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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application # 19021507, entitled: AIRCRAFT SEAT CONNECTOR AND METHOD OF MOUNTING AN AIRCRAFT SEAT TO AN AIRCRAFT, filed on 01/15/2025. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 01/17/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP 24152325.7 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-2, 5, 8-10, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pinkal (U.S. Pat. 8231097).
Regarding claim 1, Pinkal discloses an aircraft seat connector comprising: a seat connection element 20 capable of being mounted to an aircraft seat 22; and a base element 24 capable of being mounted to a mounting rail 40 provided at a floor of an aircraft cabin (as seen in Fig. 2 below); where the base element 24 comprises a seat coupling portion 26 configured for receiving a mating portion of the seat connection element 20 in at least two different spatial orientations (as seen in Fig. 2); and where the seat coupling portion 26 thus provides for arranging the seat connection element 20 on the base element 24 in the at least two different spatial orientations.
Regarding claim 2, Pinkal discloses the aircraft seat connector, where: the seat coupling portion 26 comprises a coupling surface and two side walls extending from opposite edges of the coupling surface (as seen in Fig. 4 below); and where the two opposing side walls extend substantially perpendicularly from the coupling surface.
Regarding claim 5, Pinkal discloses the aircraft seat connector, further comprising: a fixing element 30 capable of releasably fixing the seat connection element 20 to the base element 24 (as seen in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Pinkal discloses the aircraft seat connector, where: the seat connection element 20 comprises a seat connection portion 60 configured for being coupled to the aircraft seat 22; and where the seat connection portion 60 includes an opening (as shown in Fig. 4 below) capable of receiving a fastening element 30 for coupling the seat connection element 20 to the aircraft seat 22.
Regarding claim 9, Pinkal discloses the aircraft seat connector, where: the seat coupling portion 26 is configured for receiving the mating portion of the seat connection element 20 in the two different spatial orientations (see track orientations 84,82 in Fig. 2); and where the two different spatial orientations differ by a rotation of the mating portion of the seat connection element by substantially 90 degrees (as seen in Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 10, Pinkal discloses the aircraft seat connector, where: the base element 24 comprises a mounting rail coupling portion 36 capable of being introduced into the mounting rail 40; and where the mounting rail coupling portion 36 has a longitudinal extension extending along a longitudinal extension of the mounting rail 40, and a transverse extension perpendicular to the longitudinal extension (as seen in Fig. 3 below).
Regarding claim 15, Pinkal discloses the aircraft seat connector, where: the aircraft seat connector is a helicopter seat connector; and where the aircraft cabin is a helicopter cabin (as implied in col. 1, lines 5-7, regarding the environment of an aircraft).
Regarding claim 16, Pinkal discloses the aircraft seat connector, further comprising: a mounting portion 60 configured for coupling the aircraft seat 22 to the seat connection element 20 of the aircraft seat connector.
Regarding claim 17, Pinkal discloses an aircraft, comprising: an aircraft cabin for accommodating at least one of a pilot or a passenger (see “Summary of the Invention”); at least one mounting rail 40 provided at a floor of the aircraft cabin (as seen in Fig. 2 below); and at least one aircraft seat 22; where the at least one aircraft seat 22 is mounted to the at least one mounting rail 40 via at least one aircraft seat connector comprising: a seat connection element 20 capable of being mounted to an aircraft seat 22; and a base element 24 capable of being mounted to a mounting rail 40 provided at a floor of an aircraft cabin (as seen in Fig. 2 below); where the base element 24 comprises a seat coupling portion 26 configured for receiving a mating portion of the seat connection element 20 in at least two different spatial orientations (as seen in Fig. 2); and where the seat coupling portion 26 thus provides for arranging the seat connection element 20 on the base element 24 in the at least two different spatial orientations.
PNG
media_image1.png
794
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
649
599
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 11-12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinkal.
Regarding claims 3 and 11-12, Pinkal is discussed above, and teaches the aircraft seat connector, where the coupling surface is square-shaped. However, Pinkal fails to explicitly teach the claimed dimensions of the coupling surface, longitudinal extension, and the transverse extension.
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 sizes of the components of Pinkal’s device, because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations (see MPEP 2141 III. (C)).
Concerning method claims 18, in view of the structure disclosed by Pinkal above, the method of operating the device would have been obvious, since Pinkal’s aircraft seat connector provides the same structure as the device described in the specification. The Examiner submits that it can be assumed that the device of Pinkal is capable of performing the claimed process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-7, and 13-14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to explicitly teach or disclose the aircraft seat connector of claim 1, where: each of the two opposing side walls includes a lower wall portion extending from the coupling surface and an upper fastening portion; and where the upper fastening portion of each of the two opposing side walls comprises a protrusion capable of extending over the coupling surface and of forming an undercut between the upper fastening portion and the coupling surface; where: the base element comprises a mounting rail coupling portion capable of being introduced into the mounting rail; and where the mounting rail coupling portion has a longitudinal extension extending along a longitudinal extension of the mounting rail, and a transverse extension perpendicular to the longitudinal extension, to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the reference to Pinkal above, the Examiner submits the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892). U.S. Pats. 20250382056 to Kaliszczyk et al., 8998326 to DeCraene et al., and 8628053 to Marechal teach aircraft seat connectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D MCDUFFIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3832. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/Michael McDuffie/Examiner, Art Unit 3632 30-May-26
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights