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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the L- shaped slot, circumferentially extending portion, axially extending portion, button cover must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
It is noted that Claim 7 introduces “biasing means”. The above limitations use the word “means” and is not modified by sufficient structure or material. As such, the above limitations have been interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4-8 and 13-14 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.
Dependent claims not addressed below are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claims 4-6 and 13-14 recite limitation “L-shaped slot”. It is unclear which element this is referring to appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-6 and 14 recite limitation “circumferentially extending portion”. It is unclear which element this is referring to appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-7 and 14 recite limitation “axially extending portion”. It is unclear which element this is referring to appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160318426 A1 Aita; Shinya et al.
Regarding claim 1, Aita teaches, a passenger seat (element S) for an aircraft (para 0221), comprising: a seat frame (element F); a seatback (element S2); a seat cushion (element S1) pivotally connected to at least one of the seatback or the seat frame (fig. 14); a support leg (element 37) pivotally connected to the seat cushion and (fig. 14) configured, in a first position, to contact a cabin floor and support the seat cushion in a substantially horizontal orientation (fig. 14 (A1)); an actuation mechanism configured to cause the support leg to pivot with respect to the seat cushion (element 68, para 0094), into a second position, out of contact with the cabin floor such that the support leg no longer supports the seat cushion substantially horizontally and the seat cushion pivots with respect to the seatback and/or seat frame down towards the cabin floor due to gravity (fig. 14 (A3)).
Regarding claim 2, Aita teaches, the passenger seat of claim 1, wherein the actuation mechanism comprises a locking mechanism configured to lock the support leg into the first position (element 41).
Regarding claim 15, Aita teaches, a method of operating the passenger seat of, comprising: providing a passenger seat (element S), the passenger seat comprising: a seat frame (element F); a seatback (element S2); a seat cushion (element S1) pivotally connected to the seatback or seat frame (fig. 14); a support leg (element 37) pivotally connected to the seat cushion (fig. 14) and configured, in a first position, to contact the cabin floor and support the seat cushion in a substantially horizontal orientation (fig 14(A1)); and an actuation mechanism configured to cause the support leg to pivot with respect to the seat cushion (element 68), into a second position, out of contact with the cabin floor such that the support leg no longer supports the seat cushion substantially horizontally and the seat cushion pivots with respect to the seatback and/or seat frame down towards the cabin floor due to gravity (fig. 14 (A3)); and actuating the actuation mechanism, causing the support leg to pivot with respect to the seat cushion, from the first position into the second position, out of contact with the cabin floor such that the support leg no longer supports the seat cushion substantially horizontally and the seat cushion pivots with respect to the seatback and/or seat frame down towards the cabin floor due to gravity (para 0094).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Prior art Aita and closest additional prior art of a row of seats with a secondary passenger seat US 12179635 B2 Line; Johnathan Andrew et al. teaches a seat with pivoting leg, cushion and actuation mechanism, but fails to teach “wherein the passenger seat and each of the one or more secondary passenger seats are configured to collapse simultaneously upon actuation of the actuation mechanism.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 3 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: Prior art Aita fails teaches, a seat with pivoting leg, cushion and actuation mechanism and the actuation mechanism comprises a locking mechanism configured to lock the support leg, but fails to teach, “wherein the actuation mechanism comprises a torsion spring, wherein a first end of the torsion spring is connected to the seat cushion and a second end of the torsion spring is connected to the support leg and wherein the torsion spring is configured to bias the support leg into the second position”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDI M. CURRY whose telephone number is (469)295-9296. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-F.
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.
/C.M.C/
Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
