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 .
Examiner's Note
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is
"adapted to", "configured to", "capable of', "arranged to", "intended to", "so as",
"designed for" or "operable to" perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular
structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69
USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", "configured to", "capable of', "arranged to", "intended to", "so as" or "operable to" will be deemed met by an element in
the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to",
"configured to", "capable of', "arranged to", "intended to", "so as", "designed for" or
"operable to".
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the
references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in
their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of
the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-
07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING
DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be
considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the
claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed 9th February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8th August 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 13, “wherein the the single…” should read “wherein the single…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 lines 14-15 recites “…the single motorized mechanism is arranged beneath the seat section within a cover defining an internal volume configured to accommodate…” which renders the claim definite as it is how the single motorized mechanism can be arranged with in a cover. For the examination the limitation is interpreted as “…the single motorized mechanism is arranged beneath the seat section within an internal volume defined by a cover, wherein the internal volume is configured to accommodate…”.
Claims not addressed are rejected due to their dependency on rejected base claim.
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 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ersan et al. (US 2015/0001341) in view of Ferry et al. (US 2004/0232283).
Regarding claim 1 (as best understood), Ersan et al. ‘341 teaches (figures 1a-2d) a seat unit (10) for a passenger of an airliner, comprising:
a seat (18) that can be converted into a bed, the seat comprising a seat section/pan and a backrest/ seat back that are movable (Para 0035, 0066, 0071);
a body/shell (42) isolating the seat (18) from neighboring seats (18s) (Para 0068), the body/shell (42) comprising:
a rear partition (clearly shown in the figure below);
a side panel/ planar portion (46), on one side of the seat (18) (Para 0068), and
a console (20) topped with a tray table (49), on other side of the seat (18) (Para 0071, 0076);
the side panel/planar portion (46) and an outer wall (clearly shown in the figure below) of the console are parallel and spaced apart by a distance L between 1000 mm and 1600 mm (Para 0079, 0083, 0085; width of the seat unit is 1099 mm, 1124mm, 1232 mm);
PNG
media_image1.png
318
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the seat unit comprising:
a single motorized mechanism comprising only one motor to simultaneously actuate movements of the seat section and the backrest of the seat, so that the seat switches continuously from a sitting position to a reclined position and vice versa; and
wherein the single motorized mechanism is arranged beneath the seat section within an internal volume defined by a cover, wherein the internal volume is configured to accommodate one or more additional motorized mechanisms.
Ferry et al. ‘283 teaches (figures 1-16) converting the seat assembly (140) from the upright configuration (figure 3) to the bed configuration (figure 5) using a motor (280) which is operated to move the seat pan element/seat section (171) and back rest component (172) simultaneously so that the seat assembly (140) switches continuously from a sitting position to a reclined position and vice-versa, wherein the motor (280) is arranged beneath the seat pan element/seat section (171) within an internal volume defined by a cover/rear wall (204) (clearly shown in the figure below), wherein the internal volume is configured to accommodate one or more additional motorized mechanisms (Para 0183-0191, 0153; internal volume can be configured, as needed, to accommodate one or more additional motorized mechanisms).
PNG
media_image2.png
498
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Ersan et al. ‘341 to incorporate the teachings of Ferry et al. ‘283 to configure the seat unit comprising:
a single motorized mechanism comprising only one motor to simultaneously actuate movements of the seat section and the backrest of the seat, so that the seat switches continuously from a sitting position to a reclined position and vice versa; and
wherein the single motorized mechanism is arranged beneath the seat section within an internal volume defined by a cover, wherein the internal volume is configured to accommodate one or more additional motorized mechanisms.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would automate the seat transition between a reclined and upright/sitting positions.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ersan et al. ‘341 teaches (figures 1a-2d) the seat unit wherein at least one transverse section contour is inscribed in a circumscribing parallelogram, each side of the circumscribing parallelogram at least partially merged with a rectilinear part of said contour (clearly shown in the figure above) (rectilinear part of the contour is overlapped by the circumscribing parallelogram).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ersan et al. ‘341 teaches (figures 1a-2d) the seat unit wherein the circumscribing parallelogram is not a rectangle (clearly seen in the figure above).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ersan et al. ‘341 teaches (figures 1a-2d) the seat unit wherein the rectilinear parts belong respectively to the rear partition, to the side panel, to a free edge of the seat section and to the outer wall of the console (clearly seen in the figure above; rectilinear parts are overlapped by the circumscribing parallelogram).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ersan et al. ‘341 teaches (figures 1a-2d) an aircraft cabin seat arrangement comprising a plurality of seat units, wherein each of the plurality of seat units is the seat unit of claim 1 (clearly seen in figure 1a) (Para 0066).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ersan et al. ‘341 teaches (figures 1a-2d) the seat arrangement wherein said plurality of seat units is arranged in a plurality of rows, each row comprising two side groups and one central group (clearly seen in figure 1a (clearly seen in figure 1a)
but it is silent about the seat arrangement wherein one central group is in a herringbone configuration.
Ersan et al. ‘341 further teaches seat units in a herringbone-type arrangements (Para 0003).
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 Ersan et al. ‘341 to configure the seat arrangement wherein one central group is in a herringbone configuration.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance experiences for two passengers travelling together.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ersan et al. (US 2015/0001341) and Ferry et al. (US 2004/0232283) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rezag et al. (US 2005/0067870).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ersan et al. ‘341 teaches (figures 1a-2d) the seat unit wherein the seat (18) has a horizontal reclining surface formed by the seat section/pan and the backrest/seat back (clearly seen in figure 1b), when said seat (18) is in the reclined position, said horizontal reclining surface being extendible by a side extension/ lateral bed surface extension (35) (Para 0073, 0076). Ersan et al. ‘341 further teaches an arm rest (47) placed at the console (20) (Para 0076),
but it is silent about the seat unit, when said seat is in a reclined position, said horizontal reclining surface being extendible by a side extension adjoined to the console and a height-adjustable armrest placed at the side panel.
Rezag et al. ‘870 teaches (figures 1-4) a seat comprising a sitting portion (2), a back (4), a footrest (6), two arms (8) on sides of the sitting portion (2) wherein armrests (8) are lowered to increase the bedding surface (Para 0047, 0067).
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 Ersan et al. ‘341 to incorporate the teachings of Rezag et al. ‘870 to configure the seat unit with two armrests directly next to the sides of the sitting portion/ seat pan wherein the armrests can be lowered to increase the bedding surface (side extension/ lateral bed surface extension (35) and armrest (47), as modified, results in the adjustable armrests). This results in the seat section, when said seat is in a reclined position, said horizontal reclining surface being extendible by a side extension adjoined to the console (the armrest (47) adjoined to the console, in the lowered position forms a side extension) and a height-adjustable armrest placed at the side panel (side extension/ lateral bed surface extension (35) is formed when the arm rest is in lowered position i.e., the primary function of lateral bed surface extension is not destroyed; side extension/lateral bed surface extension adds to the surface area of armrest (48) in the raised position).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance passenger experiences.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson et al. (US 2012/0228429) in view of Ersan et al. (US 2015/0001341) and Ferry et al. (US 2004/0232283).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8 and 10 (as best understood), Hanson et al. ‘429 teaches (figure 1) a single-aisle medium -haul aircraft (100) comprising the aircraft cabin seat arrangement comprising a plurality of seat units (106-120) wherein said plurality of seat units comprises only two side groups, each side group comprising one seat unit per transverse row (clearly seen in figure 1) (Para 0026)
but it is silent about the aircraft wherein each of the plurality of seat units is the seat unit comprising:
a seat that can be converted into a bed, the seat comprising seat section and a backrest that are movable;
a body isolating the seat from neighboring seats, the body comprising:
a rear partition;
a side panel, on one side of the seat; and
a console topped with a tray table, on other side of the seat;
the side panel and on outer wall of the console are parallel and spaced apart by a distance L between 1000 mm and 1600 mm; and
wherein the seat unit is configured to receive one or more additional motorized mechanisms.
Ersan et al. ‘341 teaches (figures 1a-2d) a seat unit (10) for a passenger of an airliner, comprising:
a seat (18) that can be converted into a bed, the seat comprising a seat section/pan and a backrest/ seat back that are movable (Para 0035, 0066, 0071);
a body/shell (42) isolating the seat (18) from neighboring seats (18s) (Para 0068), the body/shell (42) comprising:
a rear partition (clearly shown in the figure below);
a side panel/ planar portion (46), on one side of the seat (18) (Para 0068), and
a console (20) topped with a tray table (49), on other side of the seat (18) (Para 0071, 0076);
the side panel/planar portion (46) and an outer wall (clearly shown in the figure below) of the console are parallel and spaced apart by a distance L between 1000 mm and 1600 mm (Para 0079, 0083, 0085; width of the seat unit is 1099 mm, 1124mm, 1232 mm);
wherein the seat unit (18) is configured to receive one or more additional motorized mechanisms (seat unit can be configured, as needed, to receive one or more motorized mechanisms).
PNG
media_image3.png
283
657
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 Hanson et al. ‘429 to incorporate the teachings of Ersan et al. ‘341 to configure the aircraft wherein each of the plurality of seat units is the seat unit comprising:
a seat that can be converted into a bed, the seat comprising seat section and a backrest that are movable;
a body isolating the seat from neighboring seats, the body comprising:
a rear partition;
a side panel, on one side of the seat; and
a console topped with a tray table, on other side of the seat;
the side panel and on outer wall of the console are parallel and spaced apart by a distance L between 1000 mm and 1600 mm;
wherein the seat unit is configured to receive one or more additional motorized mechanisms.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide passengers privacy and enhance passengers experiences.
Modified Hanson et al. ‘429 is silent about the seat unit comprising:
a single motorized mechanism comprising only one motor to simultaneously actuate movements of the seat section and the backrest of the seat, so that the seat switches continuously from a sitting position to a reclined position and vice versa; and
wherein the single motorized mechanism is arranged beneath the seat section within an internal volume defined by a cover, wherein the internal volume is configured to accommodate one or more additional motorized mechanisms.
PNG
media_image2.png
498
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ferry et al. ‘283 teaches (figures 1-16) converting the seat assembly (140) from the upright configuration (figure 3) to the bed configuration (figure 5) using a motor (280) which is operated to move the seat pan element/seat section (171) and back rest component (172) simultaneously so that the seat assembly (140) switches continuously from a sitting position to a reclined position and vice-versa, wherein the motor (280) is arranged beneath the seat pan element/seat section (171) within an internal volume defined by a cover/rear wall (204) (clearly shown in the figure below), wherein the internal volume is configured to accommodate one or more additional motorized mechanisms (Para 0183-0191, 0153; internal volume can be configured, as needed, to accommodate one or more additional motorized mechanisms).
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 Hanson et al. ‘429 to incorporate the teachings of Ferry et al. ‘283 to configure t the seat unit comprising:
a single motorized mechanism comprising only one motor to simultaneously actuate movements of the seat section and the backrest of the seat, so that the seat switches continuously from a sitting position to a reclined position and vice versa; and
wherein the single motorized mechanism is arranged beneath the seat section within an internal volume defined by a cover, wherein the internal volume is configured to accommodate one or more additional motorized mechanisms.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would automate the seat transition between a reclined and upright/sitting positions.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ersan et al. ‘341 teaches (figures 1a-2d) the seat arrangement of claim 8 but it is silent about the seat arrangement wherein each seat unit has a distance of L equal to 1549.4 mm.
However, Ersan et al. ‘341 teaches a plurality of widths for the seating units i.e., 1099 mm, 1124mm, 1232 mm (Para 0079, 0083, 0085).
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 Ersan et al. ‘341 to configure the seat arrangement wherein each seat unit has a distance of L equal to 1549.4 mm since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed device is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04, citing In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9th February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In bullet point number 1, applicant argues that Ersan et al. ‘341’s width “W” is not spacing between two particular parallel members, however, seat units in the cabin are arranged in straight columns of seat units parallel to the cabin longitudinal axis of the aircraft (Para 0042), and width “W” is the maximum width of the seat unit measured as the maximum width of “shell 42 + console 20 + seat 18” in a direction perpendicular to the cabin longitudinal axis, and as seen in the figure below seat is in between side panel (as shown in the figure below) of shell and console, thus width “W” is the spacing between side panel and outer wall of the console which are parallel to each other.
PNG
media_image4.png
684
595
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's argument with respect to Ferry et al. ‘283 in bullet point number 2, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Thus, teaching of Ferry et al. ‘283 to use a motor (280) for converting between the upright seat configuration/sitting position of fig. 3 and the bed configuration/reclined of fig. 5 continuously is only being considered to modify Ersan et al. ‘341 and has nothing to do with the stepper motor (318) and control logic involving the use of stepper motor (318).
Applicant’s argument with respect to amended limitations, in bullet point number 3, is explained in the rejection above.
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