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 .
Double Patenting
Due to the addition of the below double patenting rejection, the non-final office action of 01/28/2026 has been withdrawn.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12365462. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by patent claim 1. Patent Claim 1 of ‘462, lines 1-6, recites all of the limitations of Claim 1. The following claims are similarly anticipated by Patent ‘462 as outlined below:
Claims 2 and 10 are anticipated by patent claim 1.
Claims 3 and 12 are anticipated by patent claims 1-2.
Claim 4 is anticipated by patent claims 1-3.
Claim 5 is anticipated by patent claims 1-4.
Claim 6 is anticipated by patent claims 1-5.
Claim 7 is anticipated by patent claims 1-4 and 6.
Claim 8 is anticipated by patent claims 1-2 and 7.
Claim 9 is anticipated by patent claims 1 and 8.
Claims 11, 12, and 19 are anticipated by patent claim 11.
Claim 13 is anticipated by patent claims 11-12.
Claim 14 is anticipated by patent claims 11-13.
Claim 15 is anticipated by patent claims 11-14.
Claim 16 is anticipated by patent claims 11-13 and 15.
Claim 17 is anticipated by patent claims 11 and 16.
Claim 18 is anticipated by patent claims 11 and 17.
Claim 20 is anticipated by patent claims 20.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afonso et al. (US 11325708 B2), hereafter Afonso, in view of Schneider et al. (US 20110146686 A1), hereafter Schneider.
Regarding Claim 1, Afonso discloses a vehicle (102, Fig. 1), comprising:
an internal cabin (100, Fig. 1);
a plurality of passenger service units (PSUs) within the internal cabin (108, Fig. 1).
Afonso is silent about an emergency oxygen system within the internal cabin; wherein the emergency oxygen system is separate and distinct from the plurality of PSUs.
Schneider teaches an emergency oxygen system (Fig. 2, oxygen supply 28), wherein the emergency oxygen system is separate and distinct (oxygen supply 28 is a distinct system, and Schneider’s invention is directed at removing the emergency oxygen system from any existing PSUs to make it an independent system, see [0003] and [0066]-[0067], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle of Afonso with the emergency oxygen system that is separate and distinct, as taught by Schneider, whereby Schneider’s oxygen system is separated from Afonso’s PSUs, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure sufficient oxygen supply to passengers while allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be modified, resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising one or more stowage bin assemblies within the internal cabin (Afonso, 112, Fig. 1).
While modified Afonso teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are outboard of the stowage bin assemblies (Fig. 1), Afonso does not specifically teach wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are disposed between the one or more stowage bin assemblies and the emergency oxygen system. However, Schneider teaches wherein the emergency oxygen system is located along the outboard wall of the internal cabin between Schneider’s storage compartment 18 and the outboard wall (Fig. 2, oxygen supply 28, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system at the location along the outboard wall of the cabin, as taught by Schneider, whereby modified Afonso’s one or more of the plurality of PSUs are disposed between the one or more of stowage bin assemblies and the emergency oxygen system, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maximize valuable overhead storage and PSU space, as well as achieve the desirable result of allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be changed (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]), resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the emergency oxygen system comprises a plurality of oxygen assemblies (Schneider, receptacle compartments 34), and wherein the plurality of oxygen assemblies are uncoupled from seat pitch (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of oxygen assemblies comprises a mask (Schneider, oxygen mask 24) and a fluid conduit (Schneider, hose 26).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 4, wherein the emergency oxygen system further comprises an oxygen supply in fluid communication with the plurality of oxygen assemblies (Schneider, [0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”, examiner further notes [0063], “oxygen line 30…is attached to an oxygen feed…”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 5, wherein the oxygen supply comprises an oxygen canister fluidly coupled to the fluid conduit (Schneider, [0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the emergency oxygen system further comprises a rail (Schneider, housing 32) extending along a length of the internal cabin (Schneider, Fig. 4, examiner notes housing 32 extends along a length of the internal cabin), wherein the rail retains the plurality of oxygen assemblies (Schneider, Fig. 4, housing 32 retains receptacle compartments 34).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
While modified Afonso teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are outboard of the stowage bin assemblies (Fig. 1), Afonso does not specifically teach wherein the emergency oxygen system is disposed between a sidewall of the vehicle and the plurality of PSUs. However, Schneider teaches wherein the emergency oxygen system is located along the outboard wall of the internal cabin between Schneider’s storage compartment 18 and the outboard wall (Schneider, Fig. 1, location of oxygen supply 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system at the location along the outboard wall of the cabin, as taught by Schneider, whereby modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system is disposed between a sidewall of the vehicle and the plurality of PSUs. Afonso’s PSUs are located inboard of the sidewall (see Afonso, Fig. 1, for example). Schneider’s emergency oxygen system is clearly disposed along the sidewall of Schneider’s vehicle (see Schneider, Fig. 1, for example). It would have been obvious to place the emergency oxygen system of Schneider in the same location when combining the oxygen system with Afonso’s vehicle, because this would have maximized valuable overhead storage and PSU space, as well as achieved the desirable result of allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be changed (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]), resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a partition wall that separates the emergency oxygen system from the plurality of PSUs (Schneider, [0070], examiner notes housing 32 includes sidewalls which separate the emergency oxygen system from other cabin elements, including any PSUs).
Regarding Claim 11, Afonso discloses a method, comprising:
providing a plurality of passenger service units (PSUs) (108, Fig. 1) within an internal cabin (100, Fig. 1) of a vehicle (102, Fig. 1), and
Afonso is silent about providing an emergency oxygen system within the internal cabin, wherein the emergency oxygen system is separate and distinct from the plurality of PSUs.
Schneider teaches an emergency oxygen system (Fig. 2, oxygen supply 28), wherein the emergency oxygen system is separate and distinct (oxygen supply 28 is a distinct system, and Schneider’s invention is directed at removing the emergency oxygen system from PSUs to make it an independent system, see [0003] and [0066]-[0067], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle of Afonso with the emergency oxygen system that is separate and distinct, as taught by Schneider, whereby Schneider’s oxygen system is separated from Afonso’s PSUs, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure sufficient oxygen supply to passengers while allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be modified, resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 11, and one or more stowage bin assemblies (Afonso, 112, Fig. 1).
While modified Afonso teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are outboard of the stowage bin assemblies (Afonso, Fig. 1), Afonso does not specifically teach disposing one or more of the plurality of PSUs between one or more stowage bin assemblies and the emergency oxygen system. However, Schneider teaches wherein the emergency oxygen system is located along the outboard wall of the internal cabin (Fig. 2, oxygen supply 28, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dispose modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system to the location along the outboard wall of the cabin, as taught by Schneider, resulting in disposing one or more of the plurality of PSUs between one or more stowage bin assemblies and the emergency oxygen system of modified Afonso, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure sufficient oxygen supply to passengers while allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be modified, resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the emergency oxygen system comprises a plurality of oxygen assemblies (Schneider, receptacle compartments 34), wherein each of the plurality of oxygen assemblies comprises a mask (Schneider, oxygen mask 24) and a fluid conduit (Schneider, hose 26).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising fluidly coupling an oxygen supply with the plurality of oxygen assemblies (Schneider, [0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”, examiner further notes [0063], “oxygen line 30…is attached to an oxygen feed…”).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 14, wherein said fluidly coupling comprises fluidly coupling an oxygen canister to the fluid conduit (Schneider, [0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising retaining the plurality of oxygen assemblies by a rail (Schneider, housing 32) extending along a length of the internal cabin (Schneider, Fig. 4, housing 32 extends along a length of the internal cabin).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 11.
While modified Afonso teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are outboard of the stowage bin assemblies (Fig. 1), Afonso does not specifically teach disposing the emergency oxygen system between a sidewall of the vehicle and the plurality of PSUs. However, Schneider teaches wherein the emergency oxygen system is located along the outboard wall of the internal cabin between Schneider’s storage compartment 18 and the outboard wall (Schneider, Fig. 1, location of oxygen supply 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system at the location along the outboard wall of the cabin, as taught by Schneider, whereby modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system is disposed between a sidewall of the vehicle and the plurality of PSUs. Afonso’s PSUs are located inboard of the sidewall (see Afonso, Fig. 1, for example). Schneider’s emergency oxygen system is clearly disposed along the sidewall of Schneider’s vehicle (see Schneider, Fig. 1, for example). It would have been obvious to place the emergency oxygen system of Schneider in the same location when combining the oxygen system with Afonso’s vehicle, because this would have maximized valuable overhead storage and PSU space, as well as achieved the desirable result of allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be changed (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]), resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising separating the emergency oxygen system from the plurality of PSUs by a partition wall (Schneider, [0070], examiner notes housing 32 includes sidewalls which separate the emergency oxygen system from other cabin elements, including any PSUs).
Regarding Claim 20, Afonso discloses a vehicle (102, Fig. 1), comprising:
an internal cabin (100, Fig. 1);
a plurality of passenger service units (PSUs) within the internal cabin (108, Fig. 1); and
one or more stowage bin assemblies within the internal cabin (overhead bin assembly 14).
Afonso is silent about an emergency oxygen system within the internal cabin, wherein the emergency oxygen system comprises:
a plurality of oxygen assemblies, wherein each of the plurality of oxygen assemblies comprises a mask and a fluid conduit;
a rail extending along a length of the internal cabin, wherein the rail retains the plurality of oxygen assemblies; and
an oxygen supply in fluid communication with the plurality of oxygen assemblies,
wherein the emergency oxygen system is separate and distinct from the plurality of PSUs.
Schneider teaches an emergency oxygen system (Fig. 2, oxygen supply 28), wherein the emergency oxygen system comprises:
a plurality of oxygen assemblies (receptacle compartments 34), wherein each of the plurality of oxygen assemblies comprises a mask (oxygen mask 24) and a fluid conduit (hose 26);
a rail extending along a length of a similar internal cabin (32, Fig. 3), wherein the rail retains the plurality of oxygen assemblies (para. [0070]); and
an oxygen supply in fluid communication with the plurality of oxygen assemblies ([0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”, examiner further notes [0063], “oxygen line 30…is attached to an oxygen feed…”),
wherein the emergency oxygen system is separate and distinct (examiner notes oxygen supply 28 is a distinct system, and Schneider’s invention is directed at removing the emergency oxygen system from PSUs to make it an independent system, see [0003] and [0066]-[0067], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle of Afonso with the emergency oxygen system, plurality of oxygen assemblies, rail, and oxygen supply that is separate and distinct, as taught by Schneider, whereby Schneider’s oxygen system is separated from Afonso’s PSUs, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure sufficient oxygen supply to passengers while allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be modified, resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]).
While modified Afonso teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are outboard of the stowage bin assemblies (Fig. 1), Afonso does not specifically teach wherein one or more of the plurality of PSUs are disposed between the one or more stowage bin assemblies and the emergency oxygen system. However, Schneider teaches wherein the emergency oxygen system is located along the outboard wall of the internal cabin between Schneider’s storage compartment 18 and the outboard wall (Fig. 2, oxygen supply 28, for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange modified Afonso’s emergency oxygen system at the location along the outboard wall of the cabin, as taught by Schneider, whereby modified Afonso’s one or more of the plurality of PSUs are disposed between the one or more of stowage bin assemblies and the emergency oxygen system, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maximize valuable overhead storage and PSU space, as well as achieve the desirable result of allowing for cabin seat reconfiguration without the oxygen system having to be changed (Schneider, [0065]-[0067]), resulting in reduced maintenance time and cost.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Afonso as applied above, in further view of Howlett (GB 2237207 A), hereafter Howlett.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Afonso teaches the vehicle of claim 5, wherein the oxygen supply comprises an oxygen tank (Schneider, [0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”) fluidly coupled to a plurality of fluid conduits (Schneider, [0063] “attachment points…are provided for attaching the oxygen masks 24 using the hoses 26”).
Modified Afonso is silent about wherein the oxygen supply comprises an oxygen tank fluidly coupled to a plurality of fluid conduits via a manifold.
Howlett teaches a manifold (manifold 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle of modified Afonso with the manifold as taught by Howlett, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are from the same field of endeavor of emergency oxygen systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine modified Afonso with Howlett because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing individual fluid conduits to each mask, allowing for activation of oxygen supply to individual masks as needed, increasing efficiency of the emergency oxygen system while reducing the risk of system leaks.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Afonso teaches the method of claim 14, wherein said fluidly coupling comprises fluidly coupling an oxygen tank (Schneider, [0038] “central oxygen bottle connected via a connection line to the system”) to a plurality of fluid conduits (Schneider, [0063] “attachment points…are provided for attaching the oxygen masks 24 using the hoses 26”).
Modified Afonso is silent about wherein said fluidly coupling comprises fluidly coupling an oxygen to a plurality of fluid conduits via a manifold.
Howlett teaches a manifold (manifold 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the vehicle of modified Afonso with the manifold as taught by Howlett, with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are from the same field of endeavor of emergency oxygen systems. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine modified Afonso with Howlett because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing individual fluid conduits to each mask, allowing for activation of oxygen supply to individual masks as needed, increasing efficiency of the emergency oxygen system while reducing the risk of leaks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on Pg. 6:
“Schneider seemingly discloses PSUs having oxygen systems. See Schneider at [0003] (“…oxygen supply units…provided as cuboid containers…typically integrated in to eh passenger supply duct PSC…”). As shown in Figures 1-4 of Schneider, the oxygen supplies 22 and 28 seem to be disposed within PSUs. The Applicant further notes that while Schneider discloses that “oxygen boxes are typically autonomous components,” Schneider is clear that such “autonomous components…are installed integrated in the PSC.”…while Schneider does not use a reference numeral with respect to a PSC in Figure 2, for example, an internal cabin of a commercial aircraft includes PSCs, and such are clearly shown in Figure 2…The oxygen systems 22 and 28 of Schneider as “typically autonomous components,” but nevertheless still “installed integrated in the PSC.” See Schneider as [0003].”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that Applicant erroneously relies upon Schneider’s “Background of the Invention” para. [0003] as evidence of Schneider’s PSUs. While para. [0003] does include mention of PSUs (PSCs), the discussion regarding the PSCs in para. [0003] provides a background of typical (prior art) oxygen systems integrated in PSCs, not Schneider’s invention. Specifically, Para. [0003] discusses the pitfalls of typical (prior art) cuboid oxygen supply units integrated into PSCs, for example “the configuration of the oxygen boxes must be performed individually for each airplane layout with respect to the seat positions…The oxygen boxes…must also be displaced upon each reconfiguration, i.e., upon each change of the cabin layout. Since they are safety relevant parts, a new test must also be performed each time upon displacement.” Crucially, Schneider continues in para. [0004] (SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION) by disclosing that “An object of the present invention therefore is to provide a simpler system for oxygen supply.” In other words, para. [0003] describes the issues with prior art oxygen systems which are integrated into PSUs, and the rest of Schneider discloses how an independent and distinct oxygen system that is “fastened directly on the frames (lateral)…which is independent of the storage devices. The design of the system…which is independent of the other installations, allows decoupling of the parts having a different DAL…The accessibility of the oxygen system is ensured independently of the seat layout.” Additionally see para. [0067].
Further, Schneider’s oxygen supply 28 is disclosed as separate from other elements and enclosed in housing 32 (of Figs. 4-6). This is most clearly depicted in the view of Fig. 6, which shows housing 32 as a distinct element, separate from storage device 18 and any other element. For these reasons, Examiner maintains that Alonso in view of Schneider teaches “wherein the emergency oxygen system is distinct and separated from the plurality of PSUs”.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on Pg. 7:
“There is nothing in Afonso or Schneider that expressly or necessarily describes, teaches, or suggests a PSU disposed between a stowage bin assembly and an emergency oxygen system, which is distinct and separated from the PSU and the stowage bin assembly….Additionally, Claim 9 recites…”wherein the emergency oxygen system is disposed between a sidewall of the vehicle and the plurality of PSUs. Claim 18 recites similar limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Afonso is used to teach the internal cabin, the PSUs, and the stowage bin assemblies (Fig. 1, 112). As seen in Afonso, Fig. 1, the PSUs (108) are attached on the bottom of the stowage bin assemblies (112). As outlined in the prior art rejection above, Afonso includes a PSU without an emergency oxygen system, so Schneider has been used to add the emergency oxygen system that is clearly separate from the storage compartment (28, Fig. 2, which is within housing 36 of Fig. 6, and para. [0067], “…independent of the storage devices…”). In other words, Schneider’s oxygen system is distinctly separate from any storage compartment. Further, Schneider’s oxygen system is located along an outboard wall of a cabin between a storage compartment and the outboard wall. Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the independent oxygen system of Schneider to the cabin (including storage compartments and attached PSUs) of Afonso, with a reasonable expectation of success, between the sidewall of the cabin and the PSU as depicted in Schneider Fig. 6, for example. For these reasons, Examiner maintains that Afonso in view of Schneider teaches the limitations of Claims 2, 9, 18, and 20.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on Pg. 7:
“…neither Afonso, nor Schneider (alone or in combination with one another) expressly or necessarily describes, teaches, or suggests “a partition wall that separates the emergency oxygen system from the plurality of PSUs,” as recited in Claim 10. Claim 19 recites similar limitations. For at least these additional reasons, the proposed combination does not render claims 10 and 19 unpatentable…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Specifically, as outlined in the rejections of claims 10 and 19 above, Examiner notes that Schneider’s housing 32 includes sidewalls (partition walls) that separate the emergency oxygen system from other cabin elements. Applicant has not addressed this evidence in the arguments, and Examiner therefore maintains that Afonso in view of Schneider teaches the partition wall of Claims 10 and 19.
Conclusion
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 on 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