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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2/12/2026 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application. Examiner appreciates the thorough explanation of the invention and amendments provided in the applicant’s response. Unfortunately, Applicant’s amendments to the claims remain obviated by prior art as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiryaki et al. (US 20200086967 A1) in view of Ciprian (US Patent No. 8220222).
Regarding claim 1, Tiryaki teaches an aircraft floor arrangement with customizable load-bearing capabilities, comprising: a plurality of floor panels (elements 6); and at least one support profile(elements 4 and 10), wherein the at least one support profile is configured to reinforce at least one of the floor panels such that the load-bearing capabilities are increased (as depicted in Figures 1 and 2, ¶ [0011]); wherein the floor panels are provided with a plurality of interface points arranged at least along one direction (elements 40, and interface between elements 24 and 22); and wherein the interface points are configured for mounting of the at least one support profile to the floor panel via the interface points to reinforce the floor panels (as depicted in Figures 1 and 2), wherein the floor panels are preconfigured with attachment points for the at least one support profile for when reinforcement is needed ( elements 40, and interface between elements 24 and 22 as depicted in Figures 1 and 2), wherein the interface points of the plurality of interface points are the attachment points (elements 40, and interface between elements 24 and 22 as depicted in Figures 1 and 2), wherein the at least one support profile is configured to attach to the floor panel without changing the floor panel (configurable inasmuch as applicant has claimed). Tiryaki fails to specifically teach at least one support profile having a portion between two adjacent floor panels from the plurality of floor panels. However, use of support profiles having a portion between floor panels is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 1-3 of Ciprian. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate Ciprian’s support profiles into Tiryaki, in order to provide assembly rail systems for which to mount seats and monuments within aircraft.
Regarding claim 2, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the interface points are provided in a grid pattern (Figures 1 and 3, elements 40 are arranged in evenly spaced parallel and orthogonally arranged grids inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 3, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the at least one support profile is configured for reinforcing the floor panel on at least one from a group consisting of: i) below (Figures 1 and 2 and ¶ [0011] as explained in the response to claim 1); ii) above; and iii) lateral.
Regarding claim 4, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein a plurality of different support profiles is provided forming a reinforcement kit, the different support profiles being provided as at least one of a group consisting of: i) lower reinforcement in different lengths and heights; ii) upper reinforcement in different lengths and widths; and iii) lateral reinforcement in different lengths and with different upper flange and web portions (support profiles, elements 4 and 10, satisfy each of these limitations).
Regarding claim 5, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the at least one support profile is provided as an integratable profile comprising horizontal flange portions (elements 15) for mounting adjacent floor panels from the plurality of floor panels and vertical web members (elements 16, 10) providing additional load support.
Regarding claim 6, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the at least one support profile comprises an upper flange segment configured to provide a local trolley support (Figures 1 and 2 depict a plurality of flanges: elements 14 and 15 may be considered upper flanges under broadest reasonable interpretation. More, the top of fastener 40 comprises a flanged section. All of these flanges are configurable to provide floor support, and thus are considered configurable to support a trolley inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 7, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the at least one support profile comprises an upper segment configured to provide a galley wall support (Figures 1 and 2 teach that support profile, element 4, has a plurality of upper segments: elements 15 and 22. All of these segments provide floor support and thus are considered configurable to provide galley wall support inasmuch as applicant has claimed).
Regarding claim 10, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian teaches a floor system for an aircraft, the floor system comprising: the aircraft floor arrangement according to claim 1 (see response to claim 1); and a support arrangement comprising a plurality of floor supports (Figure 1, elements 4 and 10), wherein the plurality of floor panels is carried by the floor supports (as depicted in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian teaches the invention in claim 10, wherein the floor supports comprise longitudinal support profiles for resting the floor panels on the longitudinal support profiles (as depicted in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian teaches the invention in claim 11, wherein the longitudinal support profiles are provided as seat rails resting on transverse cross beams, and wherein the floor panels are resting on the seat rails (Figure 2, elements 10 and 15 of Ciprian and cited response in claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian teaches an aircraft (Figure 5) comprising: a fuselage (Figure 5); a wing arrangement attached to the fuselage (Figure 5); and a propulsion arrangement attached to at least one of a group of fuselage and wing arrangement (Figure 5); wherein a floor is provided in the fuselage for a cabin or cargo area (¶ [0050]); and wherein the floor comprises the aircraft floor arrangement according to claim 1 (as discussed in the response to claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian teaches a method for customizing load-bearing capabilities of an aircraft floor arrangement, the method comprising the following steps: providing a plurality of floor panels provided with a plurality of interface points arranged at least along one direction (elements 40, and interface between elements 24 and 22), and providing at least one support profile (elements 4 and 10) configured to reinforce at least one of the floor panels such that the load-bearing capabilities are increased (as depicted in Figures 1 and 2, ¶ [0011]); and mounting of the at least one support profile to one of the floor panels via the interface points to reinforce the floor panel (as depicted in Figures 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiryaki et al. (US 20200086967 A1) in view of Ciprian (US Patent No. 8220222), in further view of Koh (US 20200307759 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the floor panels of the plurality of floor panels are provided as sandwich panels comprising a top layer and a bottom layer spaced apart by a center layer, and wherein the center layer comprises a sheet structure alternately fixed to the top layer and the bottom layer by a plurality of fixation points, and wherein at least a part of the fixation points are provided as the interface points. However, use of sandwich panels in aircraft flooring architecture is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 1-5 of Koh. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a sandwich panel ply into the support system and interface of Tiryaki, in order to prevent buckling, plastic yielding, or crushing caused by increased compressive loads (as taught by ¶ [0032-00034] of Koh).
Regarding claim 9, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian and Koh teach the invention in claim 8, wherein the sheet structure is provided as at least one of a group consisting of: i) a corrugated sheet (¶ [0035-0036] of Koh); ii) a folded sheet; iii) a trapezoidal sheet; iv) a troughed sheet (¶ [0035-0036] of Koh); and v) a profiled sheet.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiryaki et al. (US 20200086967 A1) in view of Ciprian (US Patent No. 8220222), in further view of Huber (US 20120119027 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Tiryaki in view of Ciprian teaches the invention in claim 10, but fails to specifically teach wherein the floor system with the at least one support profile comprises a modular truss work. However, use of modular truss work in floor is well known in the art as is evidenced by Figure 4 of Huber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate trusses into Tiryaki’s flooring system, in order to provide structural support comprising cavities suitable for conducting liquids or gases under pressure (as taught by ¶ [0031-0032] of Huber).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3099. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Wednesdays: 0500-1300, Tuesdays 0500-1400, Thursdays and Fridays by appointment only..
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL HESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights