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 15th January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6 and 9-10 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 15th August 2025.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites “each curtain rod includes a slide rail and sliders physically connecting the curtain to the slide rail, each slider including a sliding block on the rail and a hook for hooking the curtain” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 1, on which claim 3 depends, recite “the bottom curtain rod includes bottom sliders…… each bottom slider includes a hook…” making it unclear if bottom slider comprises two hooks or a single hook. For the examination purpose the bottom slider is considered to comprise a single hook.
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, 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz Lara et al. (US 2025/0010995) in view of Martens et al. (US 2005/0116098), Weber (US 3,106,240) and Kauffman (US 2013/0340954).
Regarding claim 1, Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 teaches (figures 1-6) an aircraft cabin divider/interior wall (102) comprising window assembly (110), dividing two adjacent private passenger areas/ interior suites (100, 200) in a same class, including a curtain/window shade (112), said divider having an open position (figure 5) and a closed position (figure 1), and characterized in that the aircraft cabin divider is full-height (Para 0047-0049).
Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 further (figures 1-6) teaches curtain/window shade (112) is configured to operate horizontally within the window frame (114) (Para 0046) but it is silent about the aircraft cabin divider including a curtain hung by a top side of the curtain from a top curtain rod, and covering a height up to a ceiling of the aircraft cabin wherein the aircraft cabin divider is installed, and in that the curtain is hooked by a bottom side of the curtain to a bottom curtain rod opposite the top curtain rod, wherein the bottom curtain rod includes bottom sliders to attach the bottom side of the curtain.
Martens et al. ‘098 teaches (figures 1-3) a physical barrier/aircraft cabin divider including curtain (1) hung by a top side of the curtain from a top curtain rod/track (4) and mounting element (3), and covering a height up to a ceiling of the aircraft cabin wherein the physical barrier is installed (clearly seen in figure 2), and in that the curtain is hooked by curtain’s bottom side to a bottom curtain rod/ track (4) and mounting element/sliders (3) opposite the top curtain rod (Para 0042).
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 Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 to incorporate the teachings of Martens et al. ‘098 to configure the aircraft cabin divider including a curtain hung by a top side of the curtain from a top curtain rod, and covering a height up to a ceiling of the aircraft cabin wherein the aircraft cabin divider is installed, and in that the curtain is hooked by a bottom side of the curtain to a bottom curtain rod opposite the top curtain rod, wherein the bottom curtain rod includes bottom sliders to attach the bottom side of the curtain.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance privacy.
Modified Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 is silent about the divider wherein each bottom slider includes a hook.
Weber ‘240 teaches (figures 1-5) curtain consisting of a plurality of elastically resilient, strip-shaped lamellae (11) wherein each lamellae (11) is connected to hollow rail (22) via hook (19) hung up in a ring (21) of a slide/sliding block (23) (clearly seen in figure 5) (Col. 1 Lines 51-52; Col. 2 Lines 4-10).
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 Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 to incorporate the teachings of Weber ‘240 to configure the divider wherein each bottom slider includes a hook.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would secure the curtain easily.
Modified Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 is silent about the divider wherein each bottom slider is configured to release the curtain when subjected to a tensile load exceeding a predetermined maximum tensile load, so that, in an event of rapid cabin decompression while the aircraft cabin divider is in the closed position, the curtain detaches from the bottom while remaining hung from the top curtain rod.
Kauffman ‘954 teaches (figures 1-13) an apparatus for at least partially environmentally isolating a volume including a barrier curtain (12), wherein the barrier curtain (12) is supported by first cable (26) which extends along and is attached to one or more of the walls that define the volume, the attachment mechanism (20) attaching a respective end of the first cable (26) to the floor (18), wherein during a rapid decompression event the cable release mechanism (90) of the apparatus is configured to fail at a predetermined load to release the barrier curtain (12) such that the barrier curtain no longer separates the adjacent volume (Para 0031, 0034, 0040).
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 Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 to incorporate the teachings of Kauffman ‘954 to configure the divider wherein each bottom slider is configured to release the curtain when subjected to a tensile load exceeding a predetermined maximum tensile load, so that, in an event of rapid cabin decompression while the aircraft cabin divider is in the closed position, the curtain detaches from the bottom while remaining hung from the top curtain rod.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable free air circulation and help passenger areas to be equally pressurized (Para 0040).
Regarding claim 3 (as best understood), modified Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 teaches (figures 1-6) the divider wherein each curtain rod includes a slide rail and sliders physically connecting the curtain to the slide rail, each slider including a sliding block (23) on the rail and a hook (19) for hooking the curtain (as modified by Weber ‘240).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 teaches (figures 1-6) an aircraft cabin comprising two adjacent private suites (100, 200), characterized in that the aircraft cabin comprises the divider according to claim 1 placed between said suites (clearly seen in figures 3-5) (Para 0047).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz Lara et al. (US 2025/0010995), Martens et al. (US 2005/0116098), Weber (US 3,106,240) and Kauffman (US 2013/0340954) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gharia et al. (US 2018/0297707).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 teaches (figures 1-6) the divider of claim 1 but it is silent about the divider wherein the curtain includes a first portion and a second portion that are separate, said portions configured so that movements of said portions are synchronized and joined at a central closing line when said divider is in the closed position.
Gharia et al. ‘707 teaches (figures 1-5) an interior cabin privacy partition assembly/curtain (10) positioned between opposed cabin bulkhead (16a, 16b) wherein the interior cabin privacy partition assembly/curtain (10) includes two portions wherein each portion includes an inboard and an outboard main partitions panels (20a, 20b) and said portions are configured to move and join at a central closing line when the partition assembly/curtain (10) is in a closed position (clearly seen in figure 1) (Para 0028-0029).
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 Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 to incorporate the teachings of Gharia et al. ‘707 to configure the divider wherein the curtain includes a first portion and a second portion that are separate, said portions configured so that movements of said portions are synchronized and joined at a central closing line when said divider is in the closed position.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would provide balanced and symmetrical look while allowing passengers to control over the amount of privacy by actuating either one or both portions of the curtain.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz Lara et al. (US 2025/0010995), Martens et al. (US 2005/0116098), Weber (US 3,106,240) and Kauffman (US 2013/0340954) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ko (US 2020/0196790).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 teaches (figures 1-6) the divider of claim 3 but it is silent about the divider wherein the sliders of each curtain rod are connected by a cord including stoppers placed at regular intervals, to maintain regular waves of the curtain.
Ko ‘790 teaches (figures 1-16) a system (101) configured to receive drapery and engage with a track and a cable (109) comprising gliding wheels carriers/sliders (107) wherein gliding wheels carriers/sliders (107) includes a carrier cap/stopper (1007) configured to engage with the cable/cord (109) (Para 0029, 0037).
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 Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 to incorporate the teachings of Ko ‘790 to configure the divider wherein the sliders of each curtain rod are connected by a cord including stoppers placed at regular intervals, to maintain regular waves of the curtain.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would ensure curtain covers the entire opening in a closed position.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz Lara et al. (US 2025/0010995), Martens et al. (US 2005/0116098), Weber (US 3,106,240) and Kauffman (US 2013/0340954) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vrooman (US 2015/0240558).
Regarding claims 5-6, modified Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 teaches (figures 1-6) the divider further including a motorized drive system/electronic mechanism for automatically actuating the opening and closing movements of said divider (as modified by Martens et al. ‘098; Para 0014) but it is silent about the divider wherein said system is coupled in a synchronized manner with both an upper portion and a lower portion of the curtain, and
wherein at least one proximal lateral side of the curtain is coupled with the motorized system by means of two linking members: one in the upper portion and other in the lower portion.
Vrooman ‘558 teaches (figure 1) a cordless window blind/curtain (10) comprising a cellular window covering material (11) connected between a headrail (12) and a bottom rail (14) wherein lift cords/linking members (15, 17) pass from spools in the head rail (12) to the bottom rail (14) and the spools on which the cords (15,17) are wound are coupled to spring motor (22) (Para 0020).
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 Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 to incorporate the teachings of Vrooman ‘558 to configure the divider wherein said system is coupled in a synchronized manner with both an upper portion and a lower portion of the curtain, and
wherein at least one proximal lateral side of the curtain is coupled with the motorized system by means of two linking members: one in the upper portion and other in the lower portion.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would automate the opening and closing of the curtain.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz Lara et al. (US 2025/0010995), Martens et al. (US 2005/0116098), Weber (US 3,106,240) and Kauffman (US 2013/0340954) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wisniewski et al. (US 2021/0380256).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 teaches (figures 1-6) the divider of claim 1 but it is silent about the divider wherein the curtain is fully concealed in a compact storage space when said divider is in the open position.
Wisniewski et al. ‘259 teaches (figures 1-2(A-C)) a passenger seat arrangement (14) for a vehicle cabin having a plurality of seats (150) and screen carriers (102, 104, 116) comprising screen element/curtain (112. 122) wherein screen elements/curtains (112, 122) are stowed within the corresponding carrier body (106, 108) i.e., fully concealed (clearly seen in figure 2A) (Para 0029).
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 Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 to incorporate the teachings of Wisniewski et al. ‘259 to configure the divider wherein the curtain is fully concealed in a compact storage space when said divider is in the open position.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maximize the opening between two adjacent passenger areas when the divider is in an open position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15th January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding the combination of Ruiz Lara et al. (US 2025/0010995), Martens et al. (US 2005/0116098), Weber (US 3,106,240) and Kauffman (US 2013/0340954), 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 the teaching of Martens et al. ‘098 to use a curtain, which is analogous to window shade of Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995, covering a height up to a celling of the aircraft cabin and teaching of Kauffman ‘954 to release barrier curtain during rapid decompression are considered for modifying Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 which would enhance the window shade system of Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995 with destroying the teaching of Ruiz Lara et al. ‘995.
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