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 Amendments
The amendment filed October 31st, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 31st, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 11, “…actuating the seat and the…” should read “…actuating the seat section and the…”.
In claim 1 line 13, “…extend the passenger’s legs…” should read “…extend passenger’s legs…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 1 lines 14-15, “…translation, along its own longitudinal direction when it is upright in the sitting position, and…” should read “…translation, along a longitudinal direction of the backrest when the backrest is upright in the sitting position, and…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 2 lines 3-4, “…lowering it, and….folding it down and setting it upright…” should read “…lowering the backrest, and.…folding the backrest down and setting the backrest upright…” for the purpose of clarity as the use of the pronoun “it” may lead to ambiguity of what “it” refer back to.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erhel (US 2016/0325838) in view of Martin (GB 9,11,097).
Regarding claim 1, Erhel ‘838 teaches (figures 1-4) a sofa/divan (10) for a passenger transport vehicle such as an aircraft (Para 0049-0051),
including a seat section (12), a backrest (14) having a length, and a structure/ seat pan (30), a undercarriage (24) and legs (18, 20) supporting the seat section (12) and the backrest (14) (Para 0052, 0058-0059),
said sofa being convertible into at least two positions each having a maximum usable surface area by a passenger: a sitting/upright position (figure 1) wherein the backrest (14) is upright with respect to the seat section (12) and a reclining/berth position (figure 3) wherein the backrest (14) is folded down in a plane with the seat section (12) (Para 0039, 0041);
wherein the structure is movably mounted so as to be movable in translation along a longitudinal direction (clearly seen in figures 1-3; seat pan (30) of the structure moves in translation), actuating the seat section (12) and the backrest (14) with the structure, wherein said seat section has a length to allow the passenger in the sitting position to fully extend passenger’s legs (clearly seen in figure 4; length of a seat section creates a space in front of the seat section which can be used by the passenger in the sitting position to fully extend his/her leg on the cabin floor), and wherein said backrest (14) is movably mounted so as to be movable both in translation, along a longitudinal direction of the backrest when the backrest is upright in the sitting position, and in rotation about a transverse axis located at a junction between the seat section (12) and the backrest (14) (clearly seen in figures 1-3; backrest has both the translational movement in up-down direction and rotational movement via brackets (34s)) (Para 0060)
but it is silent about the sofa wherein said sofa characterized in that in the sitting position, the backrest is partially stored beneath the seat section in a space of the structure, such that the maximum usable surface area in the sitting position is less than the maximum usable surface in the reclining position
Martin ‘097 teaches (figures 1-2) a convertible bet-settee/sofa comprising base frame (10), seat frame (12) with seat cushion (28)/ seat section, backrest frame (13) and backrest cushion (28)/ backrest and link assembly/structure, wherein the seat frame and back rest frame are connected to the base frame at each end of a link assembly, wherein when the convertible bet-settee/sofa is in the sitting position (figure 2) the backrest is partially stored beneath the seat section in a space of the link assembly/structure (clearly seen figure 2) (Pg. 2 Lines 26-27, 124-127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Erhel ‘838 to incorporate the teachings of Martin ‘097 to configure the sofa wherein said sofa characterized in that in the sitting position, the backrest is partially stored beneath the seat section in a space of the structure, such that the maximum usable surface area in the sitting position is less than the maximum usable surface in the reclining position.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide extra laying surface in reclined position.
Regarding claim 2, modified Erhel ‘838 teaches (figures 1-4) the sofa wherein the translation movements of the structure for moving the sofa forward and back, the translation movements of the backrest for raising and lowering the backrest, and rotational movements of said backrest for folding the backrest down and setting the backrest upright are independent of each other, and said sofa comprising one actuator per movement (Para 0065, 0068-0069; forward seat bracket (52) actuates translation movement of the structure; backrest bracket (72) actuates the translation movement of the backrest; brackets (34s) actuates the rotational movement of the backrest).
