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 .
Response to Arguments
The 112 rejections have been addressed and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that that in the instant application “the monolithic floor element is analogous to a floorboard of the aircraft” and that Benthien does not disclose this. However, even if true, this is not in the claims – the claims do make any mention of a floorboard. Applicant also argues that Benthien does not disclose “a seat rail surface portion configured to mount a seat rail thereon”, since the disclosure makes it clear that the floor element and the seat rail are separate elements. However, the claims do not positively claim a seat rail but just a surface that is configured to mount a seat rail on it. The portion 52 is configured for this purpose as a seat rail could be attached to part 58 or the holes 66 of this portion.
Applicant then argues that the integral strut is not “connecting to a frame of the aircraft”. However, this encompasses being indirectly connected via intermediate components. As shown in Fig 1 the floor elements are mounted in an aircraft which has frame elements and therefore are at least indirectly connected thereto.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benthien et al (US 20230406513 A1).
For claim 1, Benthien discloses a floor assembly for an aircraft, comprising:
a monolithic floor element 46 including an integral cross strut 50 connecting to a frame of the aircraft Fig. 1: at least indirectly connected, the monolithic floor element having an upper surface, which comprises a seat rail surface portion configured to mount a seat rail thereon 52; and
at least one support structure 48 arranged underneath the monolithic floor element and configured to support the monolithic floor element at least in an area of the seat rail surface portion 48 supports the whole structure.
For claim 2, Benthien discloses the floor assembly of claim 1, wherein the monolithic floor element further includes a first integral side beam and a second integral side beam having a flange Fig. 3: support 54 on either side, wherein the flange is arranged to bear a first integral side beam of another monolithic floor element thereon supports floorboard 56 (this claim does not require that this “another monolithic floor element” take the same form as the first one, it can be any single floor element).
For claim 3, Benthien discloses the floor assembly of claim 1, wherein the at least one support structure comprises a transverse beam coupled to an underside of the monolithic floor element 48 integrally coupled at bottom of element.
For claim 11, Benthien discloses the floor assembly of claim 1, wherein the monolithic floor element comprises one or more depressions recesses 68.
For claim 12, Benthien discloses the floor assembly of claim 11, wherein a filler is disposed in the one or more depressions Fig. 4: 140 fills the recess.
For claim 13, Benthien discloses an aircraft, comprising a plurality of floor assemblies of claim 1 Fig. 1.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benthien in view of Anast et al (US 6554225 B1).
For claim 4, Benthien discloses the floor assembly of claim 3, but fails to disclose:
wherein the transverse beam has a U-shaped or omega-shaped cross-section, and
wherein the cross-section of the transverse beam underneath the seat rail surface portion is wider than a cross-section of a transverse beam at a different region of the monolithic floor element not forming a seat rail surface portion.
However, Anast teaches a transverse support beam under a seat rail Fig. 3-6: beam 30 under 40, the support beam has a U shape at 48 and as shown in Fig. 3, the cross section is wider at rib 50 than at the other ribs.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Benthien by having the transverse beam have a U-shaped or omega-shaped cross-section, and the cross-section of the transverse beam underneath the seat rail surface portion is wider than a cross-section of a transverse beam at a different region of the monolithic floor element not forming a seat rail surface portion as disclosed by Anast. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide structural support to the seat rail in locations where it is necessary without excess weight.
For claim 14, Benthien discloses the aircraft of claim 13, but fails to disclose:
a plurality of frames; and
a plurality of floor beams protruding from a respective one of the plurality of the frames,
wherein the monolithic floor element of each of the plurality of floor assemblies is supported by two or more of the plurality of floor beams.
However, Anast teaches seat rails Fig. 1A: 18 which are supported by multiple floor beams 14 which protrude from frames aircraft frames.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Benthien by supporting the rails with floor beams that protrude from frames as disclosed by Anast. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide structural support for the rails.
For claim 15, Benthien discloses the aircraft of claim 14,
wherein the monolithic floor element further includes a first integral side beam and a second integral side beam having a flange Fig. 3: support 54 on either side, wherein the flange is arranged to bear a first integral side beam of another monolithic floor element thereon supports floorboard 56 (this claim does not require that this “another monolithic floor element” take the same form as the first one, it can be any single floor element), and
but fails to disclose at least one fastener fastening one of a plurality of floor beams floorboards 56 to a first integral side beam of a first one of the plurality of floor assemblies and a second integral side beam of a second one of the plurality of floor assemblies to one another.
Benthien does disclose floorboards 56 which are attached to each integral side beam, but it is not explicitly shown that there are multiple of these.
However, Anast teaches floorboards Fig. 1A: 16 which fasten to a first side of one rail and the second side of the next rail.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Benthien by having a series of floorboards and rails as disclosed by Anast. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide flooring across the width of the cabin.
For claim 16, Benthien discloses the aircraft of claim 14, wherein the integral cross strut of each of the plurality of floor assemblies is connected to one of the plurality of frames at least indirectly connected to the frames.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 J MICHENER can be reached at (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights