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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that a bassinet would obstruct the toilet which would frustrate the multi-functionality of the embodiments of Sprenger. Applicant states that when it is to be used by a passenger with reduced mobility, the passenger would be unable to reach the toilet, and when that space is used as an additional surface 19, a bassinet would obstruct the surface from being accessible or deployable.
While the bassinet may impede the surface 19 from being raised when it is in the lowered position (Fig. 4), it would not be necessary for the surface 19 to be able to be raised when in this configuration. Fig. 4 shows the positioning of components after the room has been converted into a childcare room (Para 0031). In this configuration, it is not intended to provide a toilet, but rather provide components that would be beneficial to child care. Sprenger anticipates that even more components could be added to the space for this purpose; Para 0034: “Still further, the compartment 1 can be outfitted with additional elements facilitating the care of infants and/or medical patients”. A bassinet would be an obvious choice in this case.
Sprenger discloses that the airline would choose which configuration it wishes to provide and then would arrange the components for the passengers to use (Para 0038). For example, in the work office configuration (Fig. 5), “Accessories, peripherals, and/or communication devices 33, such as a printer, a monitor or display, a keyboard, a telefax device, a telephone, or the like can be removed from storage positions in the hanging cabinet 15 or are mounted respectively on at least one of the walls 30, 32 and/or 34” (Para 0036). Therefore, Sprenger already intends for wall mounted components to be attached by the airline for certain configurations. Similarly, providing a bassinet on the wall in one configuration seems to be directly in line with Sprenger’s intended use of the space. It may impede the surface 19 from raising up while in this configuration, but that would not be an issue as the room would not be a lavatory, and it would provide a benefit that would outweigh that cost depending on the needs of what the airline wishes to provide to the users.
Applicant also states that “there is no disclosure of a relative position of a bassinet and a changing table in either Sprenger nor Hagiwara”. The is not true, as Hagiwara shows in Fig. 9 the claimed relative positions of a bassinet and a changing table (table which can be used for changing an infant).
Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With respect to claims 3-4, in response to applicant’s arguments with the official notice, the examiner has provided reference which teach those limitations.
With respect to claims 7-8, applicant argues that the ranges of Sprenger do not disclose the claimed ranges in the amended claim 8, which now depends from claim 7. It is unclear what applicant is arguing by stating that “Sprenger does not detail and relative lengths and widths within this range; in other words, Sprenger does not disclose that the room could be a square of 1200 mm”. The claimed range does not require a square, nor has the examiner stated that it would be a square. Sprenger discloses a rectangle with wall lengths in a range from 1200 to 1600 mm. The claim requires one dimension less than 1600mm and the other less than 1300mm. Sprenger discloses the range with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range.
In light of the amendment, the examiner has provided a modification to also meet the claim. The applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed range would provide unexpected results, and therefore is found obvious.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprenger et al (US 20050103935 A1) in view of Hagiwara et al (WO 2023187961 A1).
For claim 1, Sprenger discloses a passenger compartment Fig. 2A-5 for an interior of an aircraft, the passenger compartment adapted for a passenger with a baby, the compartment comprising:
a first side wall Fig. 2B: top wall 32;
a second side wall bottom wall 32;
a back wall 30 joining the first side wall to the second side wall;
a front wall 34 opposite the back wall, the front wall comprising a door 7 to allow the passenger to enter and exit the compartment;
a seat 14, wherein at least a portion of the seat is pivotally attached to the first side wall;
a changing table 12 for changing a baby intended use, the changing table pivotally attached to the back wall; and
wherein a maximum distance between the first side wall and the second side wall is less than 160cm Para 0021: “side lengths in a range from 1200 to 1600 mm”.
Sprenger fails to disclose a bassinet rigidly attached to a portion of the second side wall adjacent to the back wall, wherein the changing table extends between the first side wall and the bassinet when in a deployed position.
However, Hagiwara teaches a passenger compartment for an aircraft Fig. 9 that optionally may have a bassinet 17 rigidly attached to a side wall 13’, and a table 12’ (which may be used for changing) that extends between the right side wall and the bassinet. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Sprenger by attaching a bassinet on the second side wall adjacent the back wall as disclosed by Hagiwara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a safe space to put an infant – this would be especially useful when there are two infants so one may be changed while the other is safely in the bassinet. When converted into the childcare room configuration of Fig. 4 (Para 0031-1134) the seat 13 is down, so it would be obvious to place the bassinet in the corner next to the table. This may partially obstruct the seating area (one of two seatings areas) but would increase functionality in other ways.
For claim 5, Sprenger discloses the passenger compartment of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first side wall, the second side wall, the back wall and the front wall comprises an acoustic liner for acoustically insulating the compartment Para 0030: “noise-insulating walls 30, 32 and 34”.
For claim 6, Sprenger discloses the passenger compartment of claim 5, wherein all of the first side wall, the second side wall, the back wall and the front wall comprise an acoustic liner Para 0030: “noise-insulating walls 30, 32 and 34”.
For claim 7, Sprenger discloses the passenger compartment of claim 1, wherein the maximum distance between the first side wall and the second side wall is less than 130cm Para 0021: “side lengths in a range from 1200 to 1600 mm”; 1200-1300 mm being 120-130 cm and therefore less than 130 cm. Sprenger discloses this range with sufficient specificity and nothing shows that the specific range achieves unexpected results.
For claim 8, Sprenger discloses the passenger compartment of claim 7, wherein a maximum distance between the back wall and the front wall is less than 160cm Para 0021: “side lengths in a range from 1200 to 1600 mm”; the entire range being less than 160cm.
If applicant disagrees that Sprenger discloses these dimensions, then the following modification is applied:
For claims 7-8, Sprenger discloses that the compartment could be a rectangle with “side lengths in a range from 1200 to 1600 mm” “in order to best fit the available space in the cabin floor area 3” (Para 0021).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the maximum distance between the back wall and the front wall less than 160cm while the distance between the first side wall and second side wall is less than 130cm “in order to best fit the available space in the cabin floor area 3” by sizing the compartment depending on the space available in the cabin while providing “a comfortable space for the continuous occupancy of the compartment” (Para 0021), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The dimensions of the compartment are result effective variables as they determine the volume, usable space, and comfort of the compartment.
For claim 9, Sprenger discloses the passenger compartment of claim 1, wherein the seat 14 is attached to a portion of the first side wall adjacent to the front wall Fig. 2B.
For claim 11, Sprenger discloses the passenger compartment of claim 1, wherein the changing table 12 is attached to a portion of the back wall adjacent the first side wall Fig. 2B.
For claim 13, Sprenger discloses the passenger compartment of claim 1, wherein a space is provided between the seat 14 and the back wall 30, and the changing table extends across the space between the seat and the back wall when in a deployed position Fig. 2B.
For claim 14, Sprenger discloses the passenger compartment of claim 1, further comprising a module comprising a waste bin and a tissue dispenser provided on the second side wall.
The examiner takes official notice that it would have been known to attach waste bins and tissue dispensers on the walls of passenger compartments and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention by attaching a module comprising a waste bin and a tissue dispenser on the second side wall. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a compact place to access tissues and put waste.
For claim 15, Sprenger discloses an aircraft interior layout including one or more rows of passenger seats and the passenger compartment of claim 1 Fig. 1.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprenger in view of Hagiwara, further in view of Bock et al (US 20070170310 A1) and Katakura et al (US 20220161929 A1).
For claims 3-4, Sprenger discloses the passenger compartment of claim 1, but fails to disclose a screen for in-flight entertainment, wherein the screen is attached to the second side wall adjacent to the front wall.
Bock teaches a passenger compartment 5 with a screen for in-flight entertainment, wherein the screen is attached to a wall Para 0140.
Katakura further teaches that it is known to use remote controls with in-flight entertainment screens Para 0038: “[0038] A passenger control unit PCU equipped with an on/off switch for the monitor 117 viewed by the passenger”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Sprenger by including a screen for in-flight entertainment attached to a wall, with a remote for controlling it as disclosed by Bock and Katakura. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide entertainment to passengers within the compartment and for ease of controlling the screen.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the screen on an open wall space that would be viewable by a passenger, such as on the second side wall adjacent to the front wall and above the bassinet in order to provide a comfortable viewing experience and to not impede on any other components that are present, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprenger in view of Hagiwara, further in view of Seiersen et al (US 20070125909 A1).
For claim 16, Sprenger discloses the passenger compartment of claim 1, further comprising at least one of an intercom or an emergency button accessible from within the compartment.
However, Seiersen teaches a compartment with an intercom within the compartment Para 0032. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Sprenger by including an intercom within the compartment as disclosed by Seiersen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a way for the person inside to communicate outside of the compartment for safety in case of emergency.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprenger in view of Hagiwara, further in view of Mallette (US 20130129998 A1).
For claim 17, Sprenger discloses the passenger compartment of claim 5, but fails to disclose that the acoustic liner comprises a fabric lining, a sound barrier layer, a scrim layer, and a hook-and-loop layer.
However, Mallette teaches an acoustic liner for use in aircraft Para 0006 which comprises “a flame retardant cloth layer, then an aluminum metal layer, then a spacer (polyester scrim), then another aluminum metal layer, then another flame retardant cloth layer and, finally, a bottom outside moisture barrier layer. A sound abatement layer can optionally be connected with the top outside moisture barrier layer” and also “Hook and loop connections can be used for connecting edges of the insulation to a substrate” Para 0046.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Sprenger by using an acoustic liner with a fabric lining, a sound barrier layer, a scrim layer, and a hook-and-loop layer as disclosed by Mallette. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide “effective flame retardation that exceeds existing government standards. It also provides moisture prevention and sound attenuation. It is also lightweight and does not require a lot of space as it has a low profile height. The current invention does not degrade during normal use and is relatively inexpensive to construct compared to existing products” (Mallette, Para 0008).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprenger in view of Hagiwara, further in view of Schliwa et al (US 20140359934 A1).
For claim 18, Sprenger discloses the passenger compartment of claim 1, wherein the changing table is pivotally attached such that, when pivoting from the deployed position to a stowed position, the changing table pivots downward Fig. 2A.
But fails to disclose that the back wall is defined by a curved profile.
However, Schliwa teaches an aircraft passenger compartment Fig. 8B-D with a back wall defined by a curved profile and which has a pivoting table attached to it.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Sprenger by defining the back wall as a curved profile as disclosed by Schliwa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to use this compartment in a location against the outer wall of the fuselage and therefore conform to that shape in an efficient manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 J 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights