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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 8/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the remote controller of Claims 30-33, the two-seater sofa or double bed configuration of Claim 34, ottoman with a hinged seat and a space for storing luggage of Claim 37; must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 30 recites the limitation "the angle adjustment" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the perimeter wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Collins (US PgPub #2023/0286655).
For Claim 29, the figures, abstract, and paragraphs [0043 and 0054] of Collins ‘655 disclose an aircraft cabin comprising a plurality of passenger chairs (11 and 12) positioned side-by-side adjacent each other, each passenger chair of the pair being adjustable between an upright position and a reclined position, each passenger chair of the pair being separately operable by a passenger to adjust the position of the chair independently of the other chair of the pair, and the pair also being operable together such that the position of the pair of chairs can be adjusted simultaneously so that both chairs move in tandem to the same angle of inclination.
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) 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US PgPub #2023/0286655) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Udriste (US PgPub #2013/0113250).
For Claims 30-32, while Collins ‘655 discloses controlling the chairs to adjust the angle of the chairs both independently and simultaneously, it is silent about using a remote controller for it. However, paragraph [0061] of Udriste ‘250 teaches a remote control which controls the movement of chairs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Collins ‘655 with the remote control of Udriste ‘250. The motivation to do so would be to provide easy control of the chair system.
For Claim 33, the figures, abstract, and paragraphs [0043 and 0054] of Collins ‘655 disclose that each passenger chair has an inner arm rest (13) and an outer arm rest (14 and 15) and the inner arm rest (13) is height adjustable, it is silent about using a remote controller for it. However, paragraph [0061] of Udriste ‘250 teaches a remote control which controls the movement of chairs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Collins ‘655 with the remote control of Udriste ‘250. The motivation to do so would be to provide easy control of the chair system.
For Claim 34, the figures, abstract, and paragraphs [0043 and 0054] of Collins ‘655 disclose that when the passenger chairs are in the upright position, the inner arm rests can be lowered to form a two-seater sofa configuration.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US PgPub #2023/0286655) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Veres (US PgPub #2021/0237882).
While Collins ‘655 is silent about the backrest comprising a middle section with lateral wings pivotably connected to the middle section, such that the backrest is adjustable. The figures of Veres ‘882 teach a curvable backrest having a middles section with pivotably connected lateral wings attached to it. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Collins ‘655 with the curvable backrest of Veres ‘882. The motivation to do so would be to provide a more comfortable chair.
Claim(s) 36-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US PgPub #2023/0286655).
For Claims 36-37, while Collins ‘655 is silent about an ottoman with a hinged seat so as to provide a storage space. The Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to have ottomans with storage space within. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Collins with a well-known ottoman with storage space. The motivation to do so would be to provide greater storage.
For Claim 38, while Collins ‘655 is silent about a table that is movably connected to an arm that projects from a wall, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to have a movable wall in an aircraft cabin area so as to provide a table that can be stored out of the way. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify Collins ’655 with a movable table connected to an arm as is well known in the art. The motivation to do so would be to provide a table that can be stored out of the way.
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins (US PgPub #2023/0286655) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Dowty (US PgPub #2020/0262562).
For Claim 42, figures, abstract, and paragraphs [0043 and 0054] of Collins ‘655 disclose a plurality of passenger compartments (10) including at least one double bed passenger compartment, with the double bed compartment being defined by a perimeter wall (1) having two openings to allow access to and from the double bed compartment and comprising the pair of passenger chairs positioned side-by-side adjacent each other, and an upright privacy screen (13) which is movable between a deployed position in which the privacy screen is in the double bed compartment between the passenger chairs and divides the compartment into two separate individual passenger compartments, with the privacy screen forming a common wall between the separate individual compartments, and with each separate individual compartment being accessible via one of the openings.
While Collins ‘655 discloses that the privacy screen is retractable, it is silent about it stowed outside the double bed compartment so that passenger movement in the compartment is not restricted by the privacy screen. However, figure 2 of Dowty ‘562 teaches a privacy screen (214) that can be retracted so that it is stowed at least substantially outside the double bed compartment so that passenger movement in the compartment is not restricted by the privacy screen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Collins ‘655 with the stowed privacy screen of Dowty ‘562. The motivation to do so would be to allow for greater movement of the passengers when the screen is retracted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO -892 which discloses prior art that defines side-by-side seats with a privacy screen.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 9/16/2026
