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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-27 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 21 is a product-by-process claim whose patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. (see MPEP 2113)
Claims 22-27 are directed to a product that does not require steps recited in the elected method’s group.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-27 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each first edge connection” in line 8. It is not clear what it refers to. For examination purpose, it is interpreted as “each first edge connection arrangement.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miron (CN106536353) of which attached English translation is cited in view of Stanton et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0381277) and Busch et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0287482).
Regarding Claim 1, Miron teaches an aircraft furniture (Fig. 1, 10) comprising:
providing a furniture component (Fig. 20, 290) in an aircraft interior, the furniture component (Fig. 20, 290) comprising a plurality of modular panels (Fig. 20 shows a door system 290 comprising a plurality of panels assembled together.) (The second panels in the below figure are considered modular as more than one second panel are used to build the furniture component.), each of the panels in the plurality being undamaged, separately identifiable, and having a particular shape which is distinct from at least one other modular panel in the furniture component (Fig. 20 shows a plurality of undamaged panels each having its own distinct shape, size and design features (e.g. holes) that are separately identifiable. For example, the first panel in the figure below is separately identifiable from the second panel based on its own unique shape and size that are different from those of the second panel.);
a first panel (see figure below) in the plurality having one or more first edge connection arrangements (Fig. 20, fasteners and holes in the first panel for the fasteners) (see figure below);
a second panel (see figure below) in the plurality comprising one or more second edge connection arrangements (Fig. 20, fasteners and holes in the second panel for the fasteners) (see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
546
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miron does not explicitly teach an aircraft furniture repair process comprising:
providing a furniture component comprising each first edge connection arrangement including a first insert;
each second edge connection arrangement including a second insert configured to match up with one of the first inserts on the first panel, wherein each matched first and second insert form an insert pair;
a plurality of fasteners being actuatable to establish a removable connection between the first and second panels exclusively via the insert pairs, the removable connection between the first and second panels being configured to enable a separation of the first panel from the second panel without creating damage to either of the first and second panels;
identifying an area of damage on the first panel and determining an identity of the first panel;
removing the first panel from the furniture component using the removable connection;
replacing the first panel with an uncompromised damage-free modular replacement panel, the modular replacement panel having the same identity, shape, and finish as the first panel.
Stanton teaches a component comprising each first edge connection arrangement (Fig. 6A, 110 & 300) including a first insert (Fig. 6A, 300);
each second edge connection arrangement (Fig. 7, 210 & 500) including a second insert (Fig. 7, 500) configured to match up with one of the first inserts (Fig. 6A, 300) on the first panel (Fig. 6A, 102), wherein each matched first (Fig. 6A, 300) and second (Fig. 7, 500) insert form an insert pair;
a plurality of fasteners (Fig. 6A, 614) being actuatable to establish a removable connection between the first (Fig. 6A, 102) and second (Fig. 8A, 202) panels exclusively via the insert pairs (300 & 500), the removable connection between the first and second panels being configured to enable a separation of the first panel from the second panel without creating damage to either of the first and second panels. A fastener such as a bolt ([0098]: bolt 614) in Stanton is known to form a removable connection between two parts as the bolt can be easily screwed and unscrewed inside a threaded hole. Since the bolt engages with only the inserts (300 and 500) and not the panels, a separation between the first and second panels by removing the bolt would not damage the panels.
Examiner notes that the claim language such as “being actuatable to establish a removable connection between the first and second panels … without creating damage to either of the first and second panels” is a statement of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the fasteners (102) of Stanton are capable of performing the intended use as explained above. (see MPEP 2114)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the connection arrangements of Miron with those of Stanton since the connection arrangements of Stanton require only one fastener to connect two panels without requiring a separate bracket at each joint.
Busch teaches identifying an area of damage on the first panel (Fig. 2, 4) ([0012]: one of the panels 4 is damaged) and;
removing the first panel (Fig. 2, 4) and replacing the first panel with an uncompromised damage-free modular replacement panel ([0012]: replace the corresponding panel 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the first panel of Miron/Stanton according to the method of Busch if and when the first panel of Miron/Stanton is subjected to damage in order to bring the aircraft furniture back to its original condition.
