DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 12/02/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority or Provisional
Priority to 06/03/2022 is recognized.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/02/2024 are acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Woodington (US 2021/0347483) in view of Giroux (US 2021/0188329).
Regarding claim 1, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A train seat layout with a first train seat module comprising a passenger seat and with a second train seat module comprising a passenger seat, ……… characterized in that wherein the passenger seats of the train seat modules are in each case configured to be pivotable between a first seat position, which is oriented in a first direction, and a second seat position, which is oriented in a second direction, wherein the passenger seat of the first train seat module in its first seat position directly faces towards the table unit for use, and the passenger seat of the second train seat module in its second seat position directly faces towards the table unit for use. Woodington, Paras. [0020], [0045], and Fig. 4, discloses a passenger seat layout comprising a first seat module with a passenger seat 301 and a second seat module comprising a passenger seat 501, separated by a shared table 304, 504. Also teaches that the passenger seats 301, 501 are configured to be pivotable between a first seat position oriented in a first direction and a second seat position oriented in a second direction. Specifically teaches that the seats are “…. rotatably mounted upon the cabin floor and are rotatable through 90 degrees to a position in which they face one another”, and “…. seats may be rotatable by at least 140 degrees, and preferably by at least 160 degrees, or more preferably, by 180 degrees”. And further teaches that in these pivoted positions, the seats directly face toward the table unit for use, stating “…. can rotate their seats 301, 501 to face one another so that they can, for example, dine or work together at a shared table surface ….”.
Woodington does not explicitly disclose:
the train seat modules being arranged adjacently in a longitudinal seat row on a side of an aisle in a passenger compartment, and with a table unit which is configured to be mounted on a side-panel side and is arranged between the first train seat module and the second train seat module,
However, Giroux, Paras. [0023]-[0025], [0027]-[0032], Fig. 2, teaches a train seat layout within a passenger rail vehicle. A first train seat 20 and a second train seat 20 arranged adjacently in a longitudinal seat row on a side of an aisle within the passenger compartment. And further teaches a table unit 22 that is configured to be mounted on a side-panel side (side wall 1), and is arranged longitudinally between the first train seat module and the second train seat module, stating “… the table 22 is attached either to the side wall 16 …. When two perch seats 20 are located one on each side of the table 22, the table 22 is typically symmetrical ….”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to modify the passenger layout of Woodington by adapting it to the train system and longitudinal side panel mounted table as taught by Giroux, in order to optimize floor space and keep the aisle clear.
Regarding claim 2, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1. Woodington discloses the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 1, wherein the passenger seats are configured to be pivoted between their first seat position and their second seat position by an angle that is in an angle range of 90 degrees to 135 degrees. Woodington, Paras. [0020], [0045]-[0052], and Fig. 4, discloses that the seats are “… rotatably mounted upon the cabin floor and are rotatable through 90 degrees…”. And further teaches that the seats “… may be rotatable …., preferably by at least 70 or 90 degrees” which falls within the claimed range of 90 to 135 degrees.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1. Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 1, wherein the passenger seat of the first train seat module in its first seat position and the passenger seat of the second train seat module in its second seat position form a conjoint seat group, wherein the table unit arranged between them can be used from both passenger seats of the conjoint seat group. Woodington, Paras. [0020], [0042]-[0045], and Figs. 3-4, discloses that the arrangement creates a seat group, stating that passengers “…can rotate their seats 301, 501 to face one another so that they can, for example, dine or work together at a shared table surface that is formed by tables 304, 504 belonging to each seat unit 300, 500”. Also teaches that a separate “… table 130 can also be deployed … , between the second and third seat units 5, 7, as shown in FIG. 3, so that passengers in the second and third seat units 5, 7 can share the table 130 to, for example, dine or work together”.
Giroux, Paras. [0027]-[0032], Fig. 2, also teaches a table arrangement between adjacent seats that is used by both passengers, stating “… the table 22 is conveniently placed to be used by passengers leaning against the adjacent perch seats 20 …”
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1. Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 1, wherein the table unit comprises a table base body forming a main table surface and having a first table front edge that is oriented at least substantially orthogonally to the passenger seat of the first train seat module in its first seat position, and having a second table front edge that is oriented at least substantially orthogonally to the passenger seat of the second train seat module in its second seat position. Woodington, Paras. [0042]-[0045], [0052], and Figs. 3-4, discloses that the passenger seats are rotatable (90 degrees) to face one another to use a shared table surface for dining or working. When the seats are pivoted to face the table, then the relationship between the forward orientation of the seat and the opposing angle of the table is perpendicular (orthogonal).
Giroux, Paras. [0027]-[0032], Fig. 2, also teaches a side-wall mounted table unit 22 that forms a horizontal working surface 29 and has front edges, stating that the table 22 may “… adopt a trapezoidal shape where its front edge 34 is shorter than its back edge 30. …. also have a rounded front edge 34”.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 4. Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 4, wherein in a top view the table base body essentially has a trapezoid shape or a triangle shape. Giroux, Paras. [0012], [0027]-[0032], Figs. 2-3, states that “… the working surface may adopt a trapezoidal shape… ”, and “… the table 22 may adopt a trapezoidal shape where its front edge 34 is shorter than its back edge 30 … the trapezoidal shape of the table 22 is best shown in FIG. 3..”
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1. Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 1, wherein the table unit comprises a first adjustable table element, which is arranged at the table base body and is adjustable into a use position towards the passenger seat of the first train seat module in its first seat position, and/or comprises a second adjustable table element, which is arranged at the table base body and is adjustable into a use position towards the passenger seat of the second train seat module in its second seat position. Woodington in view of Giroux provides a shared table mounted between rotatable passenger seats. While Giroux, Paras. [0012], [0027]-[0032], Figs. 2-3, teaches a fixed table base 22 and Woodington, Para. [0042], teaches a deployable table 130 positioned between seats.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made, to modify the shared table unit of Woodington-Giroux combination to include adjustable tables such as sliding extensions or folding tables that extend toward passenger seats, in order to provide the space needed for the passenger cabin.
Regarding claim 7, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1. Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 1, further comprising a further table unit, which is arranged after the first train seat module in the second direction, wherein the passenger seat of the first train seat module in its second seat position directly faces towards the further table unit for use. Woodington in view of Giroux provides a shared table mounted between rotatable passenger seats. Woodington, Paras. [0020], [0023]-[0024], teaches deploying multiple tables through the passenger cabin to serve various seating configurations. “the cabin may comprise further movable partitions and further rows of seat units …. Configured in the same way”. And a piece of furniture/table may be “deployable into either the first or second aisle”.
Giroux, Paras. [0024], teaches extending the seating layout to accommodate multiple passengers, providing “an open passenger space 10 inside a rail vehicle 12 …. Typically stretches the whole width of the rail vehicle 12 and along a portion of it lengthwise” .
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1. Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 1, further comprising a further table unit, which is arranged after the second train seat module in the first direction, wherein the passenger seat of the second train seat module in its first seat position directly faces towards the further table unit for use. Woodington in view of Giroux provides a shared table mounted between rotatable passenger seats. Woodington, Paras. [0020], [0023]-[0024], teaches deploying multiple tables through the passenger cabin to serve various seating configurations. “the cabin may comprise further movable partitions and further rows of seat units …. Configured in the same way”. And a piece of furniture/table may be “deployable into either the first or second aisle”.
Giroux, Paras. [0024], teaches extending the seating layout to accommodate multiple passengers, providing “an open passenger space 10 inside a rail vehicle 12 …. Typically stretches the whole width of the rail vehicle 12 and along a portion of it lengthwise” .
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1. Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 1, wherein the passenger seat of the train seat module is realized as a lying-down seat which is adjustable between a sitting position and at least a lying-down position. Woodington, Paras. [0037], [0050], Fig. 1, teaches “each seat unit 3, 5, 7 comprises a seat 31, 51, 71 which …. is convertible into a bed”, “… the first and second seats are convertible into a double bed”. A seat that is “convertible into a bed” constitutes a laying-down seat adjustable between a sitting position and a laying-down position.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1. Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 1, wherein the passenger seat of the train seat module is realized as a full-flat lying-down seat and is configured to provide an at least substantially planar lying-down surface with a bed length of at least 170 cm. Woodington, Paras. [0037], [0050], Fig. 1, teaches “… the first and second seats are convertible into a double bed”, as a planar lying-down surface for sleeping.
The specific numerical length of “at least 170 cm”, is an obvious design choice dictated by a standard human height of approximately 170 cm.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1. Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 1, further comprising a stowage and/or deposition unit, which is arranged laterally next to the passenger seat of the train seat module and is configured to be attached on a side-panel side and to provide a stowage region and/or a deposition surface. Woodington, Paras. [0046]-[0050], teaches “… the aircraft cabin 1′ also comprises a table surface 119′ mounted upon the outboard sidewall 15′ that projects into the first aisle 11′ and is usable by passengers seated in either of the aisle seats 115′, 117′ so that passengers seated in the aisle seats 115′, 117′ can, for example, dine or work together at the table surface 119′”. A table surface serves as a “deposition surface”, which is mounted to the outboard sidewall 15’ (i.e., attached to a side-panel side and arranged ….).
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1. Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 13 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 1, wherein the passenger seats of the train seat modules are in each case configured to be oriented towards a side-panel side in their seat positions. Woodington, Paras. [0052]-[0053], teaches that a seat unit “is rotatably mounted upon the cabin floor and is rotatable through 90 degrees to a position in which the seat faces the adjacent sidewall of the cabin”, “Such an arrangement may therefore enable a seat to face into an aisle on a first side of the seat or to face a neighbouring seat unit or sidewall on a second side of the seat”.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1. Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 1, wherein the train seat module comprises an enclosure unit, which at least partially delimits the one passenger zone of the train seat module behind and laterally of the passenger seat, and which is configured to be pivoted together with the passenger seat during an adjustment between the first seat position and the second seat position. Woodington, Paras. [0014], [0037]-[0042], teaches that “at least one of the first, second, or third primary seats may be at least partially enclosed by one or more privacy walls”, “A front privacy wall 32, 52, 72 is located in front of each seat 31, 51, 71 and a rear privacy wall 33, 53, 73 is located behind each seat, the front privacy walls 32, 52, 72 and rear privacy walls 33, 53, 73 extend to a height of 1520 millimetres (60 inches), as measured from the cabin floor, thereby enclosing the seats 31, 51, 71 from the front and the rear”, “Deploying the partitions 131, 132 creates a substantially enclosed private space …”.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1. Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 15 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 1, further comprising at least two further train seat modules and a table unit, which are arranged on a second side of the aisle of the passenger compartment and face towards a second side panel. Woodington, Paras. [0023]-[0025], [0036]-[0037], teaches a cabin layout with a “first and second outboard sidewalls 15, 16”, with aisles running between the seat units. And further teaches that the cabin “may comprise further movable partitions and further rows of seat units … configured in the same way”.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Woodington (US 2021/0347483) in view of Giroux (US 2021/0188329), and further in view of Ferry (US 7,472,957).
Regarding claim 10, Woodington in view of Giroux discloses the limitations of claim 1. Woodington in view of Giroux and Ferry disclose the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The train seat layout according to claim 1, further comprising a foot support element, which is arranged below the table unit and is configured to provide a foot support region for the passenger seats of the first and second train seat modules. Woodington in view of Giroux teaches the seat and table layout, but lack a foot support element.
However, Ferry, Col. 6, ll. 5-11, Col. 7, ll. 42-49, Col. 20, ll. 34-44, Col. 21, ll. 3-13, teaches a separate foot-rest spaced forwardly of a passenger seat to support the feet.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the forwardly spaced foot-rest as taught by Ferry into the space below the shared table of the Woodington-Giroux combination, to provide a resting surface to the passengers, in order to prevent leg fatigues during trip.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Chavarria (US 2020/0172248) teaches a passenger seat having a first side and a second side opposite from the first side. The passenger seat assembly is positionable between a forward-facing configuration and an aft-facing configuration
Glain (US 2021/0402897) teaches a passenger seat with a sitting area, a side ottoman, an open space that may be enclosed via use of a bed extension, and a backrest.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Samuel Morano can be reached on 571-272-6684. 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/patentcenter 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.
/P.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights