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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this application, the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 03/19/2025 has/have been taken into account.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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)(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 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trickey et al. (EP 0 099 677).
In regards to Claim 1, Trickey discloses a seat beam for a rotary-wing aircraft adapted for receiving seat posts of a seat bench device, comprising: a first seat beam end (Trickey: Annotated Fig. 1; E1) for attaching the seat beam to a first airframe attachment point of the rotary-wing aircraft; a second seat beam end (Trickey: Annotated Fig. 1; E2) for attaching the seat beam to a second airframe attachment point of the rotary-wing aircraft; and a seat beam body (Trickey: Fig. 1, 6; 15a) that connects the first seat beam end and the second seat beam end along a seat beam extension axis; wherein a link (Trickey: Fig. 1, 6; 20) with a link working line (Trickey: Annotated Fig. 1; W) is arranged at the first seat beam end and comprises: a link-beam fixation (Trickey: Annotated Fig. 6; F1) that is attached to the seat beam body and rotatable around a first link rotational axis that is perpendicular to the seat beam extension axis, and a first seat beam fixation (Trickey: Annotated Fig. 6; F2) that is connected to the link-beam fixation and adapted for being attached to the first airframe attachment point such that the first seat beam fixation is rotatable around a second link rotational axis that is parallel to the first link rotational axis, wherein the link working line is perpendicular to and passes through the first link rotational axis and the second link rotational axis.
In regards to Claim 2, Trickey discloses the seat beam of claim 1, wherein the link-beam fixation (Trickey: Annotated Fig. 6; F1) of the link further comprises a lug (Trickey: Annotated Fig. 6; L).
In regards to Claim 5, Trickey discloses the seat beam of claim 1, wherein the link-beam fixation (Trickey: Annotated Fig. 6; F1) is attached to the seat beam body such that the link working line (Trickey: Annotated Fig. 1; W) is perpendicular to the seat beam extension axis (Trickey: Annotated Fig. 1; A-B).
In regards to Claim 6, Trickey discloses the seat beam of claim 1, wherein the first seat beam fixation further comprises: a spherical bearing adapted for being rotatably attached to the first airframe attachment point (Trickey: Pg. 3, Ln. 35-37; Pg. 4, Ln. 1-10, 14-16) .
In regards to Claim 7, Trickey discloses the seat beam of claim 1, further comprising: a hinge (Trickey: Fig. 1, 3; 16, 39) arranged at the second seat beam end.
In regards to Claim 8, Trickey discloses the seat beam of claim 7, wherein the hinge further comprises: a hinge-beam fixation (Trickey: Fig. 3; 40) that is attached to the seat beam body and rotatable around a first hinge axis that is perpendicular to the seat beam extension axis.
In regards to Claim 9, Trickey discloses the seat beam of claim 8, wherein the hinge-beam fixation (Trickey: Fig. 3; 40) surrounds the seat beam body at the second seat beam end on two sides, further comprising: an additional bolt (Trickey: Fig. 3; 41) that extends along the first hinge axis and that rotatably attaches the hinge-beam fixation to the seat beam body.
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.
Claims 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trickey et al. (EP 0 099 677) in view of Reilly et al. (US 3,532,379).
In regards to Claim 3, Trickey discloses the seat beam of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the seat beam body further comprises: a fork-shaped end with two prongs at the first beam end; and a hole in each one of the two prongs of the fork-shaped end.
However, Reilly teaches a seat beam body (Reilly: Fig. 3; 26) further comprising: a fork-shaped end with two prongs (Reilly: Fig. 3; 28) at the first beam end; and a hole in each one of the two prongs of the fork-shaped end.
Trickey and Reilly are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. seat supports. 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 first seat beam end and link in Trickey with the forked connection taught by Reilly, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the body and link ends with a joint that is meshed at an increased number of spaced locations (Reilly: Fig. 3; Col. 2, Ln. 24-28), thereby further increasing its strength.
In regards to Claim 4, Trickey, as modified, teaches the seat beam of claim 3, wherein the link-beam fixation (Trickey: Annotated Fig. 6; F1) is positioned between the two prongs (Reilly: Fig. 3; 28) of the fork-shaped end such that the hole in each one of the two prongs of the fork-shaped end aligns with the lug, further comprising: a bolt (Trickey: Annotated Fig. 6; B) that extends along the first link rotational axis through the hole in each one of the two prongs and the lug and that rotatably attaches the link-beam fixation to the seat beam body.
In regards to Claim 10, Trickey discloses the seat beam of claim 7, but fails to disclose the hinge further comprising: a second seat beam fixation that is connected to the hinge-beam fixation and adapted for being attached to the second airframe attachment point such that the second seat beam fixation is rotatable around a second hinge axis that is perpendicular to the first hinge axis.
However, Reilly teaches a second seat beam fixation (Reilly: Annotated Fig. 3; H2) that is connected to the hinge-beam fixation and adapted for being attached to the second airframe attachment point such that the second seat beam fixation is rotatable around a second hinge axis (Reilly: Fig. 1, 3; axis of 18) that is perpendicular to the first hinge axis.
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 hinge in Trickey with the second seat beam fixation from Reilly, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide further mobility to the hinge in a lateral direction to further protect an occupant from incurring fatal injuries from force in that direction (Reilly: Col. 4, Ln. 35-48).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trickey et al. (EP 0 099 677) in view of Padovano (US 3,785,600).
In regards to Claim 11, Trickey discloses the seat beam of claim 1, but fails to disclose the seat beam body having an H-shaped cross section.
However, Padovano teaches a seat beam body (Padovano: Fig. 6, 12; 7) having an H-shaped cross section (Padovano: Fig. 6).
Trickey and Padovano are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. seat supports. 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 seat beam body and seat connection with the body cross section, connections, and covers from Padovano, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a beam body and seat connections that are configured to firmly anchor seats within the beam along its length, thereby enabling the seats to be more easily changed or modified via more accessible fasteners (Padovano: Fig. 12; Col. 1, Ln. 17-23).
In regards to Claim 12, Trickey, as modified, teaches the seat beam of claim 11, further comprising: a seat beam cover (Padovano: Fig. 12; 22) that extends along the seat beam extension axis and covers one side of the H-shaped cross section (Padovano: Fig. 6).
In regards to Claim 13, Trickey discloses the seat beam of claim 1, but fails to disclose the seat beam body further comprises: a rail for receiving the seat posts of the seat bench device.
However, Padovano teaches a seat beam body (Padovano: Fig. 6, 12; 7) further comprising: a rail (Padovano: Fig. 6; 7A) for receiving seat posts of a seat bench device. [Note: See the rejection of claim 11 for motivation and/or rationale.]
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trickey et al. (EP 0 099 677) in view of.
In regards to Claim 14, Trickey discloses a seat device for a rotary-wing aircraft comprising the seat beam of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection).
Trickey fails to explicitly disclose a seat bench. However, Bellais teaches a seat bench (Bellais: Fig. 1; 2).
Trickey and Bellais are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. seat supports. 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 seat in Trickey to be a bench as taught by Bellais, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a structure that can accommodate more passengers, thereby improving the seating capacity of the vehicle (Bellais: Col. 3, Ln. 21-30).
In regards to Claim 14, Trickey, as modified, teaches a rotary-wing aircraft comprising the seat bench device of claim 14 (Trickey: Pg. 1, Ln. 1-2).
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
263
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Trickey; Fig. 6
PNG
media_image2.png
821
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
II: Trickey; Fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
520
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
III: Reilly; Fig. 3
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM EST.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631