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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 refers to an aircraft cabin that does not appear to be required by the claims. Examiner suggest amending the claims to clearly indicated the functional relationship of the aircraft cabin, e.g., seat unit configured to be arranged in an angle to an aisle of the aircraft cabin.
Claim 7 is ambiguous. A suggestion such as the following is suggested to improve the clarity of the claim language: The passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein each of the first seat and the second seat comprise a separate egress access to the aisle.
Claims 14 and 15 attempt to further limit the seating arrangement by defining an aircraft cabin that is not required by the claims. Examiner suggests amending the claims to clearly indicate the seating arrangement is configured for an aircraft cabin comprising a single aisle or twin aisle, respectively.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 16 and 19 each recite limitations comprising the word “similarly”, which render the respective claims indefinite as it is unclear if the associated limitation requires an identical state or a resembling state. And, if a resembling state is required, to what degree? For example, in the instance of claim 1 which reads “a second similarly to the aisle angled seat unit behind the first”, how is the degree of similarity constituting infringement on the claim defined? Likewise, for claims 16 and 19. Claims 2-15 and 17-18 do not cure the deficiencies. Correction/clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the first and second seats are arranged in a substantially parallel configuration the seat unit”. This is indefinite because it is unclear if the seats are required to be configured parallel in the seat unit or not.
Correction/clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rousse et al. (US 2023/0002056 A1), hereinafter Rousse.
Regarding claim 1, Rousse discloses a passenger seating arrangement for an aircraft cabin (arrangement 11, at least Fig. 5), comprising:
a first seat unit arranged in an angle (A1, §[0049]) to an aisle of the aircraft cabin (front group 21) and comprising a first seat (12.1 of front group) and an adjacent second seat (12.2 of front group), wherein the first seat is next to the aisle (Fig. 5) and is forward offset relative to the second seat by a first offset (see annotated Fig. 5),
a second similarly to the aisle angled seat unit behind the first seat unit (rear group 21) and comprising a third seat (12.1 of rear group) and an adjacent fourth seat (12.2 of rear group), wherein the third seat is next to the aisle and is forward offset relative to the fourth seat by the first offset (Fig. 5),
wherein each of the seats comprises a back rest (14) and a seat pan (15) and is configured for an adjustment range between an upright position (sitting, Fig. 5) and a reclined position (bed position, Fig. 6; §[0041]: The “seating” position and the “bed” position are configurations of the seat 13 in two extreme positions. Preferably, the seat 13 can also take intermediate positions, so-called “relaxing” positions, between these two extreme positions), each seat is provided with a leg space in front of the seat having a width defined by the width of the seat pan (23), and the first seat unit and the second seat unit and the seats thereof are angled towards the aisle such that:
the width of the leg space of the third seat of the second seat unit does not extend underneath the first seat and the second seat of the first seat unit (best seen in Figs. 3-4 and detailed in §[0060]),
the width of the leg space of the fourth seat of the second seat unit does not extend underneath the second seat of the first seat unit and extends only partially underneath the first seat of the first seat unit (best seen in Figs. 3-4 and detailed in §[0060]),
the second seat is forward offset relative to the first seat in relation to the aisle by a second offset (see annotated Fig. 5), and
the fourth seat is forward offset relative to the third seat in relation to the aisle by the second offset (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
489
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the angle of the seat units to the aisle measured as an angle between the centre line between the two seats (in the case where axes X2 of the seat of the same unit or group 21 are parallel, as in §[0051]) the centre line of the aisle (X1) is in the range of 15 to 50 degrees (specifically 16-30 degrees, §§[0049]-[0050]).
If Applicant argues that this does not encompass the claimed range of 15-50 degrees, please see alternative rejection in the 35 USC §103 rejections section below.
Regarding claim 4, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the first and second seats are arranged in a substantially parallel configuration in the seat unit (§[0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the first and second passenger seats are angled relative to each other in the seat unit (A1 and A2, as detailed in the instance of §[0051]: the axes X2 of the seats 13 of the same group 21 form different angles with respect to the longitudinal axis X1 of the aircraft cabin 10. In this case, the axes X2 of two adjacent seats 13 of a group 21 preferably intersect towards the rear of the group 21 of seats).
Regarding claim 6, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, comprising a separate egress for the first seats and the second seats of the angled seat units for access to the aisle (separate access passages 23 and 24).
Regarding claim 7, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, comprising a shared egress for the first seats and second seats of the seat units for access to the aisle (Examiner notes the first and second seats can share access passage 23).
Regarding claim 8, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the plan view of the second seat is a mirror image of the first seat (can be seen in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein shape of at least one corner of the first and/or second seat is formed depending on the positioning of the seat units relative to the cabin walls and/or the aisle (can be seen in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein shape of at least one corner of a leg rest of the first and/or second seat is formed for enabling direct access from the adjacent seat to the aisle (17/18, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the reclined position comprises semi-reclined position (§[0041], reproduced in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the reclined position comprises a full flat position (“bed” position, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 12, wherein the fourth seat in the full flat position is tilted such that the leg end of the fourth seat partially extends under the first seat (via console 18).
Regarding claim 14, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the aircraft cabin comprises a single aisle cabin (as in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the aircraft cabin comprises a twin aisle cabin (as detailed in §[0071]: Alternatively, the aircraft cabin 10 may include two aisles 25 each defined by a central column of groups 21 of seat units 12.1. 12.2 and a side column of groups 21 of corresponding seat units 12.1, 12.2).
Regarding claim 16, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 15, wherein the middle column of seats comprises seat units comprising seats angled and offset similarly to first and second seat units on a window side of the aisle (§[0071] reproduced above).
Regarding claims 17-18, claims 1, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2014/0300152 A1), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a passenger seating arrangement for an aircraft cabin (Fig. 12), comprising:
a first seat unit arranged in an angle to an aisle of the aircraft cabin (annotated Fig. 12) and comprising a first seat (annotated Fig. 12) and an adjacent second seat (annotated Fig. 12), wherein the first seat is next to the aisle (Fig. 12) and is forward offset relative to the second seat by a first offset (annotated Fig. 12),
a second similarly to the aisle angled seat unit behind the first seat unit (annotated Fig. 12) and comprising a third seat (annotated Fig. 12) and an adjacent fourth seat (annotated Fig. 12), wherein the third seat is next to the aisle and is forward offset relative to the fourth seat by the first offset (Fig. 12),
wherein each of the seats comprises a back rest (104) and a seat pan (106) and is configured for an adjustment range between an upright position (sitting, Fig. 5) and a reclined position (§[0033], Each personal unit is configurable in a seat mode and a bed mode), each seat is provided with a leg space in front of the seat having a width defined by the width of the seat pan (Fig. 12), and the first seat unit and the second seat unit and the seats thereof are angled towards the aisle such that:
the width of the leg space of the third seat of the second seat unit does not extend underneath the first seat and the second seat of the first seat unit (best seen in Figs. 3-4 and detailed in §[0060]),
the width of the leg space of the fourth seat of the second seat unit does not extend underneath the second seat of the first seat unit and extends only partially underneath the first seat of the first seat unit (Fig. 12),
the second seat is forward offset relative to the first seat in relation to the aisle by a second offset (see annotated Fig. 5), and
the fourth seat is forward offset relative to the third seat in relation to the aisle by the second offset (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
701
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the aircraft cabin comprises a twin aisle cabin (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 15, wherein the middle column of seats comprises at least three angled and offset seats (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 18, Park discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 17, wherein the columns of seats to the left from the left aisle comprise rows of left seat units angled towards the left aisle (Fig. 12) and
columns of seats to the right from the right aisle comprise right seat units angled towards the right aisle (Fig. 12), and
rows of seats of the middle column of seats comprise corresponding left seat units and adjacent right seat units, the left seat units being angled towards the right aisle (Fig. 12) and the right seat units being angled towards the left aisle (Fig. 12).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousse.
Regarding claim 2, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, wherein the angle of the seat units to the aisle measured as an angle between the centre line between the two seats (in the case where axes X2 of the seat of the same unit or group 21 are parallel, as in §[0051]) the centre line of the aisle (X1), but does not appear to specifically disclose the angle is in the range of 15 to 50 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the range 15 to 50 degrees, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The benefit being using the most optimal angle of the seat unit to the aisle for an efficient and accessible arrangement given the space in the intended cabin.
Regarding claim 3, modified Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 2, wherein the angle is about 38 degrees (§§ [0049]-[0050]).
If Applicant argues that this does not encompass an angle of about 38 degrees, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the angle about 38 degrees, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The benefit being using the most optimal angle of the seat unit to the aisle for an efficient and accessible arrangement given the space in the intended cabin.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousse, as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Vergnaud et al. (US 2012/0292957), hereinafter Vergnaud.
Regarding claim 19, Rousse discloses the passenger seating arrangement of claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first seat unit and second seat unit comprise at least one further similarly angled and offset seat.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an additional seat or seats so that each unit could comprise at least one further seat, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8, with a reasonable expectation of success. The benefit being the predictable outcome of providing seating for more passengers in the arrangement and/or utilizing an optimal amount of cabin area for seating in the intended aircraft cabin.
Additionally, Vergnaud teaches a passenger seating arrangement for an aircraft cabin that comprises a unit of three angled and offset seats (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the passenger seating arrangement disclosed by Rousse with the teachings of a unit comprising three similarly angled and offset seats taught by Vergnaud, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the first seat unit and second seat unit comprise at least one further similarly angled and offset seat to yield the predictable benefit of providing seating for more passengers in the arrangement and/or utilizing an optimal amount of cabin area for seating in the intended aircraft cabin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Plant (US 2009/0146004 A1) teaches a seating arrangement for an aircraft cabin comprising units of seats with an offset angle to center axis of the aisle. Other arrangements are possible, including rows with four or more seat groups, and rows with seat groups having differing numbers of seats per seat group.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANNA DANIELLE GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)272-8861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 -4:30, see teams for updates.
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 Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/Shanna Danielle Glover/Examiner, Art Unit 3642