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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 2, appears to contain a typographical error wherein it recites “at least one of first single lavatory and second single lavatory”. For purposes of examination, this recitation is interpreted as “at least one of the first single lavatory and the second single lavatory”. Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrasangasilpa et al. (US 20240167273 A1), hereafter Worrasangasilpa, in view of Matimura (US 4555828 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Worrasangasilpa discloses a lavatory wall system (Fig. 14), comprising:
a pair of rail tracks extending in a Y-direction (parallel tracks depicted as the two horizontal parallel lines in Fig. 14, additionally see para. [0071], “…wall may be attached to the restroom structure by two rails and may laterally translate along the rails”);
a pair of hanging brackets (330, Fig. 10) coupled to the rail tracks via rollers disposed and configured to translate with the rail tracks (bearings of bearing carriage 330, Fig. 10),
a center wall coupled to the pair of hanging brackets and configured to translate with the rollers (panels 440, 442, Fig. 14); and
the center wall remains perpendicular to each of the rail tracks in an X-Y plane (Fig. 14, center walls 442, 440 remain perpendicular to rail tracks).
Worrasangasilpa, is silent about an anti-rack device fixedly coupled to and extending between each of the hanging brackets in an X-direction such that the center wall remains perpendicular to each of the rail tracks in an X-Y plane.
Matimura teaches an anti-rack device fixedly coupled to and extending between similar hanging brackets (runner guide 12, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the lavatory wall system and the hanging brackets of Worrasangasilpa with an anti-rack device as taught by Matimura, with a reasonable expectation of success, whereby Matimura’s anti-rack device is fixedly coupled to and extending between each of Worrasangasilpa’s hanging brackets in an X direction such that the center wall remains perpendicular to each of the rail tracks in an X-Y plane, in order to enhance stability of the brackets during translation of the center wall.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Worrasangasilpa as applied above, in further view of Koyama et al. (US 20160039522 A1), hereafter Koyama
Regarding Claim 2, modified Worrasangasilpa teaches the lavatory wall system of claim 1.
Modified Worrasangasilpa is silent about wherein the center wall has a curved segment abutting a cutout and a flat segment opposing the curved segment and perpendicular to the pair of rail tracks.
Koyama teaches a similar center wall has a curved segment (Koyama, aft segment of 36 is curved, Fig. 2) abutting a cutout (Koyama, cutout at bottom of 36 for cabinets 1010, Fig. 2) and a flat segment opposing the curved segment (38, Fig. 2) and perpendicular to a pair of similar rail tracks (Koyama, 38 is perpendicular to direction of tracks 5040, Fig. 26)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the center wall of modified Worrasangasilpa with a curved segment as taught by Koyama, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to shape the center wall around cabinets or other fixtures in the lavatory.
Claim(s) 6, 9-12, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrasangasilpa et al. (US 20240167273 A1), hereafter Worrasangasilpa, in view of Bauer et al. (US 20170314607 A1), hereafter Bauer.
Regarding Claim 6, Worrasangasilpa discloses an airplane lavatory (126, Fig. 2), comprising:
a first single lavatory (18, Fig. 1),
a second single lavatory (22, Fig. 1),
a drop ceiling spanning the first single lavatory and the second single lavatory (ceiling of 126, Fig. 2);
a pair of linear rail tracks disposed on the ceiling and extending linearly from a first end to a second end of the drop ceiling (parallel tracks depicted as the two horizontal parallel lines in Fig. 14, additionally see para. [0071], “…wall may be attached to the restroom structure by two rails and may laterally translate along the rails”);
a pair of hanging brackets (330, Fig. 10) coupled to the rail tracks via rollers disposed and configured to translate within the rail tracks (bearings of bearing carriage 330, Fig. 10); and
a center wall coupled to the hanging brackets and configured to translate with the rollers (panels 440, 442, Fig. 14).
Worrasangasilpa is silent about the pair of linear tracks are disposed within the ceiling, and instead discloses the tracks are mounted to the ceiling (Fig. 10).
Bauer teaches a recess in a ceiling configured to receive a similar track (para. [0090], “the track is recessed into a wall or ceiling”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dispose the pair of rail tracks of Worrasangasilpa within the ceiling, as taught by Bauer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maximize space in the lavatory.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Worrasangasilpa teaches the airplane lavatory of claim 6, wherein the drop ceiling has linear recesses configured to receive the pair of rail tracks (Bauer, para. [0090], “the track is recessed into a wall or ceiling”).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Worrasangasilpa teaches the airplane lavatory of claim 6, wherein the center wall has at least one lock configured to prevent the center wall from translating within the pair of rail tracks (Worrasangasilpa, 34, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Worrasangasilpa teaches the airplane lavatory of claim 10, wherein in response to being in a dual lavatory configuration, the center wall is secured by the at least one lock in a center of the first single lavatory and the second single lavatory (Worrasangasilpa, 34, Fig. 1 and para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Worrasangasilpa teaches the airplane lavatory of claim 11, wherein in response to being in a single lavatory configuration, the center wall is translated along the pair of rail tracks (Worrasangasilpa, Fig. 14) and secured by the at least one lock within at least one of the first single lavatory or the second single lavatory (Worrasangasilpa, para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 15, Worrasangasilpa discloses an aircraft (100, Fig. 2), comprising:
an adaptable lavatory (126, Fig. 2) including:
a first single lavatory (18, Fig. 1),
a second single lavatory (22, Fig. 1),
a drop ceiling spanning the first single lavatory and the second single lavatory (ceiling of 126, Fig. 2);
a pair of linear rail tracks disposed on ceiling and extending linearly between the first single lavatory and the second single lavatory (parallel tracks depicted as the two horizontal parallel lines in Fig. 14, additionally see para. [0071], “…wall may be attached to the restroom structure by two rails and may laterally translate along the rails”);
a pair of hanging brackets (330, Fig. 10) coupled to the rail tracks via rollers disposed and configured to translate within the rail tracks (bearings of bearing carriage 330, Fig. 10); and
a center wall coupled to the hanging brackets and configured to translate with the rollers (panels 440, 442, Fig. 14).
Worrasangasilpa is silent about the pair of linear tracks are disposed within the ceiling, and instead discloses the tracks are mounted to the ceiling (Fig. 10).
Bauer teaches a recess in a ceiling configured to receive a similar track (para. [0090], “the track is recessed into a wall or ceiling”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dispose the pair of rail tracks of Worrasangasilpa within the ceiling, as taught by Bauer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maximize space in the lavatory.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Worrasangasilpa teaches the aircraft of claim 15, wherein the center wall has at least one lock configured to prevent the center wall from translating with respect to the rail tracks (Worrasangasilpa, 34, Fig. 1 and para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Worrasangasilpa teaches the aircraft of claim 17, wherein in response to being in a dual lavatory configuration, the center wall is secured by the at least one lock in a center of the first single lavatory and the second single lavatory (para. [0033]).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Worrasangasilpa teaches the aircraft of claim 18, wherein in response to being in a single lavatory configuration, the center wall is translated along the rail tracks and secured by the at least one lock within at least one of the first single lavatory or the second single lavatory (Worrasangasilpa, 34, Fig. 1, Fig. 14, and para. [0033]).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Worrasangasilpa as applied above, in further view of Koyama et al. (US 20160039522 A1), hereafter Koyama
Regarding Claim 13, modified Worrasangasilpa teaches the airplane lavatory of claim 12.
Modified Worrasangasilpa is silent about wherein the center wall has a rear wall defined by a curved segment and a cutout.
Koyama teaches a similar center wall has a curved segment (Koyama, aft segment of 36 is curved, Fig. 2) abutting a cutout (Koyama, cutout at bottom of 36 for cabinets 1010, Fig. 2) and a flat segment opposing the curved segment (38, Fig. 2) and perpendicular to a pair of similar rail tracks (Koyama, 38 is perpendicular to direction of tracks 5040, Fig. 26)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the center wall of modified Worrasangasilpa with a curved segment as taught by Koyama, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to shape the center wall around cabinets or other fixtures in the lavatory.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Worrasangasilpa teaches the airplane lavatory of claim 13, wherein the cutout is configured to accommodate a toilet of at least one of the first single lavatory and the second single lavatory in response to the translation of center wall (Koyama, cutout at bottom of 36 for cabinets 1010 and toilet 1008, Fig. 2 when translated to the deployed center position of Worrasangasilpa, for example).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Worrasangasilpa teaches the aircraft of claim 19, wherein the center wall has a rear wall (442, Fig. 14).
Modified Worrasangasilpa is silent about wherein the rear wall is defined by a curved segment and a cutout, wherein the cutout is configured to accommodate a toilet of at least one of first single lavatory and second single lavatory in response to the translation of center wall.
Koyama teaches a similar wall defined by a curved segment (Koyama, aft segment of 36 is curved, Fig. 2) and a cutout (Koyama, cutout at bottom of 36 for cabinets 1010, Fig. 2), wherein the cutout is configured to accommodate a toilet in response to the translation of the center wall (Koyama, cutout at bottom of 36 for cabinets 1010 and toilet 1008, Fig. 2 when translated to the deployed center position of Worrasangasilpa, for example).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-8 and 16 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts of record, individually or in combination, do not disclose or render obvious the combined limitations of claims 3-5, 7-8, or 16 of Applicant’s invention. The closest prior art of record is Worrasangasilpa, as outlined in the rejection above.
However the prior art of record does not appear to teach the combined limitations of claims 3-5, 7-8 or 16, specifically “the pair of hanging brackets further comprises a pivot point…the pivot point allowing the bracket panels to rotate about an X-axis with respect to the pair of rail tracks”, and it would not be obvious to combine or modify the prior arts of record to teach the invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the above rejection includes a new interpretation of the claims based on the amendment, with a new grounds of rejection applied using an alternate embodiment of Worrasangasilpa, and does not rely on any combination of embodiments applied in the prior art rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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