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 Invention I in the reply filed on May 27, 2026 is acknowledged.
However, by amendment claims 19-29 are cancelled, and claim 13 has been amended to depend from claim 1. As a result, no claims are withdrawn.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A-E in the reply filed on May 27, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the seat assembly of each of Fig. 16A-16E are not different seat assemblies, but rather different representations of how the same bench 30 would react under different loading scenarios” (Remarks, p. 3). This is found persuasive and the requirement for restriction between Species A-E is withdrawn.
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 13-14 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 13 recites “the first portion, the second portion movable about the laterally extending axis semi-independent of the first portion” which is indefinite because “semi-” on independent appears to imply something that is not well-known in the art. It seems that objects would either be independent or not, it’s unclear what lie in between.
Claim 14 recites “the third seat portion movable about the laterally extending axis semi-independent of each of the first seat portion and the second seat portion” which is indefinite because “semi-” on independent appears to imply something that is not well-known in the art. It seems that objects would either be independent or not, it’s unclear what lie in between.
Claims not directly addressed below, are rejected upon dependency of rejected claims 13-14.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kismarton et al. (US 2010/0187894 A1), hereinafter Kismarton.
Regarding claim 1, Kismarton discloses a seat assembly, comprising:
a base assembly (support legs 112, fig. 1);
a seat pan supported by the base assembly (seat pan 200, fig. 2);
a plurality of loading members (plurality of spreader bars 208, fig. 4) positioned below the seat pan (as shown in figs. 2 & 4, spreader bars 208 are positioned below seat pan 200);
the seat pan, comprising:
a first seat portion (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) supported by a first loading member of the plurality of loading members (see one of the spreaders 208, fig. 4);
a second seat portion (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) supported by a second loading member of the plurality of loading members (another one of the spreaders 208, fig. 4);
a weakened portion (Para. [0076], “composite skin 206 may be designed to buckle (within certain limits) to function as an intermediate diagonal tension web (i.e., a post-buckled web)”; see composite skin 206, fig. 2 & 3) extending longitudinally along the seat pan (as shown in fig. 4, composite skin extends longitudinally along the seat pan 200), the weakened portion positioned intermediate the first seat portion and the second seat portion (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
395
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1: annotated image of Kismarton’s fig. 3
Regarding claim 2, Kismarton discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first seat portion is configured to support a first passenger and the second seat portion is configured to support a second passenger (Para. [0045], “Although seat 100 is depicted as a triple seat assembly, the concepts, techniques, features, and technologies described herein can be extended to any practical seat configuration, such as a double seat, a quad seat, a single seat, or a seat configured to accommodate any number of passengers, limited only by practical size restrictions, structural material properties, and aircraft configuration”).
Regarding claim 3, Kismarton discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein at least a portion of the first loading member is laterally aligned with the weakened portion (as shown in annotated fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Kismarton discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the seat pan further comprises a third seat portion (as shown in annotated fig. 1 above) positioned laterally intermediate the first seat portion and the second seat portion (as shown in annotated fig. 1 above), and the weakened portion is a first weakened portion positioned intermediate the first seat portion and the third seat portion, and a second weakened portion extending longitudinally along a portion of the seat pan, the second weakened portion positioned intermediate the third seat portion and the second seat portion (as shown in annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
432
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 2: annotated image of Kismarton’s fig. 3
Regarding claim 5, Kismarton discloses the invention in claim 4, and further discloses wherein at least a portion of the first loading member is laterally aligned with the first weakened portion (as shown in annotated fig. 2 above, one of the spreaders 208 is laterally aligned with the first weakened portion) and at least a portion of the second loading member is laterally aligned with the second weakened portion (as shown in annotated fig. 2 above, one of the other spreaders 208 is laterally aligned with the second weakened portion).
Regarding claim 6, Kismarton discloses the invention in claim 4, and further discloses wherein the first loading member is laterally offset from the first weakened portion (as shown in annotated fig. 3 below, a portion of the first weakened portion is laterally offset from one of the plurality of spreaders 208) and the second loading member is laterally offset from the second weakened portion (as shown in annotated fig. 3 below, a portion of the second weakened portion is laterally offset from one of the plurality of spreaders 208).
PNG
media_image3.png
478
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3: annotated image of Kismarton’s fig. 3
Regarding claim 7, Kismarton discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the weakened portion comprises a first weakened portion and a second weakened portion (as shown in annotated fig. 4 below), wherein the first weakened portion extends vertically through a thickness of the seat pan and the second weakened portion extends vertically partially through the thickness of the seat pan (the composite skin 206 [i.e., weakened portion] extends vertically through a thickness of the seat pan 200; as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Kismarton discloses the invention in claim 7, and further discloses wherein the first weakened portion extends forwardly to a termination point (as shown in annotated fig. 4 below) and the second weakened portion extends forwardly from the termination point (as shown in annotated fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
439
567
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 4: annotated image of Kismarton’s fig. 2
Regarding claim 9, Kismarton discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the seat pan includes a generally concave upper surface (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Kismarton discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses further comprising a seat restraint1 (seat belt anchor 210, figs. 4 & 14), and a portion of the seat restraint is laterally aligned with the weakened portion (as shown in annotated fig. 5 below).
Regarding claim 11, Kismarton discloses the invention in claim 10, and further discloses wherein the weakened portion is a first weakened portion and the seat restraint (seat belt anchor 210, fig. 14) includes a first component (flanges 236, fig. 14) and a second component (flanges 238, fig. 14), and the seat pan further comprises a second weakened portion laterally offset from the first weakened portion (as shown in annotated fig. 5 below), and at least a portion of the first component is laterally aligned with the first weakened portion (as shown in annotated fig. 5 below, and fig. 14, at least a portion of the first component [i.e., flange 236] is laterally aligned with a portion of the first weakened portion) and at least a portion of the second component is laterally aligned with the second weakened portion (as shown in annotated fig. 5 below, and fig. 14, at least a portion of the second component [i.e., flange 238] is laterally aligned with a portion of the second weakened portion).
PNG
media_image5.png
395
669
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 5: annotated image of Kismarton’s fig. 2
Regarding claim 12, Kismarton discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the seat assembly is coupled to an aircraft (Para. [0006], “[t]he above and other aspects of an embodiment of the invention may be carried out by a composite seat pan for a lightweight aircraft passenger seat”).
Claim(s) 1, 13, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Toll US (4,630,864 A).
Regarding claim 1, Toll discloses a seat assembly, comprising:
a base assembly (seat support 26, fig. 2);
a seat pan supported by the base assembly (seat diaphragm 31, fig. 1);
a plurality of loading members (Col. 3, lines 19-22, “Thus a three-place centre seat for a wide bodied aircraft can have four frame members 26 and be supported from the floor by means of a pair of laterally spaced legs 22”) positioned below the seat pan (as shown in fig. 1);
the seat pan, comprising:
a first seat portion (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) supported by a first loading member of the plurality of loading members (see one of the legs 22, fig. 1);
a second seat portion (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below) supported by a second loading member of the plurality of loading members (another one of the legs, fig. 1);
a weakened portion (Col. 2, line 68- Col. 3, lines 1-5, “[i]n a heavy down-load situation the front portion 24 deforms with flexion of its upper skin and compression or buckling of its lower skin and thereby attentuates energy, but complete collapse of the front portion 24 still leaves the main load-bearing structure unaffected”) extending longitudinally along the seat pan (as shown in fig. 2, the front portion 24 extends longitudinally along the diaphragm 31), the weakened portion positioned intermediate the first seat portion and the second seat portion (as shown in annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
353
392
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 6: annotated image of Toll’s fig. 1
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Toll discloses the seat assembly of claim 1,
wherein the first seat portion is movable about a laterally extending axis (see Col. 2, line 68- Col. 3, lines 1-5, the first seat portion is movable about a laterally extending axis since the front portion 24 is capable of deforming and/or buckling);
the second seat portion is coupled to, and laterally offset from, the first portion (as shown in annotated fig. 1 above, a portion of the second seat portion is laterally offset from the first portion via the stub posts 29), the second portion movable about the laterally extending axis semi- independent of the first portion (see Col. 2, line 68- Col. 3, lines 1-5 above, the front portion 24 is capable of deforming and/or buckling. Therefore, when a great force is applied to the second portion than the first portion, the second portion would be movable about the laterally extending axis semi-independent of the first portion).
Regarding claim 17, Toll discloses the invention in claim 13, and further discloses wherein the first loading member is configured to support each of the first portion and the second portion (as shown in annotated fig. 1 above, one of the legs 22 is positioned under stub post 29 which is between the first and second portion).
Regarding claim 18, Toll discloses the invention in claim 13, and further discloses wherein the seat assembly is coupled to an aircraft (Col. 1, lines 34-34, “[t]he invention comprises a combined seat frame and cushion support for an aircraft seat”).
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.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toll as applied to claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Toll discloses the invention in claim 13, but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising a third seat portion.
However, in another embodiment Toll discloses a third seat portion (Col. 1, lines 34-39, “Thus a three-place centre seat for a wide bodied aircraft can have four frame members 26 and be supported from the floor by means of a pair of laterally spaced legs 22”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Toll such that there was a third seat portion in order to accommodate for a wide-bodied aircraft (Toll: Col. 1, lines 34-39), and optimize operational efficiency. As a result of the above modification, the third seat portion would be positioned intermediate the first seat portion and the second seat portion, and the third seat portion would be movable about the laterally extending axis semi-independent of each of the first seat portion and the second seat portion since the front portion is capable of deforming and/or buckling, and applying a greater force to the third seat portion would result in the seat to be movable about the laterally extending axis semi-independent of the first and second seat portion.
Regarding claim 15, modified Toll discloses the invention in claim 14, and further discloses wherein the weakened portion is a first weakened portion extending longitudinally along the seat pan and separating the first portion (as shown in annotated fig. 7 below) and the third portion (as modified above in claim 14, modifying the seat assembly to include a third seat portion would result in the first weakened portion separating the first and third portion) and further comprising a second weakened portion extending longitudinally along the seat pan (as shown in annotated fig. 7 below) and separating the second portion and the third portion (as modified above in claim 14, modifying the seat assembly to include a third seat portion would result in the second weakened portion separating the second and third portion).
PNG
media_image7.png
353
392
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 7: annotated image of Toll’s fig. 1
Regarding claim 16, modified Toll discloses the invention in claim 14, and further discloses further comprising a third loading member of the plurality of loading members supporting the third portion (as modified above in claim 14, Col. 1, lines 34-39, discloses “Thus a three-place centre seat for a wide-bodied aircraft can have four frame members 26 and be supported from the floor by means of a pair of laterally spaced legs 22”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm ET.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
1 Interpretation note: In the same manner as the instant invention, the seat restraint includes an anchor (see Para. [0061] of the instant specification).
Prosecution Insights