Although Miron/Stanton/Busch do not explicitly teach determining an identity of the first panel and the modular replacement panel having the same identity, shape, and finish as the first panel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify the damaged first panel by its shape/size/design features (e.g. hole) or some sort of identification (e.g. part number) as a part of the repair process in order to find the damage-free replacement panel having the same design and function as the original first panel, so that after the damaged first panel is replaced with the replacement panel, the aircraft furniture would provide its original appearance and function.
Regarding Claim 2, Miron/Stanton/Busch teach the process of claim 1, wherein the installed location of the furniture component is installed at a location within the aircraft interior. (Miron “Technology field”: kitchen in the aircraft) (Miron page 2, lines 34-45: kitchen cabinet)
Regarding Claim 3, Miron/Stanton/Busch teach the process of claim 2, wherein the furniture component is an aircraft cabinet (Miron page 2, lines 34-45: kitchen cabinet).
Regarding Claim 4, Miron/Stanton/Busch teach the process of claim 1, wherein separating the first panel from the second panel further comprises:
removing a first fastener (Stanton Fig. 6A, 614) removably securable within the first insert (Stanton Fig. 6A, 300) of a first insert pair (Stanton 300 & 500) by driving the first fastener out of a fastener receptacle (Stanton Fig. 8A, 506) in the second insert (Stanton Fig. 8A, 500) of the first insert pair (Stanton 300 & 500) (Stanton [0077]: Bore 504 is sized to secure an internally-threaded cylinder 506 including threads for receiving a fastener) (Examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to disassemble two assembled components by executing assembly steps in a reverse order. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove a threaded end (618) of the fastener (614) out of a threaded area (509) of a fastener receptacle (506) which was the last step in the assembly process according to Stanton [0098].), wherein the first insert (Stanton Fig. 6A, 300) is configured to fit into and be secured in a first recess (Stanton Fig. 6A, 110) defined into an edge of the first panel (Stanton Fig. 8A, 102) (Stanton [0068]), and the second insert (Stanton Fig. 8A, 500) is configured to fit into and be secured in a second recess (Stanton Fig. 7, 210) defined into an edge of the second panel (Stanton Fig. 8A, 202) (Stanton [0089]).
(Examiner notes that the claim language such as “the first insert is configured to … and the second insert is configured to …” is a statement of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the first and second inserts of Stanton are capable of performing the intended use. (see MPEP 2114))
Regarding Claim 5, Miron/Stanton/Busch teach the process of claim 4, further comprising attaching the uncompromised damage-free modular replacement panel to the second panel, wherein the attaching comprises:
orienting an edge (Stanton Fig. 8A, 108) of the uncompromised damage-free modular replacement panel (Stanton Fig. 8A, 102) at an angle to, and along an edge of the second panel (Stanton Fig. 8A, 202) (see Stanton Fig. 8A) (Stanton [0098]: panel 102 has been installed such that edge 108 abuts the lower outside surface of vertical panel 202); and
driving a second fastener (Stanton 6A, 614) removably securable within a third insert (Stanton 6A, 300) into the fastener receptacle (Stanton Fig. 8A, 506) of the second insert (Stanton Fig. 8A, 500) (Stanton [0098]: the threaded end 618 of the fastener … engaged into the reciprocating threads existing in threaded area 509 in insert 500) (The replacement panel would require the same assembly process as the first panel.), wherein the third insert (Stanton 6A, 300) is configured to fit into and be secured in a third recess (Stanton Fig. 6A, 110) defined into an edge (Stanton Fig. 8A, 108) of the replacement panel (Stanton Fig. 8A, 102) (The replacement panel would have an identical design such as an insert inside a recess to the first panel without the damage.), and the fastener receptacle (Stanton Fig. 8A, 506) has a center axis that is substantially perpendicular to the replacement panel (Stanton Fig. 7, the central axis of the cylinder 506 would be perpendicular to the edge 108 of the replacement panel.). (The assembly process of the replacement panel would be same as the assembly process of the first panel.)
Regarding Claim 8, Miron/Stanton/Busch teach the process of claim 5, further comprising securing the first, the second, and the third inserts into the first, the second, and the third recesses using epoxy (Stanton [0082]-[0086] describe securing of the first and the second inserts into the first and the second recesses & [0089]-[0095] describe securing of the third insert into the third recess).
Regarding Claim 9, Miron/Stanton/Busch teach the process of claim 4, further comprising forming one or more epoxy-receiving apertures (Stanton Fig. 6A, 318, 320, 326) into a top portion (Stanton Fig. 6A, 306) of the first insert (Stanton Fig. 6A, 300) to receive epoxy into a space (Stanton Fig. 3B, 328 & 330) defined around a plurality of outside surfaces (Stanton Fig. 3B, 310 & 312) of the first insert to encapsulate a base (Stanton Fig. 3B, 302) of the first insert (Stanton [0074]).
Regarding Claim 10, Miron/Stanton/Busch teach the process of claim 4, further comprising forming one or more apertures (Stanton Fig. 5A, 528 & 530) into a top portion (Stanton Fig. 5A, 512) of the second insert (Stanton Fig. 8A, 500) to receive epoxy into a space (Stanton Fig. 5A, 532 & 534) defined around a plurality of outside surfaces of the second insert to encapsulate a base (Stanton Fig. 5A, 502) of the second insert (Stanton [0079]).
Regarding Claim 11, Miron/Stanton/Busch teach the process of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of panels are fabricated from a composite honeycomb core structure (Stanton [0061]: composite honeycomb core structure).
Regarding Claim 12, Miron/Stanton/Busch teach the process of claim 5, further comprising forming one or more apertures (Stanton Fig. 6A, 318, 320, 326) into a top portion (Stanton Fig. 6A, 306) of the third insert (Stanton Fig. 6A, 300) to receive epoxy into a space (Stanton Fig. 3B, 328 & 330) defined around a plurality of outside surfaces (Stanton Fig. 3B, 310 & 312) of the third insert to encapsulate a base (Stanton Fig. 3B, 302) of the third insert. (Since the replacement third panel would have the same design as the first panel, the third insert would have the same design features as the first insert.)
Regarding Claim 13, Miron/Stanton/Busch teach the process of claim 5, further comprising creating an elongated aperture (Stanton Fig. 3C, 307) into a top portion (Stanton Fig. 3A, 306) of the first insert (Stanton Fig. 6A, 300) and the third insert (Stanton Fig. 6A, 300), the elongated aperture having a widened portion (Stanton Fig. 3C 309) configured to allow passage of a fastener head (Stanton Fig. 6A, 616) into an inside (Stanton Fig. 3A, 316) of the first insert and the third insert (Stanton Fig. 6A, 300) for installation and removal (Stanton [0098]).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miron (CN106536353) of which attached English translation is cited in view of Stanton et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0381277) and Busch et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0287482), as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Sven (NL2037108) of which attached English translation is cited.
Regarding Claim 6, Miron/Stanton/Busch teach the process of claim 1, but do not explicitly teach further comprising applying the particular finish of the uncompromised damage-free modular replacement panel prior to the replacing.
Sven teaches applying a decorative finish to the panel (Description lines 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a decorative finish to the first, second and replacement panels of Miron/Stanton/Busch prior the replacing as taught by Sven in order to add a desired appearance to the panels. It would be obvious to provide a finish to the replacement panel, matching the finish of the original panel in order to maintain the original appearance of the aircraft furniture.
Regarding Claim 7, Miron/Stanton/Busch/Sven teach the process of claim 6, further comprising applying the finish using a digital lacquer embossing technique (Sven page 4, 4th paragraph: digital lacquer embossing).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but most of them are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Here are examiner’s responses to the arguments only pertaining to the current rejection.
On page 14 of the applicant’s argument, applicant argues that Stanton does not teach or suggest a plurality of modular panels used to form aircraft furniture. Examiner notes that this particular claim limitation has been taught by Miron in the current rejection as shown above.
On pages 14-15 of the applicant’s argument, applicant argues that Stanton does not teach identifying damage on the panel, removing it and replacing it with the damage-free replacement panel. Examiner would like to note that this particular claim limitation has been taught by Busch in the current rejection as shown above.
On pages 15 of the applicant’s argument, applicant argues that Stanton does not teach the panels possess separate identities, shapes and finishes. Examiner would like to note Miron’s panels possess separate shapes and sizes that are distinct from other panels and that as a part of the replacement process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify the damaged panel by its unique shape/size or some sort of identification (e.g. part number) in order to find a damage-free replacement panel having the identical shape/size, so that the furniture (e.g. aircraft cabinet) can be repaired to its original condition, providing same appearance and function.
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 JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, SUNIL SINGH can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 8/24/2026
Prosecution Insights