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 § 102
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 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, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bell et al. (9,592,913).
Regarding claim 1, Bell et al. disclose a composite seat frame assembly 1 for a seat, the composite seat frame assembly comprising: a seat pan section 41; and a seatback section 42; wherein the seat pan section and the seatback section are integrated to form a seat bench, wherein the seat bench includes a single composite member formed of one or more composite materials (col. 4, lines 5-10), wherein a passenger load applied to the seat bench is transferred from a seat belt shackle of the seat to a seat track on a floor (since Bell et al. disclose composite material and all the other limitations, it is well capable of performing similar function).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Bell et al. disclose one or more structural beams 31+32, wherein the one or more structural beams have a shallow sinusoidal shape (recess between 32 makes it appear sinusoidal), wherein the one or more structural beams are configured coupled to a rear portion of the seat pan section.
Regarding claim 12, Bell et al. disclose the one or more composite materials of the single composite member includes carbon fiber including at least one of a thermoplastic matrix or a thermoset matrix (col. 23, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 15, Bell et al. disclose an aircraft seat, the aircraft seat comprising: a composite shell comprising: a seat pan section 41; and a seatback section 42; wherein the seat pan section and the seatback section are integrated to form a seat bench; wherein the seat bench includes a single composite member formed of one or more composite materials (col. 4, lines 5-10); and a base assembly 2 coupled to the seat bench, wherein the base assembly is configured to couple to a floor of an aircraft cabin, wherein the base assembly comprises: a leg sub-assembly including at least a front leg 23 and a rear leg 24, wherein the front leg is configured to couple to a front portion of the seat pan section, wherein the rear leg is configured to couple to a rear portion of the seat pan section (figure 21), wherein a passenger load applied to the seat bench is transferred from a seat belt shackle of the aircraft seat to a seat track on the floor of the aircraft cabin (since Bell et al. disclose composite material and all the other limitations, it is well capable of performing similar function).
Regarding claim 16, Bell et al. disclose at least one of the front leg or the rear leg 23, 24 are formed of the one or more composite materials or one or more additional composite materials (col. 4, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 19, Bell et al. disclose one or more structural beams 31+32, wherein the one or more structural beams have a shallow sinusoidal shape (recess between 32 makes it appear sinusoidal), wherein the one or more structural beams are configured coupled to a rear portion of the seat pan section.
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) 2, 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. in view of Fullerton et al. (US 2008/0290715).
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 17, Fullerton et al. disclose a leg panel section, wherein the leg panel section is integrated with the seat pan section to form the seat bench, wherein one or more composite legs are at least one of coupled to or integrated with a portion of at least one of the seat pan section, the seatback section, or the leg panel section (figure 5 show the frame 200 with seat pan, seatback and leg panel and para 0039 discloses composite material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Fullerton et al. and use a leg panel in the invention of Bell et al. in order prevent any injuries.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. in view of Fullerton et al. as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Lee (11,006,760).
Regarding claims 4-6, Lee discloses one or more side panels 102, wherein the one or more side panels are configured to couple/integrated with the seat pan section 134, the seatback section, or the leg panel section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Lee and use side panels in the invention of Bell et al. in order to prevent any damages.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the one or more side panels include one or more openings (figure 4 shows the opening on the side).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Lee and use opening in the side panel of Bell et al. in order to reduce cost.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. in view of Le et al (US 2017/0158104).
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 20, Le et al. disclose one or more portions of the seatback section include one or more gauged ribs 399 to provide tailored structural reinforcement, wherein the one or more gauged ribs include one or more fiber reinforced composite ribs coupled to the one or more portions of the seatback section via robotic lay-up (para 0105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Le et al. and use a ribs in the invention of Bell et al. in order to prevent damages. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Le et al. and use lay up method in Bell et al. because it is simple and cost effective.
Regarding claim 13, Le et al. disclose the single composite member of the seat bench is fabricated via stamping (para 0105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Le et al. use stamping method in Bell et al. because it is simple and cost effective.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. in view of Lee (11,006,760).
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses one or more side panels 102, wherein the one or more side panels are configured to couple/integrated with the seat pan section 134, the seatback section, or the leg panel section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Lee and use side panels in the invention of Bell et al. in order to prevent any damages.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell et al. in view of Fullerton et al. as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Nelson et al. (US 2024/0415284).
Regarding claim 14, Nelson et al. disclose the leg panel section includes one or more kick panels 170.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Nelson et al. and use kick panels in the invention of Bell et al. in order to prevent any damages.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights