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 .
Application Status
Claims 1, and 3-14 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the second action on the merits.
As of the date of this action an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 7/9/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two US documents that were listed on the IDS appear to be missing a “0” after the backslash in the number and the numbers have been amended on the IDS to reflect the correct document numbers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Space et al. (PGPub #2022/0135235).
Regarding claim 1, Space teaches an aircraft portion comprising: a fuselage (418) delimiting a cabin extending according to a longitudinal axis (430 as seen in figure 7A, and Paragraph 68), the cabin comprising a first cabin portion (440) and a second cabin portion (442); a partition wall (446) mounted on the fuselage (446 as seen in figure 7A), extending substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (446 as seen in figure 7A) and separating the first cabin portion and the second cabin portion (440, 442, and 446 as seen in figure 7A); at least one first piece of furniture (130) arranged against the fuselage in the first cabin portion (440, and the chairs in that section as seen in figure 7A) and offset longitudinally from the partition wall (440, 446, and the chairs in that section as seen in figure 7A); and at least one air circulation system (100) for air circulation between the first cabin portion and the second cabin portion (Paragraphs 48, and 49, this teaches that the system can deliver and circulate air through every cabin portion), the at least one air circulation system comprising: at least one first connection device in aeraulic communication with a first ambient air volume of the first cabin portion (138, 324, and 326 as seen in figure 5, and Paragraph 49, this teaches that each seat on the aircraft, including those in the first portion can have the circulation system), delimiting a first connection circuit (138, 324, and 326 as seen in figure 5); at least one second connection device in aeraulic communication with a second ambient air volume of the second cabin portion (138, 324, and 326 as seen in figure 5, and Paragraph 49, this teaches that each seat on the aircraft, including those in the second portion can have the circulation system), delimiting a second connection circuit (138, 324, and 326 as seen in figure 5); and an intermediate circuit connecting the first connection device and the second connection device in aeraulic communication (110, 114, and Paragraph 49); the at least one first connection device being included in the at least one first piece of furniture (130, 138, 324, and 326 as seen in figure 5), the fuselage including a lateral skirt (132) extending according to the longitudinal axis between the first cabin portion and the second cabin portion (440, 442, and the floor as seen in figure 7A), the at least one first piece of furniture being arranged against the lateral skirt (130, and 132 as seen in figure 5), the lateral skirt delimiting at least partially the intermediate circuit (114, and 132 as seen in figure 5).
Regarding claim 3, Space teaches the aircraft portion according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first piece of furniture comprises at least one outer wall delimiting at least partially a first interior space of piece of furniture (130 as seen in figure 5), the at least one outer wall further delimiting at least partially: at least one air inlet opening of the first connection device aeraulically connecting the first connection circuit and the first ambient air volume of the first cabin portion (130, 138, 324, and 326 as seen in figure 5); and the first connection circuit (130, 324, and 326 as seen in figure 5), the lateral skirt comprising at least one air inlet of the intermediate circuit extending to the at least one first piece of furniture and being aeraulically connected to the first connection circuit (114, 140, 324, and 326 as seen in figure 5).
Regarding claim 11, Space teaches the aircraft portion according to claim 1, further comprising at least one second piece of furniture arranged against the fuselage in the second cabin portion (442, and the chairs in that section as seen in figure 7A) and offset longitudinally from the partition wall (442, 446, and the chairs in that section as seen in figure 7A), the at least one second connection device being included in the at least one second piece of furniture (138, 324, and 326 as seen in figure 5, and Paragraph 49, this teaches that each seat on the aircraft, including those in the second portion can have the circulation system).
Regarding claim 12, Space teaches the aircraft portion according to claim 11, wherein the fuselage comprises the at least one second piece of furniture is arranged against the lateral skirt (130, and 132 as seen in figure 5, the chair shown in figure 5 is used in both the first and second portions), the intermediate circuit extending according to the longitudinal axis between the at least one first connection device and the at least one second connection device (Paragraphs 48, and 49, this teaches that the system can deliver air two both longitudinally offset portions using a single intermediate circuit).
Regarding claim 13, Space teaches the aircraft portion according to claim 1 wherein the lateral skirt extends from a lateral wall of the fuselage in a direction of a floor of the aircraft portion (As can be seen in figure 7A, the lateral skirt/floor extends away from a lateral wall of the cabin, and is inherently extending in a direction of the floor because it is the floor).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Space et al. (PGPub #2022/0135235) in view of Maben et al. (PGPub #2020/0056727).
Regarding claim 10, Space teaches the aircraft portion according to claim 1, but does not teach that surfaces of the first connection device and/or the at least one first piece of furniture delimiting the first connection circuit are at least partially covered by an acoustic insulation coating. However, Maben does teach that surfaces of the first connection device and/or the at least one first piece of furniture delimiting the first connection circuit are at least partially covered by an acoustic insulation coating (114, and Paragraphs 40, and 47, this teaches that the connection circuit can have a layer of acoustic insulation). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the connection device has an acoustic insulation layer because Space and Maben are both environmental control systems for aircraft with ducts. The motivation for having the connection device has an acoustic insulation layer is that it helps to minimize the noise that can be heard by the passengers while the system is in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument that Space does not teach a partition wall mounted on the fuselage, as can be seen in figure 7A, element 446 is a wall that extends from the walls of the fuselage and is used to divide the cabin into separate classes which creates a partition.
The examiner disagrees with the applicant’s argument that Space does not teach that the furniture is arranged against the fuselage as claimed, as can be seen in figures 4, and 7 at least some of the chairs are abutting and arraigned against the wall of the fuselage.
The examiner agrees that the lateral skirt of Space does differ from the lateral skirt of the application, however the floor of Space does meet all of the claimed limitations of the lateral skirt that are present in claim 1, as the floor of space is a member that extends in the longitudinal direction of the aircraft between the cabin portions with the chairs arranged on the floor and the floor separating the intermediate circuit from the rest of the cabin.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
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 WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights