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 14 January 2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17 are pending. Claims 2, 6, 11, and 16 have been canceled. Claim 17 is new. Claim 1 has been written in independent form.
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, 3-5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gehret et al., US 2015/0232184 A1 (hereinafter called Gehret).
Regarding claim 1, Gehret teaches an apparatus for subdividing a passenger cabin of an aircraft, comprising a wall element (See e.g., FIGS. 1-2, 3A-3E elements 120 & 320, respectively) having a securing element (See e.g., FIG. 2A element 222; ¶s [0011], [0016], [0018]) in order to be able to be secured to at least one element of the passenger cabin (See e.g., ¶ [0016], where the floor teaches at least one element of the passenger cabin) so that the wall element in a state installed within the passenger cabin subdivides the passenger cabin into a first region and a second region, wherein the wall element comprises at least one impact protection system (See e.g. FIGS. 2A, 3A-3E elements 100, 300), wherein the wall element extends in a vertical direction (See e.g., FIGS. 1-2, 3A-3E elements 120 & 320, respectively) and can be attached with at least a first end of the wall element to at least one element of the passenger cabin (See e.g., ¶ [0016], where the end of 120 and 130 attached to the floor teaches at least a first end of the wall element to at least one element of the passenger cabin), Gehret teaches wherein the wall element comprises an airbag module or an airbag (See e.g., FIGS. 3A-3E & 4A-4C elements 354 & 454a-c. respectively), and wherein the wall element has the impact protection system at a second end of the wall element (See e.g. FIGS. 2A, 3A-3E elements 100, 300, where the top of elements 100 teach the impact protection system at a second end of the wall element), and wherein the wall element is in the form of an aircraft class divider (See e.g., FIGS. 1-2, 3A-3E elements 120 & 320, respectively).
Regarding claim 3, Gehret teaches wherein in an installed state of the apparatus and/or in a triggered state of the impact protection system, at least portions of the impact protection system are formed at a height between 0.3 m and 1.75 m from a floor of the passenger cabin (See e.g., FIGS. 3A-3B & 3D, where the seat occupant’s (301) bent knees are shown below portions of the impact protection system, for example, elements 326 and 354, and given that the average height of a human is 2 m, makes the average height of the average human’s bent knee to the floor 0.6 meters, elements 326 and 354 are implicitly at a height between 0.3 m and 1.75 m from a floor of the passenger cabin, therefore the references in their entirety teach the instant claim limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Gehret teaches wherein in the installed state of the apparatus and in the triggered state of the impact protection system, at least portions of the impact protection system are formed at a height between 0.6 m and 1.5 m from a floor of the passenger cabin (See e.g., FIGS. 3A-3B & 3D, where the seat occupant’s (301) bent knees are shown below portions of the impact protection system, for example, elements 326 and 354, and given that the average height of a human is 2 m, makes the average height of the average human’s bent knee to the floor 0.6 meters, elements 326 and 354 are implicitly at a height between 0.6 m and 1.5 m from a floor of the passenger cabin, therefore the references in their entirety teach the instant claim limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Gehret teaches wherein in the installed state of the apparatus and in a triggered state of the impact protection system, at least portions of the impact protection system have in a horizontal extent a width between 0.3 m and 3.5 m (See e.g., FIG. 3D, where the seat occupant’s (301) shoulders are shown horizontal to portions of the impact protection system, for example, elements 326 and 354, and given that the average height of a human is 2 m, makes the average width of the average human’s shoulders 0.9 m, elements 326 and 354 are implicitly at a horizontal extent a width between 0.3 m and 3.5 m, therefore the references in their entirety teach the instant claim limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Gehret teaches wherein the wall element further comprises a gas generator (See e.g., FIG. 2A element 230; ¶ [0024], where gas-generating inflators teach a gas generator).
Regarding claim 8, Gehret teaches wherein the wall element further comprises an electronic control element (See e.g., FIG. 2A element 232; ¶ [0024]).
Regarding claim 9, Gehret teaches wherein the wall element further comprises an energy carrier (See e.g., FIG. 2A element 246; ¶ [0027], where lithium batteries teach an energy carrier).
Regarding claim 10, Gehret teaches wherein the wall element comprises an acceleration sensor (See e.g., FIG. 2A element 248; ¶ [0027]).
Regarding claim 12, Gehret teaches wherein the securing element is configured in such a manner that the apparatus can be releasably secured to the aircraft by means of the securing element (See e.g., FIG. 2A element 222; ¶s [0011], [0016], [0018]).
Regarding claim 13, Gehret teaches a unit comprising an apparatus according to Claim 1 (see the rejection for an apparatus in claim 1 hereinabove), and a seat row having at least one seat (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 3D-3E elements 102 & 302, respectively), wherein the wall element is arranged in front of the seat when viewed in the seat direction of the seat of the seat row (See e.g., FIGS. 1 & 3D-3E elements 120 & 320, respectively), and wherein, in the positioned state of the wall element relative to the seat row, the impact protection is provided in such a manner that a passenger who is using the seat can be protected by the impact protection system (See e.g., FIGS. 3D-3E element 354).
Regarding claim 14, Gehret teaches an aircraft (See e.g., ¶s [0002] & [0011]-[0012]) comprising an apparatus (see the rejection for an apparatus as set forth in claim 1 hereinabove) according to Claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Gehret teaches wherein the wall element is secured to at least one element of the passenger cabin of the aircraft so that the wall element subdivides the passenger cabin into a first region (See e.g., FIG. 1, the area where seat 102 is partially shown in the far right of the figure) and a second region (See e.g., FIG. 1, the area where seat 102 is fully shown in the majority of the figure behind the area where seat 102 is partially shown in the far right of the figure), wherein the second region is located behind the first region when the wall element is in an installed state in the flight direction (as mapped hereinbefore).
Regarding claim 17, Gehret teaches wherein the at least one element of the passenger cabin is a ceiling of the passenger cabin (The claim does not require the securing element to secure a ceiling of the passenger cabin to the at least one element of the passenger cabin).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 9 and 10 of the REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, regarding Applicant’s arguments that Gehret does not disclose/teach or suggest that the structure mounted airbag assemblies/system can be mounted to the ceiling of the passenger cabin, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is NOT positively claiming that the structure mounted airbag assemblies/system is mounted to the ceiling of the passenger cabin [emphasis Examiner’s]. Rather the claim requires: [claim 1] “An apparatus for subdividing a passenger cabin of an aircraft, comprising a wall element having a securing element in order to be able to be secured to at least one element of the passenger cabin so that the wall element in a state installed within the passenger cabin subdivides the passenger cabin into a first region and a second region, wherein the wall element comprises at least one impact protection system, wherein the wall element extends in a vertical direction and can be attached with at least a first end of the wall element to at least one element of the passenger cabin, wherein the wall element comprises an airbag, and wherein the wall element has the impact protection system at a second end of the wall element, and wherein the wall element is in the form of an aircraft class divider, [claim 17] “wherein the at least one element of the passenger cabin is a ceiling of the passenger cabin.”[emphasis Examiner’s] The claim only requires a wall element to have a securing element. The claim does not require the securing element to positively do anything. Consequently, the claim does not require the securing element to secure a ceiling of the passenger cabin to the at least one element of the passenger cabin.
On page 9 of the REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, regarding Applicant’s arguments that Gehret does not teach or suggest that the structure mounted airbag system 100 of Fig. 1 can be used as an aircraft class divider, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not disclose in the claim nor the initially filed specification what an aircraft class divider is. Rather Applicant discloses that an aircraft class divider can be used to allow impact protection and the advantages of an aircraft divider (see ¶ [0037]). As set forth in the instant Office Action hereinabove, the cited aircraft class divider, i.e., elements 120 & 320 in the prior art of Gehret is part of the airbag system, 100 & 300, used to allow impact protection as disclosed in Applicant’s paragraph [0037] and as at least disclosed in the prior art of Gehret in paragraphs [0016], [0034], and claims 30 and 37.
On page 9 of the REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, regarding Applicant’s additional arguments that the width and height of the structure mounted airbag system of Gehret is not sufficient to be able to function as an aircraft class divider, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
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., not sufficient to be able to function as an aircraft class divider) 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). The claim recites wherein the wall element is in the form of an aircraft class divider, not that the wall element is sufficient to be able to function as an aircraft class divider. Because the form [emphasis Examiner’s] of an aircraft class divider is not defined in the claim nor the initially filed specification, the prior art of Gehret teaches the wall element is in the form of an aircraft divider as set forth hereinabove in the instant Office Action.
Consequently, all pending claims, 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-15 and 17 hereinabove do not define patentable subject matter over the prior art of record. And, all claims remain rejected as set forth hereinabove in the instant Office Action.
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
26 February 2026
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644