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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth (US 20180127100 A1), as cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 03/04/2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Roth discloses an aircraft section (600, Fig. 6), comprising:
a primary structure forming at least a portion of an aircraft fuselage (fuselage parts 701 and 703, Fig. 75);
a cabin floor (112, Fig. 7) coupled to the primary structure (112 is coupled to 701 and 703 via 109 and 111, Figs. 2 and 7 and para. [0055]);
a sidewall covering at least a portion of the primary structure (601, 111, and 702, examiner notes the portion of the sidewall 111 is formed by both 111 and reinforcement element 702, Figs. 1 and 6-7); and
a rapid decompression unit arranged between the sidewall and the primary structure (103, Fig. 7),
wherein the sidewall has a bottom edge arranged above the cabin floor (bottom edge of 111 is above 112, Fig. 8),
a first distance between the bottom edge and the cabin floor (between bottom of 111 and 112, Fig. 7),
wherein the rapid decompression unit is mounted to the primary structure and the cabin floor (103 is mounted to 701 and 703 via 109 and 111, see Figs. 1 and 7),
a second distance between the sidewall and a portion of the rapid decompression unit closest to the sidewall (distance between 702 and 103, Fig. 7),
wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (the distance between the bottom of 111 and the cabin floor 112 is clearly greater than the distance between 702 and 103, see Fig. 7, examiner further notes para. [0066] discloses that 702 is used to form a bottleneck in order to help “maintain a constant pressure for air conditioning circulation”).
Roth does not specifically disclose wherein the first distance is between 1 inch and 3 inches, and the second distance is between 1 inch and 2 inches. However, Roth does disclose a known structure with these claimed gaps/distances, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an optimal first distance between 1 inch and 3 inches and an optimal second distance between 1 inch and 2 inches, in order to allow for sufficient airflow while avoiding unnecessarily large gaps between elements and complying with regulation standards.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Roth teaches the aircraft section of claim 1, wherein the rapid decompression unit comprises an opening (hole 107, Fi. 7), a flap (flap 103, Fig. 7), and a joint to which the flap is pivotally mounted (hinge 203, Fig. 7), the flap being configured to close the opening when being in a closed position (position of flap 103, Fig. 7, and para. [0066]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Roth teaches the aircraft section of claim 2, wherein the flap is configured to move between the closed position and two opposite open positions (positions of 103 in Figs. 8-9) in which the flap is deflected in one of two opposite directions away from the opening (Figs. 8-9 and paras. [0068]-[0069]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Roth teaches the aircraft section of claim 1, wherein the rapid decompression unit is mounted to the primary structure at a minimum distance from an inner side of the primary structure (examiner notes 103 is mounted at a minimum distance from an inner side of the fuselage in order to allow 103 is pivot as depicted in Fig. 8, for example).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Roth teaches the aircraft section of claim 4.
Modified Roth does not specifically disclose wherein the minimum distance is at least 1 inch. However, Roth does disclose a known structure with a distance between the rapid decompression unit and an inner side of the primary structure, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an optimal minimum distance of at least 1 inch, in order to allow for sufficient airflow while avoiding unnecessarily large gaps between elements and complying with regulation standards.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Roth teaches the aircraft section of claim 1, wherein a main portion of the sidewall is arranged substantially parallel to the primary structure (601 is arranged substantially parallel to the outer fuselage, see Figs. 5-6), wherein a bottom region of the sidewall diverges from the primary structure (100 and 702 diverges inward towards the cabin interior, see Figs. 6).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Roth teaches the aircraft section of claim 6, wherein the bottom region covers the rapid decompression unit at least partially (100 at please partially covers 103, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Roth teaches an aircraft, comprising: at least one aircraft section according to claim 1 (500, Fig. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the amendment to claim 1 and new ground of rejection relies on a new interpretation of the prior art for the teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated a new interpretation of the prior art and 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 ANNA LYNN GORDON whose telephone number is (571)270-5323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/ANNA L. GORDON/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights