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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 9/5/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 8-11 have been amended. Claims 15-16 are newly added. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application. Examiner appreciates the thorough explanation of the invention and amendments provided in the applicant’s response. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 5/20/2025. Unfortunately, the claims remain rejected as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
On page 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant asserts, “Higgins shows only one cable attachment device 58 per intercostal member 18, and discloses no other connection of a single intercostal member 18 to rib 12. In contrast, claim 1 recites that each panel is connected to the supports at two vertically spaced apart points.”
The claim limitation in question reads, “at least one panel, which connects the supports in the horizontal direction and is designed for connecting to the supports, each connected by the panel, at two vertically spaced-apart points of connection.”
Examiner asserts that Broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim may be as follows, “at least one panel, which connects the supports in the horizontal direction and is designed for connecting to the supports, each (support) connected by the (at least one) panel, at two vertically spaced-apart points of connection (emphasis added). Examiner first asserts that the plurality of panels (element 18) found in Figures 14 and 15 of Higgins, satisfy “at least one panel” and are connected to each support (elements 12 and 14), the supports (elements 12 and 14) being attached at two vertically spaced-apart points via elements 58 inasmuch as applicant has claimed. More, Applicant failed to claim “each panel directly connected to each support at two vertically spaced-apart points, wherein the two vertically spaced-apart points of connection are vertically spaced apart along a same support and/or same panel”. Finally, even if Applicant had claimed “each panel directly connected to each support at two vertically spaced-apart points, wherein the two vertically spaced-apart points of connection are vertically spaced apart along a same support and/or same panel”, Figure 10 of Higgins depicts vertically spaced-apart attachments 58 directly connected to panels 18 and supports 14 via vertically spaced-apart fasteners 44. As such, Higgins remains in anticipation of the claimed limitations, and warrants rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
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) 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Higgins et al. (US Patent No. 5201831).
Regarding claim 1, Higgins teaches an apparatus for fastening cabin components in a region of side walls (Figures 14 and 15), which belong to an aircraft structure and extend in a vertical direction in relation to a horizontal cabin floor (Figures 14 and 15), the apparatus comprising a substructure comprising: at least two supports (Figures 10, 14, and 15, elements 12 and 14), which are vertically arrangeable on a side wall, of the sidewalls of the aircraft structure (as depicted in Figures 14 and 15), are spaced apart in a horizontal direction (as depicted in Figures 14 and 15), are designed in each case for fastening at least two vertically spaced- apart defined points of attachment of the aircraft structure in the region of the side wall (as depicted in Figures 10, 14, and 15. Elements 12 and 14 attach in a plurality of locations vertically separated via attachment 58. More, in Figure 10 of Higgins depicts attachments 58 directly connected to panels 18 and supports 14 via vertically spaced fasteners 44), and at least one panel (elements 18), which connects the supports in the horizontal direction and is designed for connecting to the supports (Figures 8, 10, 14-15), each connected by the panel (Figures 8, 10, 14-15), at two vertically spaced-apart points of connection (Figures 8, 10, 14-15. Elements 12 and 14 attach in a plurality of locations vertically separated via attachment 58. More, in Figure 10 of Higgins depicts attachments 58 directly connected to panels 18 and supports 14 via vertically spaced fasteners 44 as explained in the response to argument section above), wherein both the at least two supports and the at least one panel are designed in order for cabin components to be fastened thereon (Col. 2, lines 35-68. Figures 8, 14-15).
Regarding claim 2, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein in a state of being fastened on the aircraft structure (Figures 1, 8, 14 and 15), the supports are designed for connecting to the panel in a region remote from the cabin floor (Figures 1, 8, 14 and 15).
Regarding claim 4, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein each of the supports has a shape adapted to the shaping of the side wall of the aircraft structure (Figures 1 and 8. Col. 3, lines 54-58).
Regarding claim 5, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein each of the supports has a C-shaped cross section which is open in the direction of the side wall (Col. 3, lines 54-58).
Regarding claim 6, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein each of the supports is provided with a pattern of holes in order for cabin components and/or a panel to be fastened thereon (Figures 2-5, elements 38, 40, 44, and 48).
Regarding claim 7, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the at least one panel is designed in the form of a sandwich panel (the abstract and Col. 3, lines 66-67 teach that the panels are made of “honeycomb material in accordance with standard aircraft practice”. Examiner takes Official Notice that honeycomb panels are known in the art to be made with a honeycomb core sandwiched between two flat panels. For extrinsic supporting evidence, see “Honeycomb in Aerospace” published by Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum on YouTube NPL).
Regarding claim 9, Higgins teaches an aircraft structure comprising a horizontal cabin floor and side walls which extend in the vertical direction in relation thereto (as depicted in Figure 1 and cited previously in claim 1), wherein points of attachment are provided in the region of the side wall (Figures 1, 8, 14-15; attachment points 16 and 22), and the apparatus according to claim 1 is attached at these points of attachment (Figures 1, 8, 14-15).
Regarding claim 12, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 4, wherein each of the supports has a curvature adapted to the side wall (Figures 1 and 8. Col. 3, lines 54-58).
Regarding claim 13, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 5, wherein, for each of the supports, the C-shaped cross section which is open in the direction of the side wall is designed for partially accommodating frame members which run on the side wall (Col. 3, lines 54-58).
Regarding claim 14, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 6, wherein, for each of the supports, the pattern of holes corresponds to a rectangular grid or extends over all the flanges or webs of the profile of the support (Figures 2-5, elements 38, 40, 44, and 48).
Regarding claim 15, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein the two vertically spaced-apart points of connection are vertically spaced apart along a same support (as depicted in Figure 10 and explained in the response to arguments section).
Regarding claim 16, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 1, wherein each of the at least two vertically spaced-apart defined points of attachment of the aircraft structure are vertically spaced apart from the two vertically spaced-apart points of connection (as depicted in Figure 10 and explained in the response to arguments section).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US Patent No. 5201831).
Regarding claim 8, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the supports comprise at least three vertical supports, wherein the points of connection of the at least one panel are designed such that the spacings between two respectively adjacent supports connected thereto are equal. However, Figures 14-15 depict a plurality of vertical supports equally spaced for one segment of one side of an aircraft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate a plurality of Higgins systems in an aircraft such that the aircraft interior shell could span the length of the interior of the aircraft fuselage, in order to provide a complete aircraft shell that isolates the interior of an aircraft from the outdoor engine sound (as taught by Col. 1, lines 35-40 of Higgins), since it has been held that mere duplication of working parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Regarding claim 11, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 9, but fails to specifically teach wherein the aircraft structure is the aircraft structure of a passenger aircraft and the apparatus is arranged in the passenger cabin. However, Higgins specifically teaches that the interior aircraft shell system is used to isolate the interior of an aircraft from the outdoor engine sound (as taught by Col. 1, lines 35-40 of Higgins). More, Examiner took Official Notice in the Non-Final rejection dated 5/20/2025 that aircraft are known in the art to carry passengers and cargo. The applicant’s failure to successfully traverse the official notice renders such notice admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to suggest that Higgins system of isolating the interior cabin of an aircraft from external sound is made specifically for passengers inside the cabin, in order to provide a more comfortable form of travel free of loud noises.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higgins et al. (US Patent No. 5201831) in view of Koefinger et al. (US 20110024565 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein each of the supports has a fastener configured for fastening on a seat rail, which runs on the cabin floor, and/or a fastener configured for fastening at a point of attachment for the lower bracket for overhead stowage bins. However, use of fasteners attached to supports to connect side trim panels connected to floors, ceiling trim panels, and luggage compartments are well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 2 and 8 and ¶ [0051] of Koefinger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the support fasteners into Higgins interior shell system, in order to attach side trim panels connected to floors, ceiling trim panels, and luggage compartments to the main supports (as taught by Koefinger).
Regarding claim 10, Higgins teaches the invention in claim 9, but fails to specifically teach wherein at least some of the points of attachment are formed by a seat rail, which runs on the cabin floor, and/or points of attachment for the lower bracket for overhead stowage bins. However, use of fasteners attached to supports to connect side trim panels connected to floors, ceiling trim panels, and luggage compartments are well known in the art as is evidenced by Figures 2 and 8 and ¶ [0051] of Koefinger. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to incorporate the support fasteners into Higgins interior shell system, in order to attach side trim panels connected to floors, ceiling trim panels, and luggage compartments to the main supports (as taught by Koefinger).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 Monday-Tuesday: 0500-1400, Thursday-Friday 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
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644