Regarding claim 3, modified Erhel ‘838 teaches (figures 1-4) the sofa wherein the rotational movement of the backrest (14) is carried out by means of a circular rack/bracket (34) connecting said backrest (14) to the structure (bracket (34) connects backrest (14) to seat pan (30) of the structure) and making it possible to offset an axis of rotation of the backrest at the junction with the seat section (12) (clearly seen in figures 1-3) (Para 0068; axis of rotation is below the seat section and backrest).
Regarding claim 4, modified Erhel ‘838 teaches (figures 1-4) the sofa wherein the length of the backrest (14) is less than the length of the seat section (12), giving the sofa a chaise longue shape (clearly seen in figure 1).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erhel (US 2016/0325838) and Martin (GB 9,11,097) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shrock (US 4,321,716).
Regarding claim 5, modified Erhel ‘838 teaches (figures 1-4) the sofa wherein the seat section (12) and the backrest (14) comprise respectively rear and front lateral faces configured to be adjoined in the reclining position of the sofa, said rear lateral face inclined with respect to a top surface of the seat section at an angle of less than 90 degrees (as modified by Martin ‘097; clearly seen in figures 1-2)
but it is silent about the sofa wherein said front lateral face inclined with respect to a top surface of the backrest at an angle greater than 90 degrees, a sum of the two angles being equal to 180 degrees.
Shrock ‘716 teaches (figures 1-2) a seat bed/sofa (20) comprising back cushion (11) and seat cushion (12) wherein in a bed/reclined position adjoining lateral faces of the back cushion/backrest and seat cushion/ seat section are parallel with minimum gap in between (clearly seen in figure 2) (Col. 1 Lines 34-40, 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Erhel ‘838 to incorporate the teachings of Shrock ‘716 to configure the sofa wherein in a bed/reclined position lateral faces of the backrest and seat section are parallel with minimum gap in between. This would lead to the sofa wherein said front lateral face inclined with respect to a top surface of the backrest at an angle greater than 90 degrees, a sum of the two angles being equal to 180 degrees.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance strength and maintain stability of the divan in a recline position by ensuring a seamless transition from the seat section to the backseat section.
Claim(s) 6 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chareyre (WO 2021/074686) in view of Erhel (US 2016/0325838) and Martin (GB 9,11,097).
Regarding claim 6, Chareyre ‘686 teaches (figures 1-5) a compartment/cabin for a passenger transport vehicle such as an aircraft (Pg. 6 Para 5), comprising an amenity console/table (70) and a screen (60) (Pg. 17 Para 1-2), and comprising a sofa for a passenger transport vehicle such as an aircraft including a seat section, and a back rest having a length (clearly shown in the figure below);
said screen (60) positioned above the backrest (clearly shown in the figure below)
PNG
media_image1.png
396
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the compartment comprising a sofa including a structure supporting the seat section and the backrest,
said sofa being convertible into at least two positions each having a maximum usable surface area by a passenger : a sitting position wherein the backrest is upright with respect to the seat section and a reclining position wherein the backrest is folded down in a plane with the seat section;
wherein the structure is movably mounted so as to be movable in translation along a longitudinal direction, actuating the seat section and the backrest with the structure, wherein said seat section has a length to allow the passenger in the sitting position to fully extend passenger’s legs and wherein said backrest is movably mounted so as to be movable both in translation, along longitudinal direction of the backrest when the backrest is upright in the sitting position, and in rotation about a transverse axis located at a junction between the seat section and the backrest.
Erhel ‘838 teaches (figures 1-4) a sofa/divan (10) for a passenger transport vehicle such as an aircraft (Para 0049-0051),
including a seat section (12), a backrest (14) having a length, and a structure/ seat pan (30), a undercarriage (24) and legs (18, 20) supporting the seat section (12) and the backrest (14) (Para 0052, 0058-0059),
said sofa being convertible into at least two positions each having a maximum usable surface area by a passenger: a sitting/upright position (figure 1) wherein the backrest (14) is upright with respect to the seat section (12) and a reclining/berth position (figure 3) wherein the backrest (14) is folded down in a plane with the seat section (12) (Para 0039, 0041);
wherein the structure is movably mounted so as to be movable in translation along a longitudinal direction (clearly seen in figures 1-3; seat pan (30) of the structure moves in translation), actuating the seat section (12) and the backrest (14) with the structure, wherein said seat section has a length to allow the passenger in the sitting position to fully extend passenger’s legs (clearly seen in figure 4; length of a seat section creates a space in front of the seat section which can be used by the passenger in the sitting position to fully extend his/her leg on the cabin floor), and wherein said backrest (14) is movably mounted so as to be movable both in translation, along a longitudinal direction of the backrest when the backrest is upright in the sitting position, and in rotation about a transverse axis located at a junction between the seat section (12) and the backrest (14) (clearly seen in figures 1-3; backrest has both the translational movement in up-down direction and rotational movement via brackets (34s)) (Para 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chareyre ‘686 to incorporate the teachings of Erhel ‘838 to configure the compartment comprising a sofa including a structure supporting the seat section and the backrest,
said sofa being convertible into at least two positions each having a maximum usable surface area by a passenger : a sitting position wherein the backrest is upright with respect to the seat section and a reclining position wherein the backrest is folded down in a plane with the seat section;
wherein the structure is movably mounted so as to be movable in translation along a longitudinal direction, actuating the seat section and the backrest with the structure, wherein said seat section has a length to allow the passenger in the sitting position to fully extend passenger’s legs and wherein said backrest is movably mounted so as to be movable both in translation, along longitudinal direction of the backrest when the backrest is upright in the sitting position, and in rotation about a transverse axis located at a junction between the seat section and the backrest.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would utilize the seat section and backrest in both the sitting and recline positions.
Modified Chareyre ‘686 is silent about the compartment comprising the sofa wherein said sofa characterized in that in the sitting position, the backrest is partially stored beneath the seat section in a space of the structure, such that the maximum usable surface area in the sitting position is less than the maximum usable surface in the reclining position.
Martin ‘097 teaches (figures 1-2) a convertible bet-settee/sofa comprising base frame (10), seat frame (12) with seat cushion (28)/ seat section, backrest frame (13) and backrest cushion (28)/ backrest and link assembly/structure, wherein the seat frame and back rest frame are connected to the base frame at each end of a link assembly, wherein when the convertible bet-settee/sofa is in the sitting position (figure 2) the backrest is partially stored beneath the seat section in a space of the link assembly/structure (clearly seen figure 2) (Pg. 2 Lines 26-27, 124-127).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Chareyre ‘686 to incorporate the teachings of Martin ‘097 to configure the compartment comprising the sofa wherein said sofa characterized in that in the sitting position, the backrest is partially stored beneath the seat section in a space of the structure, such that the maximum usable surface area in the sitting position is less than the maximum usable surface in the reclining position.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide extra laying surface in reclined position.
Regarding claim 8, modified Chareyre ‘686 teaches (figures 1-5) the compartment further comprising an extra chair place across from and opposite the sofa (clearly shown in the figure above).
Regarding claim 9, modified Chareyre ‘686 teaches (figures 1-5) an airliner/aircraft comprising at least one compartment/cabin according to claim 6 (clearly seen in figure 1) (Pg. 6 Para 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 31st, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argue that
“Erhel does not disclose the divan that may accommodate person(s) thereon in a lounged seated position.”
while Figure 4 of Erhel may illustrate a conventional aircraft divan, it clearly does not anticipate or render obvious the claimed feature of a seat section dimensioned to permit full leg extension in the sitting position.
However, the claimed limitation doesn’t not require these features, and as explained in the rejection above. Applicant’s arguments are explained in the rejection above a length of a seat section creates a space in front of the seat section which can be used by the passenger in the sitting position to fully extend his/her leg on the cabin floor.
Conclusion
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 ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642