DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-15 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “18” has been used to designate both a person and the floor in Fig. 3.
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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of proper language and format for an abstract (see MPEP § 608.01(b)):
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “comprising” is the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims and should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
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:
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;
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
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
As per Claim 1, “the systems of the aircraft lavatory” in line 6-7 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required. Claims 2-13 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 2, “the one or more systems of the aircraft lavatory” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 4, “the one or more systems of the aircraft lavatory” in line 1-2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required. Claims 5-9 depending from Claim 4 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 5, “the electromagnetic lock” in line 2 does not necessarily find antecedent basis in Claim 4 in that claim language, as drafted, includes embodiments featuring only one of the electromagnetic lock, electrical systems, and plumbing systems of Claim 4. Clarification is required. Claims 6 depending from Claim 5 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 7, “the electromagnetic lock” in line 2 does not necessarily find antecedent basis in Claim 4 in that claim language, as drafted, includes embodiments featuring only one of the electromagnetic lock, electrical systems, and plumbing systems of Claim 4. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 8, “the one or more electrical systems” in line 2 does not necessarily find antecedent basis in Claim 4 in that claim language, as drafted, includes embodiments featuring only one of the electromagnetic lock, electrical systems, and plumbing systems of Claim 4. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 9, “the plumbing systems” in line 2 does not necessarily find antecedent basis in Claim 4 in that claim language, as drafted, includes embodiments featuring only one of the electromagnetic lock, electrical systems, and plumbing systems of Claim 4. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 11, “one of more of the systems of the aircraft lavatory” in line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 14, “one or more of the systems of the aircraft lavatory” in line 6 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 15, “one or more systems of the aircraft lavatory” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2020/0164988).
As per Claim 1, Alvarez discloses an aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1, 3; ¶35-36, 61) comprising:
a door (110) (Figs. 1, 3; ¶36, 61);
an internal compartment (304) with a floor (104) (Figs. 1, 3; ¶36, 61);
at least one pressure sensor (118) located on and/or under the floor (104) configured to detect the presence of a person (as per 210 via 206) within the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1-3; ¶39, 50-51, 61); and
a control system (114) configured to activate one or more of the systems (124) of the aircraft lavatory (102) when the one or more pressure sensors (118) detecting the presence of a person (as per 210 via 206) within the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1-3, 10; ¶37-39, 43-46, 50-51, 61, 67).
As per Claim 3, Alvarez further discloses wherein the at least one pressure sensor (118) comprises a pressure pad (as per “pressure sensor” in ¶39) configured to detect the presence of a person (as per 210 via 206) within the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft (as per “aircraft” in ¶35) due to changes in pressure (as per “detects a weight” in ¶39) on the surface of the pressure pads (as per “pressure sensor” in ¶39) (Figs. 1-3; ¶39, 50-51, 61).
As per Claim 4, Alvarez further discloses wherein the one or more systems (124) of the aircraft lavatory (102) include:
{an electromagnetic lock arranged to lock the door in a closed position};
one or more electrical systems (as per “illuminated when the lavatory 102 … is occupied” in ¶67) including lighting (as per “illuminated red light … illuminated green light” in ¶67) (Figs. 1-3, 10; ¶37-39, 43-46, 50-51, 61, 67) and/or {extraction systems}; and
{plumbing systems including water supply to a toilet and/or a faucet}.
As per Claim 8, Alvarez further discloses wherein the control system (114) is configured to activate the one or more electrical systems (as per “illuminated when the lavatory 102 … is occupied” in ¶67) of the aircraft lavatory (102) when the one or more pressure sensors (118) detect the presence of a person (as per 210 via 206) within the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1-3, 10; ¶37-39, 43-46, 50-51, 61, 67).
As per Claim 10, Alvarez further discloses at least one internal motion sensor (as per “motion sensor” in ¶81) provided on a surface of the internal compartment (304) arranged to detect the presence of a person (as per 210 via 206) within the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1-3, 10-11; ¶37-39, 43-46, 50-51, 61, 78-81).
As per Claim 11, Alvarez further discloses wherein the control system (114) is configured to activate one or more of the systems (124) of the aircraft lavatory (102) when the at least one internal motion sensor (as per “motion sensor” in ¶81) detects the presence of a person (as per 210 via 206) within the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1-3, 10-11; ¶37-39, 43-46, 50-51, 61, 78-81).
As per Claim 14, Alvarez discloses a method of controlling an aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1, 3; ¶35-36, 61), the aircraft lavatory (102) comprising a door (110) (Figs. 1, 3; ¶36, 61), an internal compartment (304) with a floor (104) and at least one pressure sensor (118) located on and/or under the floor (104) (104) (Figs. 1, 3; ¶36, 61), the method comprising:
detecting (as per 206) the presence of a person (as per YES at 208) within the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1-3; ¶39, 50-51, 61); and
activating (as per 210) one or more of the systems (124) of the aircraft lavatory (102) in response to detecting the presence of a person (as per YES at 208) within the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1-3, 10; ¶37-39, 43-46, 50-51, 61, 67).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2020/0164988) in view of Gu (2012/0153868).
As per Claim 2, Alvarez discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Alvarez further discloses wherein the control system (114) is configured to deactivate the one or more systems (124, 800) of the aircraft lavatory (102) when the at least one pressure sensor (118) does not detect the presence of a person (as per 210 via 206) within the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1-3, 10; ¶37-39, 43-46, 50-51, 61, 67).
Alvarez does not expressly disclose wherein the detecting is linked to a predetermined period of time.
Gu discloses a lighting system (100) that includes light fixtures (102), sensors (104), and a lighting controller (108) (Fig. 1; ¶21). The light fixtures (102) create artificial light (¶24), the sensors (104) detect the presence of an occupant (126) in a lighting area (¶37), and the lighting controller (108) controls the light fixtures (102) in view of information from the sensors (104) about the occupant (126) (¶38-39). If no occupant is detected in the lighting area after a specified timeout value is reached, then the lighting controller (108) turns off a specified light fixture (102) (¶39-40). The timeout value is selected in order to reduce energy consumption (¶42-44, 112-113). Like Alvarez, Gu is concerned with occupant detection systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Alvarez and Gu, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Gu to the system of Alvarez since doing so would enhance the system by reducing energy consumption. Applying the teachings of Gu to the system of Alvarez would result in system “wherein the detecting is linked to a predetermined period of time” in that the system of Alvarez would be adapted to include a timeout value for deactivating systems as per Gu.
As per Claim 15, Alvarez further discloses:
detecting (as per 202 via 210) a person leaving the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1-3; ¶39, 50-51, 61); and
deactivating (as per 204) one or more systems (124, 800) of the aircraft lavatory (102) after detecting (as per 202 via 210) a person leaving the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1-3, 10; ¶37-39, 43-46, 50-51, 61, 67).
Alvarez does not expressly disclose wherein the detecting is linked to a predetermined period of time.
See rejection of Claim 2 for discussion of teachings of Gu.
Therefore, from these teachings of Alvarez and Gu, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Gu to the system of Alvarez since doing so would enhance the system by reducing energy consumption. Applying the teachings of Gu to the system of Alvarez would result in system “wherein the detecting is linked to a predetermined period of time” in that the system of Alvarez would be adapted to include a timeout value for deactivating systems as per Gu.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2020/0164988) in view of Koch (US Pub. No. 2014/0035302).
As per Claim 5, Alvarez discloses all limitations of Claim 4. Alvarez further discloses wherein the control system (114) is configured to activate the lock (112) automatically (as per “lock 112 is configured to be engaged to selectively lock and unlock the door 110” in ¶36 and “occupancy detection control unit 114 locks the door 110” in ¶47) when the one or more pressure sensors (118) detect the presence of a person (as per 210 via 206) within the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft lavatory (102) and the door (110) is in the closed position (as per 210 via 202) (Figs. 1-3, 10; ¶36-39, 43-46, 50-51, 61, 67).
Alvarez does not expressly disclose wherein the lock is electromagnetic.
Koch discloses a door latching device (1) for holding a door (11) in a latched and locked state relative to a door frame (14) (Figs. 1, 4; ¶27, 33). A latch member (12) of the door (11) engages a catch member (2) of the frame (3, 14), the catch member (2) including a magnetic actuator (4) for biasing the catch member (2) in view of operation of an electromagnet (7) that is under the control of a control unit (Figs, 1, 4; ¶27-28, 31, 33). In this way, access to a lavatory within an aircraft interior may be controlled with improved reliability (¶16, 35). Like Alvarez, Koch is concerned with aircraft lavatory systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Alvarez and Koch, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Koch to the system of Alvarez since doing so would enhance the system by restricting access with improved reliability. Applying the teachings of Koch to the system of Alvarez would result in a system that operates “wherein the lock is electromagnetic” in that the lock of Alvarez would be adapted to include features of the locking system of Koch.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2020/0164988) in view of Koch (US Pub. No. 2014/0035302), further in view of Sinha (US Pub. No. 2022/0301413).
As per Claim 6, the combination of Alvarez and Koch teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Alvarez does not expressly disclose a contactless reader on an outer surface of the lavatory accessible by a person outside of the aircraft lavatory.
See rejection of Claim 5 for discussion of teachings of Koch.
Sinha discloses a lavatory setting (10) that includes a hand hygiene controller (100) that evaluates handwashing patterns and water/soap usage sequences based on an external event (Fig. 1; ¶15, 22-24). In one embodiment, the external event involves the user badging into the lavatory setting (10) via a RFID tag at or near a plate or other reading sensor that triggers a latch or unlocks the door to the lavatory setting (10) (¶24). In this way, the controller (100) determines hand hygiene compliance (¶3-4, 22). Like Alvarez, Sinha is concerned with lavatory systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Alvarez, Koch, and Sinha, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Koch and Sinha to the system of Alvarez since doing so would enhance the system by: restricting access with improved reliability; and facilitating hand hygiene compliance. Applying the teachings of Koch and Sinha to the system of Alvarez would result in a system that includes “a contactless reader on an outer surface of the lavatory accessible by a person outside of the aircraft lavatory” in that the system of Alvarez would be adapted to include features of the locking system of Koch and badging-in functionality as per Sinha.
As per Claim 7, the combination of Alvarez, Koch, and Sinha teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 6. Alvarez further discloses wherein the control system (114) is configured to deactivate the lock (as per “lock 112 is configured to be engaged to selectively lock and unlock the door 110” in ¶36; as per “occupancy detection control unit 114 locks the door 110” in ¶47) (Figs. 1-3, 10; ¶36-39, 43-46, 50-51, 61, 67).
Alvarez does not expressly disclose:
wherein the lock is electromagnetic; and
wherein the lock is deactivated when the contactless reader is activated by a tag.
See rejection of Claim 5 for discussion of teachings of Koch.
See rejection of Claim 6 for discussion of teachings of Sinha.
Therefore, from these teachings of Alvarez, Koch, and Sinha, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Koch and Sinha to the system of Alvarez since doing so would enhance the system by: restricting access with improved reliability; and facilitating hand hygiene compliance. Applying the teachings of Koch and Sinha to the system of Alvarez would result in a system:
“wherein the lock is electromagnetic” in that the system of Alvarez would be adapted to include features of the locking system of Koch; and
“wherein the lock is deactivated when the contactless reader is activated by a tag” in that the system of Alvarez would be adapted to include badging-in functionality as per Sinha.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2020/0164988) in view of Childress (US Pub. No. 2018/0371733).
As per Claim 9, Alvarez discloses all limitations of Claim 4. Alvarez further discloses wherein the control system (114) is configured to activate the systems (124) of the aircraft lavatory (102) when the one or more pressure sensors (118) detect the presence of a person (as per 210 via 206) within the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1-3, 10; ¶37-39, 43-46, 50-51, 61, 67).
Alvarez does not expressly disclose wherein the systems involve plumbing.
Childress discloses a vehicle (100) that includes a power source (136) connected to a lavatory (112), the lavatory (112) including lavatory fixtures (114) in the form of a toilet (118) and sink faucet (120) that are selectively connected (via switch 140) with the power source (136) (Fig. 1; ¶27, 32-34). In this way, sufficient power for the lavatory (112) is provided (¶36). Like Alvarez, Childress is concerned with lavatory systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Alvarez and Childress, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Childress to the system of Alvarez since doing so would enhance the system by adapting the system to provide sufficient power. Applying the teachings of Childress to the system of Alvarez would result in a system that operates “wherein the systems involve plumbing” in that the system of Alvarez would be adapted to include the switching system for lavatory fixtures as per Childress.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez (US Pub. No. 2020/0164988) in view of Jensen (US Pub. No. 2017/0284076).
As per Claim 12, Alvarez discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Alvarez does not expressly disclose at least one external motion sensor on an outer surface of the aircraft lavatory arranged to detect the present of a person outside of the aircraft lavatory.
Jensen discloses an aircraft lavatory (100) that includes an interior and a door (Fig. 3; ¶45, 49). A control unit (240) receives information from one or more presence sensors (242) that operate to detect the presence of an individual within the lavatory (Fig. 4; ¶45, 71-72). According to Jensen, appropriate locations for the one or more presence sensor (242) include within or otherwise proximate the lavatory (¶45). In this way, Jensen indicates that the location for a presence sensor is a matter of design choice. Like Alvarez, Jensen is concerned with lavatory systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Alvarez and Jensen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Jensen to the system of Alvarez to locate motion sensors proximate and outside of the lavatory as per Jensen since doing so would be, according to Jensen, a matter of design choice. Applying the teachings of Jensen to the system of Alvarez would result in a system that includes “at least one external motion sensor on an outer surface of the aircraft lavatory arranged to detect the present of a person outside of the aircraft lavatory” in that the system of Alvarez would be adapted in view of teachings of Jensen to include a motion sensor at suitable locations as per Jensen.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Alvarez and Jensen teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 12. Alvarez further discloses wherein the control system (114) is configured to indicate (via 800) to a person outside of the aircraft lavatory (102) that the lavatory (102) is occupied (Figs. 1-3, 10; ¶37-39, 43-46, 50-51, 61, 67) if both first sensors (as per 202) and the at least one pressure sensor (as per 206) detects the presence of a person within the internal compartment (304) of the aircraft lavatory (102) (Figs. 1-3, 10; ¶37-39, 43-46, 50-51, 61, 67).
Alvarez does not expressly disclose wherein the first sensors involve external motion sensors that detect the presence of a person outside of the aircraft lavatory.
See rejection of Claim 12 for discussion of teachings Jensen.
Therefore, from these teachings of Alvarez and Jensen, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Jensen to the system of Alvarez to locate motion sensors proximate and outside of the lavatory as per Jensen since doing so would be, according to Jensen, a matter of design choice. Applying the teachings of Jensen to the system of Alvarez would result in a system that includes “wherein the first sensors involve external motion sensors that detect the presence of a person outside of the aircraft lavatory” in that the system of Alvarez would be adapted in view of teachings of Jensen to include a motion sensor at suitable locations as per Jensen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chemel (US Pub. No. 2012/0143357), Warren (US Pub. No. 2015/0032277), and Hall (US Patent No. 9,595,185) disclose occupant detection systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
