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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 24, it appears that “a movable seat component” refers back to “at least one movable seat component” in lines 3-4. It should be amended to --the movable seat component--.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 25, it appears that “a movable seat component” refers back to “at least one movable seat component” in line 3. It should be amended to --the movable seat component--.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 12, it appears that “a movable seat component” refers back to “at least one movable seat component” in lines 2-3. It should be amended to --the movable seat component--.
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 12 is 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 12 recites the limitation "the occupancy state" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuranami et al. (JPH06255592A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 1: Kuranami discloses a system for monitoring seating in an aircraft, comprising:
a plurality of local seat controllers, each local seat controller associated with a seat and communicatively coupled to at least one actuator mechanically coupled to at least one movable seat component (reclining angle adjustment, angle adjustment of the seat back side support, lumbar, inclination angle, leg rest, headrest …; paragraphs [0007], [0018]); and
a cabin controller (7, 100) communicatively coupled to the plurality of local seat controllers, the cabin controller including an interactive digital display (100a, 100b), a memory (part of CPU) and a processor (CPU), wherein:
a table (paragraph, [0019], items 1-14) is stored in the memory of the cabin controller and includes information pertaining to compliant seat component positions corresponding to phases of flight (takeoff and landing) (paragraph [0007], [0019]); and
the processor (CPU) includes processing circuitry configured to execute machine-readable instructions stored to a non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to: receive, from each of the plurality of local seat controllers, positional information from the at least one actuator determinative of positional information of the at least one movable seat component; receive, from a flight phase selector, a current phase of flight; determine for each seat, from the received positional information from the at least one actuator and the received current phase of flight, movable seat position compliance or non-compliance; cause the interactive digital display to display for each seat the determined movable seat component compliance or non-compliance; and for each seat having a movable seat component determined to be non- compliant, instruct, through the interactive digital display (100a), the respective local seal controller to operate the at least one actuator to move the at least one movable seat component to achieve a compliant seat component position (paragraphs [0001, 0004-0008, 0015, 0018-0026]).
Regarding claim 2: Kuranami et al. discloses each seat includes at least one sensor configured to sense an occupancy state of the respective seat; the local seat controller is communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor and is configured to determine the occupancy state of the seat and report the determined occupancy state to the cabin controller; and the processing circuitry of the cabin controller is further configured to allow the local seat controller to operate the at least one actuator to move the at least one movable seat component to achieve a compliant seat component position when the occupancy state of the respective seat is determined to be unoccupied (paragraphs [0006-0008, 0015, 0019]).
Regarding claim 4: Kuranami et al. discloses the phases of flight include at least two of pre-flight, taxi, take-off, climb, cruise, descent, approach, landing, taxi, and post-flight (paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 5: Kuranami et al. discloses the at least one movable seat component includes at least one of a backrest and a leg rest (para. [0007]).
Regarding claim 6: Kuranami discloses each seat is an individual passenger seat or a divan (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7: Kuranami et al. discloses the processing circuitry of the cabin controller is further configured to issue an alert, broadcast by the interactive digital display, when the at least one movable seat component is determined to be non-compliant (para. [0023-0024].
Regarding claim 8: Kuranami et al. discloses the processing circuitry of the cabin controller is further configured to instruct all of the plurality of local seat controllers to operate their respective at least one actuator to move their respective at least one
movable seat component to a predefined default position assigned to a predefined phase of the phases of flight (para. [0018-0019, 0022-0025].
Regarding claim 9: Kuranami et al. discloses the predefined default position for each seat is customizable (para. [0018-0019]).
Regarding claim 10: Kuranami et al. discloses at least one of the seats is an individual passenger seat and at least one of the seats is a divan (Fig. 3; para. [0003-0006], all seats, specific seat from the crew side or seat in a crew room inherently includes a divan).
Regarding claims 11 and 17: The claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12: The claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 14: The claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 15: The claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 16: The claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 8 above.
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuranami et al. (JPH06255592A) in view of Large (US 5,555,458).
Regarding claim 3: Kuranami et al. discloses the control panel (7) in the crew room and each situation is display on a safety system display apparatus (100a) so that the crew can take an appropriate action (para. [0018]; Fig. 3). Kuranami et al. is silent about the display layout of the seats. Large discloses the interactive digital display (10) is configured to: display a layout of the seats (seat map, col. 8, line14) in the aircraft; display the at least one movable seat component for each seat; and differentiate graphically between compliant and non-compliant movable seat component positions (col. 6, lines 1-25, 61-67; col. 7, lines 1-42; Figs. 1-4). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a display layout of the seats as taught by Large in a system as disclosed by Kuranami et al. to provide a clear layout of the seat map so that the crew may easily visualize the exact seat that is in violation of the flight phase.
Regarding claim 13: The claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 3 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Perez (US 10,745,146) discloses systems and methods for determination of seating system status.
-Cordina et al. (US 2006/0163430) discloses an attendant cabin display system includes sensors which can detect when a passenger is seated in the seat, the tray table is properly stowed, and if the passenger has his seat belt fastened.
-Darr (US 6,888,475) discloses a control system for aircraft seat belt arrangement.
-Skelly (US 2004/0195875) discloses a reclining passenger seat having a visual seat position indicator.
-Goyal et al. (US 12,344,393) discloses an intelligent cabin management system for automated check of basic safety norms and in-flight safety procedures.
-Fagan et al. (US 11,021,269) discloses a system and method for representing a location of a fault in an aircraft cabin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN NGOC PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2967. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (7 AM - 3:30 PM).
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/TOAN N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 2/5/26