divider wall in a stowed position,
using the teachings of Mueller, for the purpose of reinforcing the divider wall in the deployed state.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,059,425 B2 to Vetter et al. in view of US 2,605,064 to Davis.
Regarding claims 4 and 15:
Vetter teaches the barrier system of claim 1.
Vetter discloses that the floor structure inside the cargo compartment “is provided with longitudinally extending seat rails 33 which allow to fix elements on the floor structure 9” (c. 6, ℓ. 4-18) and which provide multiple installation locations for the partition along the longitudinal axis (c. 4, ℓ. 5-15, c. 7, ℓ 44-54).
Vetter does not specifically disclose a cargo handling system which drives the barrier system within the cargo compartment.
Davis teaches an aircraft cargo compartment having a floor provided with longitudinally extending rails or tracks (c. 3, ℓ. 20-40), where cargo and seats are secured to the floor by fastening to the rails at various positions (c. 3, ℓ. 48-64). Advantageously, seats may be shifted to any desired position by loosening or tightening the fastenings (c. 4, ℓ. 34-57), and the rails assist in the loading, placing and securing of cargo (c. 6, ℓ. 41-44). Davis discloses that partitions may engage the floor rails (c. 4, ℓ. 58-74).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the barrier system of Vetter such that the base is coupled to a cargo handling system on the floor that is configured to move the barrier system within the cargo compartment, using the teachings of Davis, for the purpose of assisting in positioning or repositioning and securing the barrier system.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,059,425 B2 to Vetter et al. in view of US 201/40094103 A1 to Dreyhaupt et al.
Regarding claims 5 and 16:
Vetter teaches the barrier system of claim 1 and the aircraft of claim 12. Vetter does not specifically disclose that the divider wall is rigid.
Dreyhaupt teaches an inflatable compartment divider which may comprise a ducted portion arranged to conform to the profile of the partition when the partition is conformed to the profile of the compartment (¶ 0009) and supplied with conditioned air or fluid (¶ 0007-0008), and a support section which supports the duct portion (¶ 0013) and may comprise a grid of rigid articulated panels which can be folded with the partition into the collapsed configuration (¶ 0015, 0049, 0078) and may be biased into the installed configuration (¶ 0014, 0084).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the barrier system or aircraft of Vetter such that the divider wall is rigid, using the teachings of Dreyhaupt, for the purpose of reinforcing the divider in the deployed configuration.
Regarding claims 10 and 20:
Vetter teaches the barrier system of claim 1 and the aircraft of claim 12.
Vetter teaches that “[i]t is often desirable to divide an interior compartment in the fuselage of an aircraft into different areas or portions in which different temperatures prevail or can be maintained” (c. 1, ℓ. 25-27) and discloses an environmental control system which supplies conditioned air to the cargo compartment and to the partition element for inflation (c. 3, ℓ. 14-28).
Vetter does not specifically disclose a user interface in communication with the environmental control system.
Dreyhaupt teaches an inflatable compartment divider which divides an aircraft compartment into separate parts (¶ 0058) and is inflated with conditioned air from a conduit system (¶ 0053, 0062) of an environmental control system to control the heat transfer to each part of the compartment (¶ 0053-0054, 0059; control fluid flow system 300 controls the ratio of supply fluids having different temperatures to control the temperature of the aircraft interior, see ¶ 0068-0070, and is considered to be an environmental control system).
Dreyhaupt teaches that it is often necessary to divide a vehicle compartment into different parts at different temperatures, such as when carrying both personnel and equipment, where the equipment may not require the same temperatures which are suitable for personnel (¶ 0003), and discloses a user interface in communication with the environmental control system for setting a desired temperature for each part of the compartment (¶ 0070: “controller 304 also has manual inputs for setting a desired or a predicted temperature for each part 206, 208”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the barrier system or aircraft of Vetter such that the barrier system further comprises a user interface in communication with the environmental control system, using the teachings of Dreyhaupt, for the purpose of enabling the divided portions of the compartment to be provided with different temperatures depending on their contents.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8,613,407 B2 to Hartel et al. and US 12,480,611 B2 to de Souza et al. teach deployable barrier systems which thermally isolate sections in the cabin, and US 11,885,123 B2 to Weiqiang et al. teaches a deployable partition which can define an isolated area in an aircraft cabin.
US 12,428,155 B2 to Chung and US 5,816,534 to Schumacher teach aircraft cabin partitions which are movable within the cabin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Green whose telephone number is (571)270-5380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00 to 7:00.
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.
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
1 Note: There is a discrepancy between figure 3 and the passage in col. 6, lines 45-55; figure 3 shows dashed outlines for a window 41 and door 43, while the written disclosure use the reference “41” for both door and window.
Prosecution Insights