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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 14, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woodland (US 5,927,648).
Regarding claim 1, Woodland discloses a method of installing a modular door panel assembly (Fig. 2) for an aircraft, the method comprising: providing a door surround (67) for a door aperture of the aircraft, wherein the door surround comprises at least a first hole (portion that receives the upper door frame subsection panel 68) in an upper portion of the door surround and a second hole (portion that receives that lower door frame subsection panel) in a lower portion of the door surround, and a strut actuator aperture (strut joint 14 inherently has an aperture to receive the strut 12) below the second hole; inserting a modular upper panel assembly (upper door frame subsection panel 68) into the first hole of the door surround such that a portion of the door surround around the first hole interfaces with the modular upper panel assembly; inserting a modular lower panel assembly (lower door frame subsection panel 68) into the second hole of the door surround such that a portion of the door surround around the second hole interfaces with the modular lower panel assembly; and connecting the door surround with the door aperture of the aircraft to ensure aircraft pressurization (inherent in Woodland; col. 15 line 59 – col. 16 line 5).
Regarding claim 3, Woodland teaches that the door surround is permanently installed since the term “permanently” does not distinguish over Woodland’s door surround which could inherently or explicitly be installed permanently.
Regarding claim 4, Woodland teaches that the door surround is temporarily installed since the term “permanently” does not distinguish over Woodland’s door surround which could inherently or explicitly be installed temporarily.
Regarding claim 5, Woodland discloses interfacing the modular door panel assembly with a control system (81) via a harness assembly (21, 56).
Regarding claim 6, Woodland discloses attaching an articulated stanchion (26) assembly to at least one of the door surround, the modular upper panel assembly, or the modular lower panel assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Woodland discloses attaching a seat (46) to at least one of the door surround (Fig. 8), the modular upper panel assembly, or the modular lower panel assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Woodland discloses incorporating one or more mission components into the modular upper panel assembly (63) or the modular lower panel assembly (64) based on a particular flight mission.
Regarding claim 9, Woodland discloses that the modular upper panel assembly comprises a square window.
Regarding claim 10, Woodland discloses that the modular lower panel assembly comprises a defensive system aperture (through which 64 is mounted).
Regarding claim 11, Woodland inherently discloses configuring the first hole, the second hole, or both the first hole and the second hole individually or together to serve as an emergency egress hatch since the panels 68 of Woodland may be unfastened if desired.
Regarding claim 12, Woodland inherently discloses the panels 68 replacing an existing door.
Regarding claim 13, Woodland discloses connecting the door surround and the door aperture of the aircraft via a retract assembly (col. 10, lines 14 – 45).
Regarding claim 14, Woodland discloses that the retract assembly is configured to allow the door surround to be retracted and stowed (col. 10, lines 14 – 45).
Regarding claim 17, Woodland discloses that the modular door panel assembly further comprises a scanner seat assembly (46), the method further comprising: connecting the scanner seat assembly to a cargo handling system rail, a fuselage or a floor of the aircraft via adaptive mounting fixtures (Figs. 13a – 13d).
Regarding claim 18, Woodland discloses that the scanner seat assembly is configured to be positioned outboard of a path of cargo as the cargo travels forward and aft within the aircraft (Fig. 14 clearly shows that the scanner seat would not be in the path of cargo that would travel forward and aft within the aircraft).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., aperture positioned below the door surround and configured to interface with an articulated strut to ensure pressurization) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 VALENTINA XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9853. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am - 6:30 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/VALENTINA XAVIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642