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 .
This Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 20 January 2026. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 16-18 are new. Claims 1, 15, and 18 have been written in independent form.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 – Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the damping panel is configured to reduce vibrations experienced in the aircraft structure being transferred from the aircraft structure to by the aircraft galley structure.” The phrase “the aircraft structure to by the aircraft galley structure” does not make sense.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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 USC § 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 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 USC § 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 USC § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “an aircraft galley fitting assembly of claim 1 configured to one of the plurality of aircraft galley structure to a portion of the aircraft structure” in lines 3-4. This claim limitation is vague, indefinite, and unclear. It is unclear what “configured to one of the plurality of aircraft galley structure to a portion of the aircraft structure” means. How does “an aircraft galley fitting assembly configured to one of the plurality of aircraft galley structure to a portion of the aircraft structure” happen? Is some language missing from this claim limitation? Or does some language need to be added to this claim? For examination purposes, because of lack of clarity of the claim, art rejections of the claim will be treated as best understood.
Additionally, dependent claim 14 necessarily inherits the deficiencies of the parent claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the fitting" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC § 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) 1-2, 6, 8, 10, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Savian et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0008144 A1 (hereinafter called Savian).
Regarding claim 1, Savian teaches an aircraft galley fitting assembly for attaching an aircraft galley structure to an aircraft structure, the fitting assembly comprising:
a fitting panel (See e.g., FIGS. 1-2 & 4 element 36) configured to be fixed to the aircraft structure and the aircraft galley structure; and
a damping panel (See e.g., FIGS. 1-6 element 14) configured to be located between the fitting panel and the aircraft galley structure when assembled, wherein the damping panel comprises a plurality of convex protrusions (See e.g., FIGS. 1-3 element 32) extending from a first side of the damping panel (See e.g., FIGS. 1-3 the side of element 14 to which elements 32 are attached), wherein the damping panel (See e.g., FIGS. 1-6 element 14) is configured to reduce vibrations experienced in the aircraft structure being transferred from the aircraft structure to by the aircraft galley structure.
Regarding claim 2, Savian teaches wherein the damping panel (See e.g., FIGS. 1-6 element 14) is configured to reduce vibrations experienced in the aircraft structure being experienced by the aircraft galley structure.
Regarding claim 6, Savian teaches wherein each of the plurality of convex protrusions comprise the same shape (See e.g., FIGS. 1-3 element 32).
Regarding claim 8, Savian teaches wherein each of the plurality of convex protrusions are spaced apart in a regular manner such that the distance between each convex protrusion is equal across first side of the damping panel (See e.g., FIGS. 1-3 element 32).
Regarding claim 10, Savian teaches wherein the first side of the damping panel is arranged to face the fitting panel such that the fitting panel is configured to be in contact with each of the plurality of convex protrusions (See e.g., FIGS. 1-2 & 4 elements 14 & 36).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Savian teaches an aircraft galley (See e.g., ¶ [0003]) comprising:
a plurality of aircraft galley structures (See e.g., ¶ [0003]); and
an aircraft galley fitting assembly of claim 1 (See e.g., FIGS. 1-6 elements 36, 14, 32, & the side of element 14 to which elements 32 are attached) configured to one of the plurality of aircraft galley structure to a portion of the aircraft structure.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Savian teaches comprising a plurality of aircraft galley fitting assemblies (See e.g., FIGS. 1-6 elements 36, 14, 32, & the side of element 14 to which elements 32 are attached), wherein each aircraft galley fitting assembly attaches each respective aircraft galley section to a portion of the aircraft structure (See e.g., FIGS. 5-6; ¶s [0010] & [0031]).
Regarding claim 15, Savian teaches a method of attaching an aircraft galley structure to a portion of an aircraft structure; the method comprising:
providing a fitting panel (See e.g., FIGS. 1-2 & 4 element 36) to attach the aircraft structure and the aircraft galley structure; and
providing a damping panel (See e.g., FIGS. 1-6 element 14) between the fitting panel and the aircraft galley structure (See e.g., FIGS. 5-6; ¶s [0010] & [0031]), wherein the damping panel comprises a plurality of convex protrusions (See e.g., FIGS. 1-3 element 32) extending from a first side of the damping panel (See e.g., FIGS. 1-3 the side of element 14 to which elements 32 are attached),
wherein the damping panel (See e.g., FIGS. 1-6 element 14) is configured to reduce vibrations experienced in the aircraft structure being transferred from the aircraft structure to the aircraft galley structure.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NISHIMURA, JP2012122236 (A) (hereinafter called NISHIMURA).
Regarding claim 1, NISHIMURA teaches an aircraft galley fitting assembly for attaching an aircraft galley structure to an aircraft structure, the fitting assembly comprising:
a fitting panel (See e.g., FIG. 9 (a) element 20) configured to be fixed to the aircraft structure and the aircraft galley structure; and
a damping panel (See e.g., FIG. 9 (a) element 1) configured to be located between the fitting panel and the aircraft galley structure when assembled, wherein the damping panel comprises a plurality of convex protrusions (See e.g., ¶s [0011] & [0035]-[0036]) extending from a first side (See e.g., FIG. 9 (a) element 1 left side) of the damping panel, wherein the damping panel (See e.g., FIG. 9 (a) element 1) is configured to reduce vibrations experienced in the aircraft structure being transferred from the aircraft structure to by the aircraft galley structure.
Regarding claim 2, NISHIMURA teaches wherein the damping panel (See e.g., FIG. 9 (a) element 1) is configured to reduce vibrations experienced in the aircraft structure being experienced by the aircraft galley structure.
Regarding claim 6, NISHIMURA teaches wherein each of the plurality of convex protrusions comprise the same shape (See e.g., FIG. 9 (a) element 1 per ¶s [0011] &[0035]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 8, NISHIMURA teaches wherein each of the plurality of convex protrusions are spaced apart in a regular manner such that the distance between each convex protrusion is equal across first side of the damping panel (See e.g., FIG. 9 (a) element 1 per ¶s [0011] & [0035]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 9, NISHIMURA teaches wherein the distance between each convex protrusion is arranged to allow for elastic expansion of each convex protrusion in a plane parallel to the first side of the damping panel when pressure is applied in a direction perpendicular to the first side of the damping panel (See e.g., ¶s [0011] & [0035]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 10, NISHIMURA teaches wherein the first side of the damping panel is arranged to face the fitting panel such that the fitting panel is configured to be in contact with each of the plurality of convex protrusions (See e.g., FIG. 9 (a) element 20 & element 1 per ¶s [0011] & [0035]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 11, NISHIMURA teaches wherein the plurality of convex protrusions is a first plurality of convex protrusions (See e.g., FIG. 9 (a) element 1 left side per ¶s [0011] & [0035]-[0036]), and the damping panel further comprises a second plurality of convex protrusions extending from a second side of the damping panel (See e.g., FIG. 9 (a) element 1 right side per ¶s [0011] & [0035]-[0036]), wherein the second side is arranged to face of the aircraft galley structure.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winkler et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0262066 A1 (hereinafter called Winkler).
Regarding claim 1, Winkler teaches an aircraft galley fitting assembly for attaching an aircraft galley structure to an aircraft structure, the fitting assembly comprising:
a fitting panel (See e.g., FIGS. 2A-3 element 202) configured to be fixed to the aircraft structure and the aircraft galley structure; and
a damping panel (See e.g., FIGS. 2A-3 element 204) configured to be located between the fitting panel and the aircraft galley structure when assembled, wherein the damping panel comprises a plurality of convex protrusions (See e.g., FIGS. 2A-4B & 5A-6C elements 206, 504, 504a-504c) extending from a first side of the damping panel (See e.g., FIGS. 2A-4B the side of element 204 to which elements 206 are attached), wherein the damping panel (See e.g., FIGS. 2A-3 element 204) is configured to reduce vibrations experienced in the aircraft structure being transferred from the aircraft structure to by the aircraft galley structure.
Regarding claim 2, Winkler teaches wherein the damping panel (See e.g., FIGS. 2A-3 element 204) is configured to reduce vibrations experienced in the aircraft structure being experienced by the aircraft galley structure.
Regarding claim 3, Winkler teaches wherein one or more of the convex protrusions of the plurality of convex protrusions comprise a conical shape (See e.g., FIGS. 2A-4B, 5A-6C elements 206, 504, 504a-504c).
Regarding claim 4, Winkler teaches wherein the conical shape is a flat-topped conical shape (See e.g., FIGS. 2A-3, 5A-6C elements 206, 504, 504a-504c).
Regarding claim 5, Winkler teaches wherein the conical shape is a rounded conical shape (See e.g., FIG. 6A element 504a).
Regarding claim 6, Winkler teaches wherein each of the plurality of convex protrusions comprise the same shape (See e.g., FIGS. 2A-3, 5A-5B elements 206, 504).
Regarding claim 8, Winkler teaches wherein each of the plurality of convex protrusions are spaced apart in a regular manner such that the distance between each convex protrusion is equal across first side of the damping panel (See e.g., FIGS. 2B-4B element 206).
Regarding claim 10, Winkler teaches wherein the first side of the damping panel is arranged to face the fitting panel such that the fitting panel is configured to be in contact with each of the plurality of convex protrusions (See e.g., FIGS. 2A-3 elements 204, 202, & 206).
Regarding claim 16, Winkler teaches wherein the plurality of convex protrusions (See e.g., FIGS. 2A-4B & 5A-6C elements 206, 504, 504a-504c) are configured to be compressed in a direction perpendicular to the first side of the damping panel under a pressure applied to the plurality of convex protrusions due to the vibrations (See e.g., FIG. 3; ¶ [0073]).
Regarding claim 17, Winkler teaches wherein the damping panel is formed of an elastomeric material (See e.g., ¶ [0065]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 USC § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler.
Regarding claim 7, Winkler teaches all the limitations of the claim as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 hereinabove, except the shape of each convex protrusion of the plurality of convex protrusions varies across the first side of the damping panel.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the one or more of the convex protrusions of the plurality of convex protrusions of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, which, in the instant case, is the shape of each convex protrusion of the plurality of convex protrusions varies across the first side of the damping panel. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 8 of the REMARKS, in summary, Applicant argues that none of the cited art, i.e., Savian, Nishimura, and Winkler discloses "[a]n aircraft galley fitting assembly for attaching an aircraft gallery structure to an aircraft structure," as recited in claim 1, or "[a] method of attaching an aircraft galley structure to a portion of an aircraft structure," as recited by claim 15. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 only requires that [a]n aircraft galley fitting assembly is “for attaching” an aircraft gallery structure to an aircraft structure, and the prior art of Savian, Nishimura, and Winkler discloses this limitation as set forth hereinabove in the instant Office Action, because each reference teaches all of the limitations required for “the fitting assembly comprising” as set forth in claim 1. Claim 1 does not require that [a]n aircraft galley fitting assembly positively attach an aircraft gallery structure to an aircraft structure. And, even if the claim limitation did positively claim that the [a]n aircraft galley fitting assembly does attach an aircraft gallery structure to an aircraft structure, Savian discloses this limitation at paragraph [0003] and Winkler discloses this limitation at paragraph [0059]. And, for claim 15, Savian teaches "[a] method of attaching an aircraft galley structure to a portion of an aircraft structure," at paragraph [0003], and Winkler teaches this limitation at paragraph [0059]. Examiner did not rely on Nishimura to teach claim 15.
And, regarding Applicant’s argument that because neither Savian, nor Nishimura, nor Winkler disclose a fitting assembly, neither Savian, nor Nishimura, nor Winkler disclose a "damping panel [] configured to reduce vibrations experienced in the aircraft structure being transferred from the aircraft structure to the aircraft galley structure" (emphasis added), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Savian, Nishimura, and Winkler teach a fitting assembly as set forth hereinabove in the instant Office Action. And, again, because the claims only require that the damping panel is configured to perform the subsequent function pertaining to reduce vibrations as set forth in the claims, and there is nothing in the claim or the specification that specifies how the damping panel is different from any other damping panel that makes it perform the function over any other damping panel, the damping panel disclosed in the prior art of Savian, Nishimura, and Winkler are “configured to” perform the function as set forth in the claims. All vibrations are transferred, that is why dampers are needed.
Applicants statement in the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 8 is not an argument and it is not disclosed in the specification nor is it in the claim.
Consequently, the prior art of Savian, Nishimura, and Winkler disclose or contemplate each and every element of claim 1, and Savian discloses or contemplate each and every element of claim 15 as amended, as set forth hereinabove in the instant Office Action under the § 102 rejections of claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-15. Additionally, the dependent claims remain rejected as set forth hereinabove in the instant Office Action.
Regarding Applicant’s argument under Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, that pertain to dependent claim 7, Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons stated hereinabove regarding the prior art of Savian, Nishimura, and Winkler do indeed disclose or contemplate each and every element of claim 1 as amended, as set forth hereinabove in the instant Office Action. And, claim 7 remains rejected as set forth hereinabove in the instant Office Action under the § 103 rejection.
Conclusion
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
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 TERRI L FILOSI whose telephone number is (571)270-1988. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM -3:30 PM 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, Timothy D Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/TERRI L FILOSI/
Examiner
Art Unit 3644
18 February 2026
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644