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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 21-40 in the reply filed on 10/20/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Restriction between mutually exclusive species is only proper if there is no overlapping scope. In the instant case, Groups I, II, and III are not mutually exclusive, such that there is overlapping scope. For example, the shell completely surrounding the seat assembly (Species A) could be located in front of the monument (Species D) or behind the monument (Species E) and could be used with a galley monument (Species F), a closet monument (Species G), and a lavatory monument (Species H). Moreover, the shell only partially surrounding the seat assembly (Species B) or covering only the front (Species C) could likewise be used with any of Species D-H. It is not simply one or the other. The alleged species are not mutually exclusive, and therefore are not sufficiently independent or distinct to justify restriction. Accordingly, Applicant traverses the restriction as being improper. The Restriction Requirement contends that, "the species are independent or distinct because as disclosed the different groups have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species." But, "difference" is not a proper basis for restriction. Species are independent when the species are "not connected in any of design, operation, or effect under the disclosure." Different embodiments may have a different component type while still being connected in at least one of design, operation, or effect. Different embodiments may have a different function while still being connected in at least one of design, operation, or effect. Additionally, different claims in a patent application are required to recite different limitations, so "difference" alone is not sufficient to warrant restriction.” This is not found persuasive because mutually exclusive means unable to be both true at the same time, of or pertaining to a situation involving two or more events or possibilities in which the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other. Consequently, the different scenarios discussed by Applicant in the traversal cannot be true at the same time nor can they be of or pertain to a situation involving two or more possibilities in which the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other. None of Applicant’s scenarios can be true nor occur at the same time, as evidenced by Applicant’s use of the word “or” when describing what the different sub-species could be based on the structure selected for any given scenario. Further, if Applicant’s argument regarding “difference” is in view of “different groups,” the argument does not appear to be in the proper context. Because restriction practice as a whole is based on there being different inventions in one application, to single out the word “difference” is not necessary, because different inventions is the basis of a restriction.
The traversal is also on the ground(s) that “With respect to the burden prong, the MPEP states that "a serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search as defined in MPEP § 808.02." (See MPEP 803 (II. GUIDELINES)) Applicant respectfully submits that the explanation provided in the Restriction Requirement fails to qualify as an "appropriate explanation." In support of the perceived burden, the Restriction Requirement merely copies stock language … The MPEP requires the examiner to provide evidence to support at least one of these contentions. For example, a separate status in the art can be shown by "citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search." (See MPEP § 808.02(B) (emphasis added)) … Moreover, Applicant notes that the parent application (United States Patent Application No. 15/927,139) has been previously examined and such examination included examination of all of the Species identified in the instant Restriction.” This is not found persuasive because in the same MPEP § 808.02, section (C) states “A different field of search.” And, in the originally filed instant application, a different field of search would require different search terms like “rearward” and “forward” locations of different parts of the invention such as rearward of the forward section or forward of the frame or rearward of an outer surface or rearward of the forward plane. Additionally, Applicant’s comment that “the Restriction Requirement merely copies stock language,” this language is permitted by MPEP § 809.02(a). Finally, there is no requirement in the MPEP that a parent application has to be restricted in order for the child application to be restricted.
The election requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Continuation
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 15/927,139, filed 03/21/2018, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application, therefore is does not qualify as a Continuation because it introduces new matter. Specifically, the claimed subject matter “a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis and located rearward of the frame” as set forth in claim 21 and “a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis and located rearward of the plane” as set forth claim 35 were not in the parent application. Regarding elected FIG. 4, in the initially filed specification, the descriptions of the reference characters indicate that the forward direction is to the left and the rearward direction is to the right, which means that FIG. 4 does not disclose “a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis and located rearward of the frame” and “a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis and located rearward of the plane.” Rather, initially filed FIG. 4 discloses a seat assembly forward of the frame and a galley monument rearward of the frame. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
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, “a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis and located rearward of the frame” (in at least claim 18), and “a seat portion” (in at least claim 18), and “a portion of the monument assembly and a portion of the seat assembly are vertically overlapping” (in at least claims 21 and 35), and “the front of the shell is open and coupled to the first end wall of the frame to close the shell at the front” (in at least claim 24) (NOTE: FIG. 4 is the elected species for this application. In the initially filed drawings on 07/04/2024, the cross-sectional view of the shell 106 surrounds the unlabeled bed/seat on both sides and at least on the top; consequently, it does not appear that the front of the shell is open), and “the lower section defining a forward section” (in at least claim 33), and “the lower section being forward of the rearward plane” (in at least claim 31), and “the frame and the shell share the first end wall to define separate spaces on opposite sides of the first end wall” (in at least claim 34), and “a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis and located rearward of the plane, the seat assembly” (in at least claim 35), and “the shell having a front with a jogged portion, the front has an upper section extending along the upper section of the first end wall, a lower section extending along the lower section of the first end wall and a transition section extending along the transition section of the first end wall, the transition section of the shell extends between the upper section and the lower section and defines the jogged portion of the shell, the lower section of the shell being forward of the rearward plane” (in at least claim 35) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0036] recites two different reference numbers 174 and 176 for the same part “rearward plane.”
Paragraphs [0036] & [0042] and [0046] recite the same reference character number 174 for two different parts: “forward plane” and “plane,” respectively.
Paragraph [0046] recites the same reference character number 224 for two different parts: “rear cavity” and “cavity.”
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis and located rearward of the frame” as recited in claim 21, and “a seat portion” as recited in claim 21, and “a portion of the monument assembly and a portion of the seat assembly are vertically overlapping” as recited in claims 21 and 35, and “rearward plane” as recited in claim 33, and “the front of the shell is open and coupled to the first end wall of the frame to close the shell at the front” as recited in claim 24, and “the lower section defining a forward section” as recited in claim 33, and “the upper section being forward of the rearward plane” as recited in claim 33, and “the frame and the shell share the first end wall to define separate spaces on opposite sides of the first end wall” as recited in claim 34, and “a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis and located rearward of the plane, the seat assembly” as recited in claim 35, and “the shell having a front with a jogged portion, the front has an upper section extending along the upper section of the first end wall, a lower section extending along the lower section of the first end wall and a transition section extending along the transition section of the first end wall, the transition section of the shell extends between the upper section and the lower section and defines the jogged portion of the shell, the lower section of the shell being forward of the rearward plane” as recited in claim 35 are not called out in the drawings filed on 07/24/2024.
The amendment filed 07/24/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: In paragraph [0046], the following amendments have been made: … In the illustrated embodiment, the upper section 230 defines the rear section 242 and the lower section 232 defines the forward section 240. … The lower section 232 of the first end wall 220 is located forward of the forward of the
Applicant indicated that “Support for the amendments can be found at least at paragraph [0051], which discloses that "the above-described embodiments (and/or aspects thereof) may be used in combination with each other", that "modifications may be made to adapt a particular situation", and that "dimensions, types of materials, orientations of the various components, and the number and positions of the various components described herein are intended to define parameters of certain embodiments, and are by no means limiting and are merely exemplary embodiments".” Examiner respectfully disagrees. A blanket, boiler-plate statement that “things can be changed” is not adequate support for the purpose of justifying and indicating that new matter has not been introduced into the initially filed specification.
Additionally, Applicant stated “Moreover, Figure 4 clearly shows the pillow at the left side (rear) and the foot well at the right side (front) for normal forward facing seats within an aircraft. No new matter has been added.” Applicant’s statement is not supported in the specification amendments or the claim amendments. Briefly, Applicant’s statement is saying that the left side of Figure 4 is facing the rear (back) of the plane, and the right side of Figure 4 is facing the forward (front) of the plane, which does not APPEAR to be supported in the initially filed specification.
Paragraph [0046] is addressing Figure 4. Looking at Figure 4 in light of the amendments of “the upper section 230 defines the rear section 242” and “the lower section 232 defines the forward section 240,” the amendments reverse the arrangement depicted, changing which direction of the figure is “forward.” Is there specific support in the initially filed specification that this arrangement was intended (i.e., an obvious mistake)? Or is there specific support in the initially filed specification that the direction of the system can be changed? The specification amendments change the orientation depicted in the drawing in Figure 4, and there is no disclosure in the initially filed disclosure that this orientation may be used.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 21-40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 21-40 were submitted after Applicant elected with traverse. However, Applicant amended claim 33 and did not annotate the amendments with a strikethrough in the text that was deleted nor an underline of the amended text, nor change the status identifier of claim 33 from (New) to (Currently Amended). Additionally, Applicant did not change the claim identifier in each of the other claims from (New) to (Previously Presented). Consequently, because the claim set was not identical to the claim set against which the Restriction was written, and from which Applicant elected, Applicant is required to change the status indicator of all of the claims from (New) to (Previously Presented) and (Currently Amended), as appropriate, per MPEP § 714 II C. (A)-(B) (37 C.F.R. 1.121 (c)), because the claims were amended and no longer (New) as initially filed. Examiner could have justifiably written and filed a non-compliant reply/response, rather than a claim objection, because it would have been very easy to overlook the amendment that was made in claim 33 that was not properly annotated, and had the incorrect status identifier, in addition to the other claims having the incorrect status identifier thereto. However, in the intertest of compact prosecution Examiner is making a claim objection on the record, and asking Applicant to please ensure that in future responses, the claim identifiers are correctly written.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 USC § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 USC § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 USC § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 recites the claim limitations "An aircraft monument for use in a cabin of an aircraft extending along a longitudinal axis" in lines 1-2, and "a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis and located rearward of the frame" in lines 6-7. Neither the initially filed specification, drawings, and claims discloses a longitudinal axis and a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis and located rearward of the frame. Given that the disclosure is silent regarding these claim limitations, how are these claim limitations supposed to be interpreted? What are the guidelines for determining the specific longitudinal axis that is being claimed? What is the reference point for the longitudinal axis?
Verbatim disclosure is not required, however it must be made clear on the record how the claim language is supported by the original disclosure, by explicitly identifying the relevant portions of the original disclosure and ensuring that the claims are scoped to supported embodiments.
As appropriate, these rejections may be overcome, for example, (i) by narrowing to supported embodiments and/or (ii) by clarifying on the record where support can be found and how that support relates to the recitations.
In general, it is requested that any claim amendment in this regard be accompanied by citations to support in the original disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.
Additionally, dependent claims 22-34 necessarily inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the lower section defining a forward section, the transition section and the lower section being forward of the rearward plane" in lines 3-4. The initially filed specification does not disclose “the lower section defining a forward section” along with the amended claim limitation “the lower section being forward of the rearward plane” as currently set forth in the instant claim. In initially filed elected FIG. 4, vertical dashed line 174 is a forward plane, and 232 is a lower section, and 240 is a forward section, and 230 is an upper section, and rearward plane is not shown in FIG. 4. Therefore, 240 and 230 are forward of the forward plane 174, and 232 is rearward of the forward plane. Where does FIG. 4 show the rearward plane, and “the upper section being forward of the rearward plane,” and, more importantly, “the lower section defining a forward section” along with the amended claim limitation “the lower section being forward of the rearward plane” as currently set forth in the instant claim? Do the initially filed specification and drawings disclose the claim limitation in question elsewhere in the initially filed application?
Verbatim disclosure is not required, however it must be made clear on the record how the claim language is supported by the original disclosure, by explicitly identifying the relevant portions of the original disclosure and ensuring that the claims are scoped to supported embodiments.
As appropriate, these rejections may be overcome, for example, (i) by narrowing to supported embodiments and/or (ii) by clarifying on the record where support can be found and how that support relates to the recitations.
In general, it is requested that any claim amendment in this regard be accompanied by citations to support in the original disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.
Claim 35 recites similar limitations as are rejected in claim 21, and are similarly rejected as in claim 21.
Additionally, dependent claims 36-40 necessarily inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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 USC § 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 21-40 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 USC § 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 USC § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the claim limitations "An aircraft monument for use in a cabin of an aircraft extending along a longitudinal axis" in lines 1-2, and "a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis and located rearward of the frame" in lines 6-7. These limitations are vague and indefinite. It is not clear to what longitudinal axis the claim is referring. Where is the longitudinal axis that is claimed? What is a longitudinal axis in reference to? How should a longitudinal axis be interpreted? What is meant by a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis to be interpreted, and what does this alignment look like? Neither the initially filed specification, drawings, nor claims discloses a longitudinal axis or by a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis. As currently written, "a longitudinal axis" is very broad and can be interpreted as any longitudinal axis anywhere on the aircraft monument or the aircraft. And, it is not clear what is meant by a seat assembly axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis. For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be treated as best understood.
Additionally, dependent claims 22-34 necessarily inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the front of the shell is open and coupled to the first end wall of the frame to close the shell at the front.” This claim limitation is vague, indefinite, and unclear. It is unclear what is happening regarding the front of the shell. Is the front of the shell open or closed? If the front of the shell is open and coupled to the first end wall of the frame, how is the front of the shell also closed, or when is the front of the shell closed? Or is the front of the shell ever closed? Whatever the intent of the state of the front of the shell is supposed to be, please amend the claim to make it clear what is happening with the state of the front of the shell. For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be treated as best understood.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “a passenger seat” in line 2. This claim limitation is vague, indefinite, and unclear. It is unclear whether the passenger seat of claim 25 is the same passenger seat in claim 21 in lines 7-8. Are the two passenger seats the same passenger seat? Or is a new passenger seat being introduced in claim 25? For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be treated as best understood.
Claim 35 recites the same rejected limitations as in claim 21, and are similarly rejected as in claim 21.
Additionally, dependent claims 36-40 necessarily inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim.
Claim 37 recites the same rejected limitations as in claim 25, and are similarly rejected as in claim 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-23, 26-28, 30-32, 34-36, and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Moran, U.S. Patent Application 2016/0114892 A1 (hereinafter called Moran), and further in view of HEIDTMANN et al., U.S. Patent Application 2017/0267350 A1 (hereinafter called HEIDTMANN).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, Moran teaches an aircraft monument for use in a cabin of an aircraft (See e.g., ¶s [0006], [0009], & [0019]) extending along a longitudinal axis, the aircraft monument comprising:
a monument assembly (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 104) having a frame (See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident edges of elements 160, 162, 164, 166, & 168), the frame having a plurality of walls (See e.g., FIG. 2 elements 160, 162, 164, 166, & 168) defining a compartment (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 102), the plurality of walls including a first end wall (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 166) having a rearward section (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 212) at a rearward plane of the frame (See e.g., FIG. 2, where the rearward plane is coincident with the rearward section 212), the compartment (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 102) being defined forward of the rearward section (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 212); and
a seat assembly (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 114) axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis and located rearward of the frame and a passenger seat (See FIG. 2 the horizontally oriented seat portion of element 114).
But Moran does not teach a shell partially surrounding a passenger seat, the shell extending to a floor of the cabin and the shell extending to a height at least at a seat portion of the passenger seat, the shell having a front forward of the rearward plane of the frame such that a portion of the monument assembly and a portion of the seat assembly are vertically overlapping.
However, HEIDTMANN teaches a seat assembly having a shell (See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) partially surrounding a passenger seat (See e.g., FIG. 2a element 6, where the passenger seat to the far left in the figure is also in the same space of the flexibly curved shell 36, and therefore is also being partially surrounded by the shell), the shell extending to a floor of the cabin (See e.g., FIGS. 2b-2c element 56; ¶ [0040], “The legs 46 and 48 of the lower partition wall section 38 furthermore comprise a fastening fitting 56, which is connectable to the floor rails 8.”) and the shell extending to a height at least at a seat portion of the passenger seat (See e.g., FIG. 2a elements 36 & 6).
And, upon combining Moran and HEIDTMANN as described immediately hereinbefore, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN teaches the shell (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c elements 6, 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) having a front (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2b the lower vertical portion of element 46 facing in the direction of arrow 12 defines a front) forward of the rearward plane of the frame (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2, where the rearward plane of the frame is coincident with the rearward section 212, where the claim limitation the shell having a front forward of the rearward plane of the frame is accomplished in the combination of Moran and HEIDTMANN) such that a portion of the monument assembly (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 104) and a portion of the seat assembly (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c element 36, and the passenger seat to the far left in the figure is also in the same space of the shell 36, and is part of the seat assembly) are vertically overlapping (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 104 and HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a element 36, which is a portion of the seat assembly, teach vertically overlapping, because, in the combination of Moran and HEIDTMANN, note that in Moran and HEIDTMANN, the order of the seat 114 to the monument 104 in Moran in FIG. 2, and the order of the seat to the petition 36, i.e., the shell, against another seat in HEIDTMANN in FIG. 2a, are in the same order, therefore, when element 36, i.e., the shell is bodily incorporated into Moran against element 104, the same order is maintained, and the seat of Moran is now in the same space of the flexibly curved shell 36, as in HEIDTMANN, making it partially surrounded by the shell, as required by the claim, and therefore is now a seat assembly having a shell partially surrounding a passenger seat, and therefore teaches a portion of the monument assembly and a portion of the seat assembly are vertically overlapping).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan, having the prior art of Moran and HEIDTMANN before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the aircraft monument of Moran to include the seat assembly having a shell partially surrounding a passenger seat, the shell extending to a floor of the cabin and the shell extending to a height at least at a seat portion of the passenger seat such that a portion of the monument assembly and a portion of the seat assembly are vertically overlapping, as taught in the analogous art of HEIDTMANN. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of providing an effective optical separation of two cabin regions, without taking up very much installation space for this purpose and providing the improved comfort of a passenger on the passenger seat, despite a high compacting and low installation space between a cabin monument and a passenger seat, as suggested in HEIDTMANN (See e.g., ¶s [0010] & [0007]).
Regarding claim 22, as best understood, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN in the rejection of claim 21 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the seat assembly (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60, and the passenger seat to the far left in the figure is also in the same space of the shell 36) further comprises a foot well (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a-2c the space between elements 44, as best seen in FIG. 2b), at least a portion of the foot well configured to extend forward of the rearward plane (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2, where the rearward plane of the frame is coincident with the rearward section 212).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN in the rejection of claim 21 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the shell (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) includes a first end wall (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) defining the front (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c, where, the portions of the elements facing the direction of arrow 12 define the front), the first end wall of the shell (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a, elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) mirroring the first end wall of the frame (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 166, where when bodily incorporated into Moran, the recited elements of the first end wall of the shell of HEIDTMANN, mirrors all the sections of the first end wall 166 of the frame of Moran).
Regarding claim 26, as best understood, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN in the rejection of claim 21 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the frame (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident edges of elements 160, 162, 164, 166, & 168) defines a galley monument (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 104) and the compartment (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 102) is a galley cart compartment (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 elements 102 & 108) configured to receive at least one galley cart (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 108), the galley monument comprising a galley refrigeration system having at least one of an air supply duct (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 132; ¶s [0022]-[0023]) and an air return duct (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2, element 134; ¶s [0022]-[0023]) being positioned above a portion of the seat assembly (See e.g., Moran FIG. 2 element 114 and HEIDTMANN FIG. 2a element 36 as explained in the combination for the claim limitation a portion of the monument assembly and a portion of the seat assembly are vertically overlapping at the end of claim 18) for transporting airflow within the galley.
Regarding claim 27, as best understood, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN in the rejection of claim 21 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the shell (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) includes a first end wall (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) defining the front (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c, where, the portions of the elements facing the direction of arrow 12 define the front), the first end wall of the shell being nonplanar (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a, elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60), the first end wall (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 166) of the frame (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident edges of elements 160, 162, 164, 166, & 168) being nonplanar (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 elements 166, 210, 212, 214), the first end wall of the shell having a complementary shape as, and being nested with, the first end wall of the frame (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a, elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60 & Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 elements 166, 210, 212, 214, where, in the combination, the shapes of the recited elements of the first end wall of the shell of HEIDTMANN compliment and are nested with the first end wall 166, 210, 212, 214 of Moran).
Regarding claim 28, as best understood, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN in the rejection of claim 27 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the first end wall of the shell (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) is coupled to the first end wall of the frame (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 166, where, the nested walls as recited in claim 25 hereinabove are coupled through the floor on which they reside).
Regarding claim 30, as best understood, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN in the rejection of claim 21 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the shell (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) includes a base configured to be mounted to a cabin floor of the aircraft (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c elements 44, 46, 48) and the frame (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident edges of elements 160, 162, 164, 166, & 168) includes a base configured to be mounted to the cabin floor of the aircraft (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident edges of element 160), the rearward section (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 212) being spaced apart from the base of the frame (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident edges of element 160).
Regarding claim 31, as best understood, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN in the rejection of claim 21 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the first end wall (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 166) includes a front section (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 214) forward of the rearward section (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 212), the shell (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) abutting against the front section (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 214) of the first end wall (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 166).
Regarding claim 32, as best understood, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN in the rejection of claim 21 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the first end wall (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 166) includes a jogged portion (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 210) and a front of the shell (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60, where, the portions of the elements facing the direction of arrow 12 defines the front of the shell) includes a jogged portion (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c elements 44 & 46) nesting with the jogged portion of the first end wall of the frame (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 210 & HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c elements 44 & 46, where the two recited jogged portions of Moran and HEIDTMANN nest in the combination of Moran and HEIDTMANN).
Regarding claim 34, as best understood, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN in the rejection of claim 21 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the frame (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident edges of elements 160, 162, 164, 166, & 168) and the shell (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) share the first end wall (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 166) to define separate spaces on opposite sides of the first end wall (Moran See e.g. FIG. 2, where, the space in which element 114 is located and the space in which 102 is located teach define separate spaces on opposite sides of the first end wall).
Regarding claim 35, as best understood, Moran teaches an aircraft monument for use in a cabin of an aircraft (See e.g., ¶s [0006], [0009], & [0019]) extending along a longitudinal axis, the aircraft monument comprising:
a monument assembly (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 104) having a frame (See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident edges of elements 160, 162, 164, 166, & 168), the frame having a plurality of walls (See e.g., FIG. 2 elements 160, 162, 164, 166, & 168) defining a compartment (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 102), the plurality of walls including a first end wall (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 166) having a jogged portion (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 210), the first end wall having an upper section (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 212), a lower section (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 214) and a transition section between the upper section and the lower section defining the jogged portion (See e.g., FIG. 2 elements 212, 214, 210), an upper intersection between the transition section and the upper section (See e.g., FIG. 2, where elements 210 & 212 intersect) being at a rearward plane (See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident plane of element 212, and the intersection of elements 210 & 212 is at this rearward plane) and a lower intersection between the transition section and the lower section (See e.g., FIG. 2, where elements 210 & 214 intersect) being at a forward plane laterally offset forward of the rearward plane (See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident plane of element 214, which is forward and offset of the coincident plane of element 212 as recited hereinabove), the compartment being defined forward of at least one of the upper section and the lower section (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 102); and
a seat assembly (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 114) axially aligned with the monument assembly along the longitudinal axis and located rearward of the plane, the seat assembly having a passenger seat (See FIG. 2 element 114), the upper section (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 212) of the first end wall, the lower section (See e.g., FIG. 2 element 214) of the first end wall and the transition section of the first end wall (See e.g., FIG. 2 elements 212, 214, 210), and the rearward plane (See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident plane of element 212).
But Moran does not teach a shell configured to at least partially surround a passenger seat, the shell having a front with a jogged portion, a lower section and a transition section, the transition section of the shell extends between the upper section and the lower section and defines the jogged portion of the shell and a portion of the monument assembly and a portion of the seat assembly are vertically overlapping.
However, HEIDTMANN teaches a seat assembly comprising a shell (See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) configured to at least partially surround a passenger seat (See e.g., FIG. 2a element 6, where the passenger seat to the far left in the figure is also in the same space of the flexibly curved shell 36, and therefore is also being partially surrounded by the shell), the shell having a front (See e.g., FIG. 2b the lower vertical portion of element 46 facing in the direction of arrow 12 defines a front) with a jogged portion (See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c elements 44 & 46), the front has an upper section (See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c element 40), a lower section (See e.g., FIG. 2b the lower vertical portion of 44) and a transition section (See e.g., FIG. 2b the backward leaning portion of element 44), the transition section of the shell extends between the upper section and the lower section and defines the jogged portion of the shell (See e.g., FIG. 2b the backward leaning portion of element 44, which extends between the upper section and lower section as recited hereinbefore).
And, upon combining Moran and HEIDTMANN as described immediately hereinbefore, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN teaches the corresponding sections align as claimed, and the lower section of the shell (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2b the lower vertical portion of 44) being forward of the rearward plane (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident plane of element 212, where the claim limitation the lower section of the shell being forward of the rearward plane is accomplished in the combination of Moran and HEIDTMANN) and a portion of the monument assembly (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 104) and a portion of the seat assembly (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c element 36, and the passenger seat to the far left in the figure is also in the same space of the shell 36, and is part of the seat assembly) are vertically overlapping (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 104 and HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a element 36, which is a portion of the seat assembly, teach vertically overlapping, because, in the combination of Moran and HEIDTMANN, note that in Moran and HEIDTMANN, the order of the seat 114 to the monument 104 in Moran in FIG. 2, and the order of the seat to the petition 36, i.e., the shell, against another seat in HEIDTMANN in FIG. 2a, are in the same order, therefore, when element 36, i.e., the shell is bodily incorporated into Moran against element 104, the same order is maintained, and the seat of Moran is now in the same space of the flexibly curved shell 36, as in HEIDTMANN, making it partially surrounded by the shell, as required by the claim, and therefore is now a seat assembly having a shell partially surrounding a passenger seat, and therefore teaches a portion of the monument assembly and a portion of the seat assembly are vertically overlapping).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan, having the prior art of Moran and HEIDTMANN before him, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the aircraft monument of Moran to include a shell configured to at least partially surround a passenger seat, the shell having a front with a jogged portion, the front has an upper section extending along the upper section of the first end wall, a lower section extending along the lower section of the first end wall and a transition section extending along the transition section of the first end wall, the transition section of the shell extends between the upper section and the lower section and defines the jogged portion of the shell, the lower section of the shell being forward of the rearward plane and a portion of the monument assembly and a portion of the seat assembly are vertically overlapping, having the shell features as taught in the analogous art of HEIDTMANN. The skilled artisan in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve the predictable result of providing an effective optical separation of two cabin regions, without taking up very much installation space for this purpose and providing the improved comfort of a passenger on the passenger seat, despite a high compacting and low installation space between a cabin monument and a passenger seat, as suggested in HEIDTMANN (See e.g., ¶s [0010] & [0007]).
Regarding claim 36, as best understood, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN in the rejection of claim 35 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the seat assembly (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60, and the passenger seat to the far left in the figure is also in the same space of the shell 36) further comprises a foot well (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a-2c the space between elements 44, as best seen in FIG. 2b), at least a portion of the foot well configured to extend forward of the rearward plane (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2, where the rearward plane of the frame is coincident with the rearward section 212).
Regarding claim 38, as best understood, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN in the rejection of claim 35 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the frame (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident edges of elements 160, 162, 164, 166, & 168) defines a galley monument (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 104) and the compartment (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 102) is a galley cart compartment (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 elements 102 & 108) configured to receive at least one galley cart (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 108), the galley monument comprising a galley refrigeration system having at least one of an air supply duct (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 132; ¶s [0022]-[0023]) and an air return duct (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2, element 134; ¶s [0022]-[0023]) being positioned above a portion of the seat assembly (See e.g., Moran FIG. 2 element 114 and HEIDTMANN FIG. 2a element 36 as explained in the combination for the claim limitation a portion of the monument assembly and a portion of the seat assembly are vertically overlapping at the end of claim 33) for transporting airflow within the galley.
Regarding claim 39, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN in the rejection of claim 35 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the shell (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) includes a first end wall (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a-2c elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60) defining the front (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c, where, the portions of the elements facing the direction of arrow 12 define the front), the first end wall of the shell being nonplanar (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIG. 2a, elements 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60), the first end wall (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 166) of the frame (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident edges of elements 160, 162, 164, 166, & 168) being nonplanar (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 elements 166, 210, 212, 214), the first end wall of the shell having a complementary shape as, and being nested with, the first end wall of the frame (HEIDTMANN See e.g., FIGS. 2a-2c element 36, 40, 44, 46, 48, & 60 & Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 elements 166, 210, 212, 214, where, in the combination, the shapes of the recited elements of the first end wall of the shell of HEIDTMANN compliment and are nested with the first end wall 166, 210, 212, 214 of Moran).
Claim(s) 25, 29, 37, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Moran, U.S. Patent Application 2016/0114892 A1 (hereinafter called Moran), and further in view of HEIDTMANN, and further in view of SAVIAN et al., U.S. Patent Application 2016/0009395 A1 (hereinafter called SAVIAN).
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, Moran, as modified by HEIDTMANN in the rejection of claim 21 hereinabove, further teaches wherein the seat assembly (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 element 114) further comprises a passenger seat (Moran See FIG. 2 the horizontally oriented seat portion of element 114) and the frame (Moran See e.g., FIG. 2 the coincident edges of elements 160, 162, 164, 166, & 168).
But neither Moran nor HEIDTMANN explicitly teaches at least a portion of the passenger seat configured to extend forward of the rearward plane of the frame.
However, SAVIAN teaches at least a portion of the passenger seat (See e.g., FIG. 17 element 122) configured to extend forward of the rearward plane (See e.g., FIG. 17 the rearward plane coincident with element 26C that is be