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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0047], line 2, “diagram” should read –diaphragm--.In paragraph [0052], line 4, “212a-c” should read –212a-c)--. Paragraph [0052] discloses “the front cross bar 408b” as part of Fig. 4, but call-out 408b is not found in Fig. 4. In paragraph [0054], lines 2-3, “308a-f” should read –308a-f)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 fore connector or aft connector comprising an adjustable strap (claim 16) and a hook-and-loop fastener configured to couple the diaphragm to the mattress (claim 18) 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “seat belt junction” in claim claims 2 and 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 14 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.
The term “substantially” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 discloses “further comprising the fore coupler and the aft coupler” which are already disclosed in claim 1 and claim 17 discloses “further comprising the aft passenger seat and the fore passenger seat “ which are also already disclosed in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPAP 2018/0055239 O’Doherty hereinafter.
With regard to claim 1, O’Doherty discloses a system comprising:
a bed (1) configured to support a passenger between a fore passenger seat (701) and an aft passenger seat (702) comprising:
a diaphragm (100) comprising:
a fore connector (110, 120) configured to couple to a fore coupler of the fore passenger seat (701); and
an aft connector (110, 120) configured to couple to an aft coupler of the aft passenger seat (702); and
an inflatable mattress (180) coupled to the diaphragm (100).
With regard to claim 2, O’Doherty discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a seat belt junction (Figure 3) configured to couple to two or more seat belts and configured to secure the passenger to the bed (1).
With regard to claim 3, O’Doherty discloses the system of claim 2, further comprising a seat belt configured to couple to the seat belt junction and the fore passenger seat (701) (paragraph [0029] discloses that the passenger may be positioned opposite to what is shown).
With regard to claim 11, O’Doherty discloses the system of claim 1 further comprising the fore coupler and the aft coupler.
With regard to claim 12, O’Doherty discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the fore coupler is configured to attach to a spreader (paragraph [0028]).
With regard to claim 14, insofar as claim 14 is definite, O’Doherty discloses the system of claim 1, wherein a top side of the mattress (180) is substantially a same height as a top side of a seat pan of the aft passenger seat (702, Figure 7).
With regard to claim 16, O’Doherty discloses the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the fore connector or the aft connector (110, 120) further comprises an adjustable strap.
With regard to claim 17, O’Doherty discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising the aft passenger seat (702) and the fore passenger seat (701).
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) 5, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Doherty in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA hereinafter).
With regard to claim 5, O’Doherty discloses all of the limitations except for further comprising a pouch configured to store the inflatable mattress when the inflatable mattress is uninflated.
AAPA teaches in paragraph [0058] of the instant application that life vests are typically placed in a pouch similar to the one claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus disclosed by O’Doherty by providing a pouch configured to store the inflatable mattress when the inflatable mattress is uninflated as taught by AAPA for the purposes of storing the inflatable mattress given that AAPA discloses similar pouches are already used for storage aboard aircraft.
With regard to claim 19, the O’Doherty modification with regard to claim 5 discloses a method for preparing a bed (1) in an aircraft comprising:
removing a diaphragm (100) and an inflatable mattress (180) from a pouch;
attaching a fore connector (110, 120) of the diaphragm (100) to a fore coupler on a fore passenger seat (701);
attaching an aft connector (110, 120) of the diaphragm (100) to an aft coupler on an aft passenger seat (702); and
inflating the mattress (180).
With regard to claim 20, the O’Doherty modification with regard to claim 5 discloses all of the limitations except for, before step of inflating the mattress, unfolding the mattress. Examiner takes official notice that it is an old and well known expedient in the art to unfold an inflatable article prior to inflating.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Doherty in view of AAPA and in further view of USPAP 2010/0186165 (Marciano hereinafter).
With regard to claim 6, the O’Doherty modification with regard to claim 5 discloses all of the limitations except for wherein at least one of the diaphragm or mattress is coupled to the pouch.
Marciano teaches an inflatable mattress (10) that is stored in and attached to a pouch (22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the apparatus disclosed by the O’Doherty modification with regard to claim 5 by providing that at least one of the diaphragm or mattress is coupled to the pouch for the purposes of decreasing the opportunity for them to become separated, reducing the risk of misplacing or losing the pouch.
Claim(s) 7-10, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Doherty.
With regard to claim 7, O’Doherty discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the aft connector comprises a ring, wherein the aft coupler comprises a hook.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that having the aft connector comprises a ring and the aft coupler comprises a hook solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that this discloses one particular and well known connection mechanism and it appears that apparatus of O’Doherty would perform equally well with the aft connector comprising a ring and the aft coupler comprising a hook as claimed by Applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of O’Doherty by utilizing the specific connection mechanism as claimed for the purpose of using a well known connection mechanism.
With regard to claim 8, O’Doherty discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the fore connector comprises a ring, wherein the fore coupler comprises a hook.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that having the fore connector comprising a ring and the fore coupler comprising a hook solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that this discloses one particular and well known connection mechanism and it appears that the apparatus of O’Doherty would perform equally well with the fore connector comprising a ring and the fore coupler comprising a hook as claimed by Applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of O’Doherty by utilizing the specific connection mechanism as claimed for the purpose of using a well known connection mechanism.
With regard to claim 9, O’Doherty discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the fore connector comprises a hook.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that having the fore connector comprising a hook solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that this discloses one particular and well known connection mechanism and it appears that the apparatus of O’Doherty would perform equally well with the fore connector comprising a hook as claimed by Applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of O’Doherty by utilizing the fore connector comprising a hook as claimed for the purpose of using a well known connection mechanism.
With regard to claim 10, O’Doherty discloses all of the limitations except for wherein the aft connector comprises a hook.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that having the aft connector comprising a hook solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that this discloses one particular and well known connection mechanism and it appears that the apparatus of O’Doherty would perform equally well with the aft connector comprising a hook as claimed by Applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of O’Doherty by utilizing the aft connector comprising a hook as claimed for the purpose of using a well known connection mechanism.
With regard to claim 13, O’Doherty discloses all of the limitations except for wherein a bed extends across a bed space between a row of at least three fore passenger seats and at least a row of seat pans of at least three aft passenger seats.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to change the size of the bed, since it has been held that claims directed to changing the size of an apparatus were held unpatentable over prior art because limitations relating to the size of a product were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
With regard to claim 18, O’Doherty discloses all of the limitations except for further comprising a hook-and-loop fastener configured to couple the diaphragm to the mattress.
Since Applicant has not disclosed that coupling the diaphragm to the mattress with a hook-and-loop fastener solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that this discloses one particular and well known connection mechanism and it appears that the apparatus of O’Doherty would perform equally well with a hook-and-loop fastener configured to couple the diaphragm to the mattress as claimed by Applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the apparatus of O’Doherty by utilizing a hook-and-loop fastener configured to couple the diaphragm to the mattress as claimed for the purpose of using a well known connection mechanism.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Doherty in view of USP 5,185,896 (Bonda hereinafter)
With regard to claim 15, O’Doherty discloses all of the limitations except for further comprising an inflation device. O’Doherty does not disclose how the inflatable mattress is inflated.
Bonda teaches an inflatable mattress (10) positioned between a front and rear seat (Fig. 3) that uses an air pump to inflate the mattress (col. 3 lines 14-16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the apparatus disclosed by O’Doherty by providing an inflation device as taught by Bonda for the purposes of providing a known and reliable way to inflate an inflatable mattress.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 3,648,306 and USPAP’s 2019/0217956, 2018/0271302, 2017/0197720 and 2002/0144342 all disclose devices similar to that claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/AARON R EASTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673