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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27th March 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5 line 1, “…a first end…” should read “…the first end…” as positively recited in claim 1
In claim 5 line 2, “…a second end…” should read “…the second end…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 20 line 1, “…the additional support element…” should read “…the one or more additional support elements…” for the purpose of consistency in the use of a term in a 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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 1 recites “wherein the structural column is configured to redistribute a force load through the vehicle and to at least one other structural component in the vehicle” and
“wherein the structural column is load-bearing and wherein a portion of a first end of the structural column spans through the first interior surface and is attached to one or both of: a second lateral component and a second longitudinal component;
wherein a portion of a second end of the structural column spans through the second interior surface and is attached to one or both of: a first lateral component and a first longitudinal component” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if “at least one other structural component” comprises “a first lateral component, a first longitudinal component, a second lateral component and a second longitudinal component” as the structural column is connected to and can redistribute a force load to all i.e., at least one other structural component, a first lateral component, a first longitudinal component, a second lateral component and a second longitudinal component. For the examination purpose “at least one other structural component” is considered to comprise “a first lateral component, a first longitudinal component, a second lateral component and a second longitudinal component”, and the limitation is interpreted as:
“wherein the structural column is configured to redistribute a force load through the vehicle and to at least one other structural component, including a first lateral component, a first longitudinal component, a second lateral component or a second longitudinal component, in the vehicle;
wherein the structural column is load-bearing and wherein a portion of a first end of the structural column spans through the first interior surface and is attached to one or both of: the second lateral component and the second longitudinal component;
wherein a portion of a second end of the structural column spans through the second interior surface and is attached to one or both of: the first lateral component and the first longitudinal component”.
Claims not addressed above are rejected due to their dependency on rejected base claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trickey et al. (US 4,525,010).
Regarding claims 1-2 (as best understood), Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) a vehicle/aircraft (Col. 2 Lines 57-58), comprising:
a structural column/structure (14) positioned between a first and second interior surfaces of the vehicle, wherein the first interior surface is a ceiling/ cabin roof structure (19) of the vehicle and the second interior surface is a floor/ floor structure (17) of the vehicle (Col. 2 Lines 66-68; Col. 3 Lines 1-3, 19-21); and
a seating assembly (11) attached to a first surface of the structural column/structure (14), wherein the seating assembly comprises a seating surface/seat bucket (12) and a seat back (13) (Col. 2 Lines 57-60; seating assembly is on one side/first surface of the structure (14));
wherein the structural column/structure (14) is configured to redistribute a force load through the vehicle and to at least one other structural component, including a first lateral component/former, a first longitudinal component/longeron, a second lateral component/former or a second longitudinal component/longeron, in the vehicle (structural column/structure (14) is connected to and transfers force load to a first/cabin roof structure (19) and second/floor structure (17) interior surfaces of the vehicle; both first/cabin roof structure (19) and second/floor structure (17) interior surfaces are directly or indirectly connected to formers and longerons of fuselage, thus the structural column/structure (14) redistribute a force load to at least one of a former/lateral component and longeron/longitudinal component; there are multiple formers and longerons in an aircraft); and
wherein the structural column/structure (14) is load-bearing and wherein a portion of a first end of the structural column/structure (14) spans through the first interior surface and is attached to one or both of: the second lateral component/former and the second longitudinal component/longeron;
wherein a portion of a second end of the structural column/structure (14) spans through the second interior surface and is attached to one or both of: the first lateral component/former and the first longitudinal component/longeron (structural column/structure (14) carries weight of a seating assembly (11), thus is load-bearing; structural column/structure (14) is attached/fixed to the first/cabin roof structure (19) and second/floor structure (17) interior surfaces; both first/cabin roof structure (19) and second/floor structure (17) interior surfaces are directly or indirectly connected to formers and longerons of fuselage, thus the structural column/structure (14) redistribute a force load to at least one of a former and longeron;).
Regarding claim 3, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the vehicle/aircraft wherein the structural column/structure (14) is a continuous element comprising a first portion and a second portion (clearly shown in the figure below).
(Note: limitation “wherein the second portion may be angled relative to the first portion” is an optional limitation due to use of “may be”)
PNG
media_image1.png
696
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the vehicle/aircraft wherein a second portion comprises an opening positioned below the seating assembly (clearly shown in the figure above).
Regarding claim 10, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) an aircraft (Col. 2 Lines 57-58), comprising:
a load-bearing element/structure (14) attached to a first interior surface at a first end and attached to a second interior surface at a second end, wherein the first interior surface is a ceiling/cabin roof structure (19) of the aircraft and the second interior surface is a floor/ floor structure (17) of the aircraft (Col. 2 Lines 66-68; Col. 3 Lines 1-3, 19-21); and
a pilot seat/seat assembly (11) that is coupled to the load-bearing element/structure (14) and is oriented in a first direction (clearly seen in figure 1) (Col. 2 Lines 57-60);
wherein the load-bearing element/structure (14) is configured to provide structural support against a force load experienced during operation of the aircraft (load-bearing element/structure (14) is connected to and transfers force load to a cabin roof structure (19) and floor structure (17) thus providing structural support);
wherein a portion of a first end of the load-bearing element/structure (14) spans through the ceiling and is attached to one or both of: the second lateral component/former and the second longitudinal component/longeron;
wherein a portion of a second end of the load-bearing element/structure (14) spans through the second interior surface and is attached to one or both of: the first lateral component/former and the first longitudinal component/longeron (load-bearing element/structure (14) is attached/fixed to the first/cabin roof structure (19) and second/floor structure (17) interior surfaces; both first/cabin roof structure (19) and second/floor structure (17) interior surfaces are directly or indirectly connected to formers and longerons of fuselage, thus the structural column/structure (14) redistribute a force load to at least one of a former/lateral component and longeron/longitudinal component; there are multiple formers and longerons in an aircraft).
Regarding claim 13, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the aircraft wherein a height of the pilot seat is adjustable (Col. 3 Lines 36-37).
Regarding claim 18, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) a method of redistributing a force load experienced by a vehicle/aircraft (Col. 2 Lines 57-58), the method comprising:
receiving, at a support column/structure (14) positioned within a cabin of the vehicle, the force load, wherein the support column/structure (14) is positioned between a first interior surface and second interior surface of the vehicle, wherein the first interior surface is a ceiling/ cabin roof structure (19) of the vehicle and the second interior surface is a floor/ floor structure (17) of the vehicle (Col. 2 Lines 66-68; Col. 3 Lines 1-3, 19-21; support column/structure receives force load from the seat assembly (11)); and
redistributing, via connection of the support column/structure (14) with one or more additional support elements, the force load to the one or more additional support elements including a first lateral component/former, a second lateral component/former, first longitudinal component/longeron, and a second longitudinal component/longeron (support column/structure (14) is connected to and transfers force load to a first/cabin roof structure (19) and second/floor structure (17) interior surfaces of the vehicle; both first/cabin roof structure (19) and second/floor structure (17) interior surfaces are directly or indirectly connected to formers and longerons of fuselage, thus the support column/structure (14) redistribute a force load to at least one of a former and longeron; there are multiple formers/lateral components and longerons/longitudinal components in an aircraft);
wherein the support column/structure (14) is load-bearing and wherein a portion of a first end of the support column/structure (14) spans through the first interior surface and is attached to one or both of: the second lateral component/former and the second longitudinal component/longeron;
wherein a portion of a second end of the support column/structure (14) spans through the second interior surface and is attached to one or both of: the first lateral component/former and the first longitudinal component/longeron (support column/structure (14) carries weight of a seating assembly (11), thus is load-bearing; support column/structure (14) is attached/fixed to the first/cabin roof structure (19) and second/floor structure (17) interior surfaces; both first interior structure/cabin roof structure (19) and second interior structure/floor structure (17) are directly or indirectly connected to formers and longerons of fuselage, thus the support column/structure (14) redistribute a force load to at least one of a former and longeron;).
Regarding claim 19, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the method wherein the support column/structure (14) comprises a seating assembly (11) attached to a first surface of the support column/structure (14) (Col. 2 Lines 57-60; seating assembly is on one side/first surface of the structure (14)).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trickey et al. (US 4,525,010) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Elbe (DE 202018105402).
Regarding claim 5, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the vehicle/aircraft of claim 3 but it is silent about the vehicle wherein dimensions of the first end of the structural column located in the first portion are different than dimensions of the second end of the structural column located in the second portion.
Elbe ‘402 teaches (figure 1) a seat device (10) with a primary support structures (14s) with interfaces (28) on the ground (30) and ceiling (32) wherein the dimensions between two primary support structures (14s) on the ceiling end/first end are different than dimensions between two primary support structures (14s) on the ground end/second end (clearly seen in figure 1) (English Translation Pg. 3 Para 14-15; Pg. 4 Para 6).
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 Trickey et al. ‘010 to incorporate the teachings of Elbe ‘402 to configure the vehicle wherein dimensions of the first end of the structural column located in the first portion are different than dimensions of the second end of the structural column located in the second portion.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance stability of the vehicle seat.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trickey et al. (US 4,525,010) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of St-Pierre et al. (US 2022/0411070).
Regarding claim 6, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the vehicle/aircraft of claim 1 but it is silent about the vehicle wherein the at least one other structural component is a keel beam positioned beneath the structural column.
St-Pierre et al. ‘070 teaches a seating system for an aircraft comprising a pallet configured to cover at least a portion of an aircraft floor and comprising; one or more receptacles configured to receive an attachment mechanism from a seat; a first plurality of holes configured for attachment to the aircraft floor by a first plurality of bolts; and a second plurality of holes configured for attachment by a second plurality of bolts; and a keel tension fitting comprising; one or more horizontal flanges comprising one or more holes and configured to be coupled to a bottom side of the aircraft floor and to the pallet by the second plurality of bolts; one or more vertical flanges comprising two or more holes and configured to be coupled to a keel beam of the aircraft by a third plurality of bolts (Para 0003).
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 Trickey et al. ‘010 to incorporate the teachings of St-Pierre et al. ‘070 to configure the vehicle wherein the at least one other structural component is a keel beam positioned beneath the structural column.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would allow seating assembly to withstand greater stresses and forces, resulting in increased safety (Abstract).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trickey et al. (US 4,525,010) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US 2007/0164152).
Regarding claim 7, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the vehicle/aircraft of claim 1 but it is silent about the vehicle wherein the structural column is further configured to at least partially deform to absorb at least a portion of the force load.
Anderson et al. ‘152 teaches an aircraft forward pressure bulkhead/structural column having a malleable dome that is configured to deform in response to a threshold amount of impact energy caused by a foreign object strike, thus absorbing and dissipating at least a portion of the impact energy (Para 0007; structural column and bulkhead both extends in the vertical direction).
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 Trickey et al. ‘010 to incorporate the teachings of Anderson et al. ‘152 to configure the vehicle wherein the structural column is further configured to at least partially deform to absorb at least a portion of the force load.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would absorb the force load and dissipate only a portion of force load to other structural components.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trickey et al. (US 4,525,010) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Munday (US 2016/0257247).
Regarding claim 8, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the vehicle/aircraft of claim 1 but it is silent about the vehicle further comprising a display screen positioned on a second surface of the structural column, wherein the second surface is located opposite the first surface.
Munday ‘247 teaches (figure 1) a seat back of a modern aircraft wherein includes a display screen (16) that is used to present various television shows, news, and movie entertainment programs, flight status updates, advertisements, safety messages and so on. (Para 0036).
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 Trickey et al. ‘010 to incorporate the teachings of Munday ‘247 to configure the vehicle further comprising a display screen positioned on a second surface of the structural column, wherein the second surface is located opposite the first surface.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance passenger experience of a passenger seating behind the seating assembly.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trickey et al. (US 4,525,010) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cazals et al. (US 2018/0009532).
Regarding claim 9, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the vehicle/aircraft of claim 1 but it is silent about the vehicle wherein the seating assembly comprises a control device configured to control movement of the vehicle.
Cazals et al. ‘532 teaches (figure 1) a seat (12) comprising two armrests (A1, A2) housing the flight controls (22) (Para 0070).
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 Trickey et al. ‘010 to incorporate the teachings of Cazals et al. ‘532 to configure the vehicle wherein the seating assembly comprises a control device configured to control movement of the vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide easy access to controllers to control the vehicle operations.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trickey et al. (US 4,525,010).
Regarding claim 11, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the aircraft of claim 10 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the aircraft is an electric take-off and landing vehicle.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the electric take-off and landing vehicle is well known in the art. 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 Trickey et al. ‘010 to configure the aircraft wherein the aircraft is an electric take-off and landing vehicle.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would operate an aircraft using only an electric power.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trickey et al. (US 4,525,010) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Cazals et al. (US 2018/0009532).
Regarding claim 14, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the aircraft of claim 10 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the pilot seat comprises an arm rest and a control device attached to the arm rest.
Cazals et al. ‘532 teaches (figure 1) a seat (12) comprising two armrests (A1, A2) housing the flight controls (22) (Para 0070).
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 Trickey et al. ‘010 to incorporate the teachings of Cazals et al. ‘532 to configure the aircraft wherein the pilot seat comprises an arm rest and a control device attached to the arm rest.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide easy access to controllers to control the vehicle operations.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trickey et al. (US 4,525,010) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Munday (US 2016/0257247).
Regarding claim 15, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the aircraft of claim 10 but it is silent about the aircraft further comprising display screen, positioned on a second surface of the load-bearing element, which is configured to present media content selected from a group consisting of: flight status information, entertainment media, and alert notifications.
Munday ‘247 teaches (figure 1) a seat back of a modern aircraft wherein includes a display screen (16) that is used to present various television shows, news, and movie entertainment programs, flight status updates, advertisements, safety messages/alert notifications and so on. (Para 0036).
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 Trickey et al. ‘010 to incorporate the teachings of Munday ‘247 to configure the aircraft further comprising display screen, positioned on a second surface of the load-bearing element, which is configured to present media content selected from a group consisting of: flight status information, entertainment media, and alert notifications.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance passenger experience of a passenger seating behind the seating assembly.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trickey et al. (US 4,525,010) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Carnes et al. (US 2020/0216189).
Regarding claims 16-17, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the aircraft of claim 10 but it is silent about the aircraft further comprising one or more passenger seats positioned in an area behind the pilot seat, and
wherein one or more passenger seats are each oriented toward the first direction.
Carnes et al. ‘189 teaches (figures 1-5) an aircraft (100) comprising a seat layout comprising four passenger seats (120) and a pilot seat (122) located within the cabin (104) wherein four passenger seats (120s) are positioned in an area behind the pilot seat (122) and wherein all four passenger seats (120s) and the pilot seat (122) are oriented in a same direction (clearly seen in figure 4) (Para 0014).
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 Trickey et al. ‘010 to incorporate the teachings of Carnes et al. ‘189 to configure the aircraft further comprising one or more passenger seats positioned in an area behind the pilot seat, and
wherein one or more passenger seats are each oriented toward the first direction.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable aircraft to transport passengers.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trickey et al. (US 4,525,010) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of St-Pierre et al. (US 2022/0411070).
Regarding claim 20, Trickey et al. ‘010 teaches (figures 1-8) the method of claim 18 but it is silent about the method wherein the additional support element is a keel beam.
St-Pierre et al. ‘070 teaches a seating system for an aircraft comprising a pallet configured to cover at least a portion of an aircraft floor and comprising; one or more receptacles configured to receive an attachment mechanism from a seat; a first plurality of holes configured for attachment to the aircraft floor by a first plurality of bolts; and a second plurality of holes configured for attachment by a second plurality of bolts; and a keel tension fitting comprising; one or more horizontal flanges comprising one or more holes and configured to be coupled to a bottom side of the aircraft floor and to the pallet by the second plurality of bolts; one or more vertical flanges comprising two or more holes and configured to be coupled to a keel beam of the aircraft by a third plurality of bolts (Para 0003).
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 Trickey et al. ‘010 to incorporate the teachings of St-Pierre et al. ‘070 to configure the method wherein the additional support element is a keel beam.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would allow seating assembly to withstand greater stresses and forces, resulting in increased safety (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27th March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Trickey ‘010’s twin guide tubes (15a, 15b) are not structural members of the aircraft, but rather, they are part of the seat mechanism and depend upon surrounding cabin structure for attachment and reaction of loads, specifically, the twin guide tubes 15a, 15b neither function as nor are described as a vehicle structural column positioned between the cabin's primary surfaces for load distribution. However, as explained in the rejection above and as shown in figure 1, structure (14) comprising guide tubes (15a, 15b) are positioned between cabin roof structure (19) and floor structure (17) i.e., cabin’s primary surfaces, and since the structure (14) connects cabin roof structure (19) and floor structure (17), structure (14) is structural column which distribute loads between cabin roof structure (19) and floor structure (17).
In response to applicant’s argument that “claim 10 recites a "load-bearing element attached to a first interior surface at a first end and attached to a second interior surface at a second end" and claim 18 recites "wherein the structural column is load-bearing and is fixed to the first and second interior surfaces", the structural column is attached/fixed to the interior surface using pivot joint, and pivot joint enables the structural column/support structure to pivot.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights