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 without traverse of species A1 claims 1-2, 4-8 and 10 in the reply filed on August 18th, 2025 is acknowledged.
Remarks
Applicant’s clarification to examine the claim set submitted as a preliminary amendment on July 28th 2024 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4 line 1, “…wherein a partition panel is arranged…” should read “…wherein partition panels are arranged…”.
In claim 4 line 3, “…partition panel.” should read “…partition panels.”.
In claim 6 lines 2-3, “…image projected thereon is projected is disposed…” should rea “…image projected thereon is disposed…”.
In claim 10 line 2, “…a pair of the partition panels…” should read “…a pair of partition panels…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “a pair of the partition panels” and claim 8, on which claim 10 depends, recite “a partition panel”, thus it is unclear if “a pair of the partition panels” comprises “a partition panel” or if they are separate components. For the examination purpose “a pair of the partition panels” is considered to comprise “a partition panel” .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley et al. (US 2019/0077512) in view of Udriste et al. (US 2025/0214711).
Regarding claim 1, Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) a seat unit disposed between a window and an aisle of an aircraft (clearly seen in figure 1), comprising:
a seat/seat assembly (102) including a seat section/base (110) disposed on the window side (106), and a backrest (112) disposed on the aisle side (108) (Para 0031-0032; seat/seat assembly (102) is outboard-facing i.e., facing the corresponding adjacent wall 106A-B); and
a table/tray table disposed between the window and the seat section/base (110) (Para 0035; privacy console (122) for seat/seat assembly (102) comprises a table/ tray table, and since seat section/base (110) is disposed on the window side the table/ tray table is between the window and the seat section/base (110));
wherein a center axis/central seat plane (336) of the seat/seat assembly (102) is approximately orthogonal to an axis/ central aisle plane (334) of the aircraft in a front-rear/longitudinal direction (330) when viewed along a direction orthogonal to a floor surface of the aircraft (Para 0037-0038; angle (338) between the central axis/central seat plane (336) and axis of the aircraft/central aisle plane (334) is from greater than 0 degree to less than 90 degrees; 89.9 degrees is less than/approximately 90 degrees/orthogonal),
but it is silent about the seat unit comprising:
a table supported in a fixed manner at least at two points.
Udriste et al. ‘711 teaches (figures 1-9) an aircraft seat arrangement comprising an aircraft seat module (24a) comprising a fixed table element (96a) supported by a bracing element (104a) and enclosure element (54a) (clearly seen in figure 5) and an adjustable table element/movable portion (110a) arranged to be linearly displaceable relative to the enclosure unit (Para 0059-0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bentley et al. ‘512 to incorporate the teachings of Udriste et al. ‘711 to configure the seat unit comprising:
a table supported in a fixed manner at least at two points.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would rigidly place and stabilize the table.
Regarding claim 2, modified Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) the seat unit wherein a partition panel/wall (126) is arranged adjacent to the seat/seat assembly (102) and wherein one end portion of the table in a width direction is supported on the partition panel/wall (126) (as modified by Udriste et al. ‘711; enclosure element is analogous to wall/partition panel).
Regarding claim 7, modified Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) the seat unit wherein an ottoman fixed to a partition panel is arranged on a lower side of the table (clearly shown in the figure below) (ottoman is next to the floor whereas table is at a height from the floor).
PNG
media_image1.png
505
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) a table unit/tray table disposed between a window and an aisle/central aisle plane (334) of an aircraft, wherein the table unit/tray table is disposed in a direction approximately orthogonal to an axis/ central aisle plane (334) of the aircraft in a front-rear direction/longitudinal direction (330) and a partition panel/wall (126) (Para 0031-0032, 0035, 0037-0038; seat (102) is outboard-facing i.e., facing the corresponding adjacent wall 106A-B; privacy console (122) for seat/seat assembly (102) comprises a table unit/ tray table, and since seat (102) is outboard-facing the table/ tray table is between the window and the seat (102); angle (338) between the central axis/central seat plane (336) of the seat and axis of the aircraft/central aisle plane (334) is from greater than 0 degree to less than 90 degrees; 89.9 degrees is less than/approximately 90 degrees/orthogonal; table is between seat and window; since table and seat are aligned, at least when table is deployed, table is disposed in a direction approximately orthogonal to an axis/ central aisle plane (334) of the aircraft ),
but it is silent about the table unit wherein the table unit is supported in a fixed manner on a partition panel.
Udriste et al. ‘711 teaches (figures 1-9) an aircraft seat arrangement comprising an aircraft seat module (24a) comprising a fixed table element (96a) supported by a bracing element (104a) and enclosure element/partition panel (54a) (clearly seen in figure 5) and an adjustable table element/movable portion (110a) arranged to be linearly displaceable relative to the enclosure unit (Para 0059-0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bentley et al. ‘512 to incorporate the teachings of Udriste et al. ‘711 to configure the table unit wherein the table unit is supported in a fixed manner on a partition panel.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would rigidly place and stabilize the table.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley et al. (US 2019/0077512) and Udriste et al. (US 2025/0214711) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lawson (US 11,465,749).
Regarding claim 4, modified Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) the seat unit wherein partition panels are arranged on either side of the seat/seat assembly (102) (clearly shown in the figure below)
PNG
media_image2.png
602
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the seat unit wherein both end portions of the table in a width direction are respectively supported on the partition panels.
Lawson ‘749 teaches (figures 4A-4B) an aircraft passenger compartment (104) comprising aircraft seat (110), a monument (114) and passenger compartment shell section (108) wherein tray table (116) is supported by the monument (144) and passenger compartment shell section (108) (Col. 5 Lines 41-48; Col. 7 Lines 11-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Bentley et al. ‘512 to incorporate the teachings of Lawson ‘749 to configure the seat unit wherein both end portions of the table in a width direction are respectively supported on the partition panels (passenger compartment shell section (108) and monument (114) of Lawson ‘749 and partition panels of Bentley et al. ‘512 are analogous as they form a compartment to receive an aircraft seat, and since passenger compartment shell section (108) and monument (114) of Lawson ‘749 supports a tray table (116) without any external supports it would be obvious for partition panels of Bentley et al. ‘512 to support a table without any external supports).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would support a table without needing for additional support structure which in turn reduces aircraft weight and enhances fuel efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, modified Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) the seat unit wherein the table includes a fixed portion that is supported in a fixed manner on the partition panel, and a movable portion that is movable with respect to the fixed portion (as modified by Udriste et al. ‘711),
but it is silent about the seat unit wherein a groove to which the movable portion is engaged is formed on the partition panel, and the movable portion is moved along the groove.
Lawson ‘749 teaches (figures 5A-5B) an aircraft passenger compartment (104) comprising actuation assembly (500) for actuating tray (116) including an extension rail assembly/groove (502) on monument (114) and a linear rail assembly/groove (504) on passenger compartment shell section (108) (clearly seen in figures 5A-5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Bentley et al. ‘512 to incorporate the teachings of Lawson ‘749 to configure the seat unit wherein a groove to which the movable portion is engaged is formed on the partition panel, and the movable portion is moved along the groove (table is supported on partition panels).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maximize the usable surface area of the movable portion of the table.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley et al. (US 2019/0077512) and Udriste et al. (US 2025/0214711) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2021/0214084).
Regarding claim 6, modified Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) the seat unit comprising In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) monitors facing the seat (Para 0035; IFE monitor is for a passenger thus faces a passenger and a seat occupied by the passenger)
but it is silent about the seat unit wherein a screen for having a projector image projected thereon is disposed in a manner capable of being wound up on an upper portion of the table and facing the seat.
Johnson et al. ‘084 teaches (figures 1A-1B) one or more IFEs include one or more display devices (130) wherein the one or more display devices (130) include a collapsible screen (Para 0067-0069).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Bentley et al. ‘512 to incorporate the teachings of Johnson et al. ‘084 to configure the seat unit wherein a screen for having a projector image projected thereon is disposed in a manner capable of being wound up on an upper portion of the table and facing the seat.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to see through a window when the screen is not in use.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley et al. (US 2019/0077512) and Udriste et al. (US 2025/0214711) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lawson (US 11,465,749).
Regarding claim 10, modified Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) the table unit comprising a pair of partition panels (clearly shown in the figure below)
PNG
media_image2.png
602
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the table unit wherein both ends of the table unit are fixed to and supported by a pair of partition panels interposing the seat.
Lawson ‘749 teaches (figures 4A-4B) an aircraft passenger compartment (104) comprising aircraft seat (110), a monument (114) and passenger compartment shell section (108) wherein tray table (116) is supported by the monument (144) and passenger compartment shell section (108) (Col. 5 Lines 41-48; Col. 7 Lines 11-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Bentley et al. ‘512 to incorporate the teachings of Lawson ‘749 to configure the table unit wherein both ends of the table unit are fixed to and supported by a pair of partition panels interposing the seat (passenger compartment shell section (108) and monument (114) of Lawson ‘749 and partition panels of Bentley et al. ‘512 are analogous as they form a compartment to receive an aircraft seat, and since passenger compartment shell section (108) and monument (114) of Lawson ‘749 supports a tray table (116) without any external supports it would be obvious for partition panels of Bentley et al. ‘512 to support a table without any external supports).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would support a table without needing for additional support structure which in turn reduces aircraft weight and enhances fuel efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3642