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
Claims 1, 4 and 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 line 12, “…supporting the other end…” should read “…supporting other end…” so that there is a sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
In claim 4 line 2, “…in a width…” should read “…in the width…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 6 line 2, “…thereon is projected is disposed…” should read “…thereon is disposed…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 7 line 2, “…or a partition panel…” should read “…or the partition panel…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 8 lines 6-7, “…opposite side of the seat interposing the partition panel.” should read “…opposite side of the seat.” for the purpose of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-5 and 10 are 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 4 recites “wherein a partition panel is arranged on either side of the seat, and both end portions of the table…. are respectively supported on the partition panel.” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 1, on which claim 4 depends on, recites “a partition panel arranged adjacent to the seat, and wherein one end portion of the table…is supported on the partition panel” and “a member supporting the other end portion of the table”, thus it is unclear if partition panel of claim 4, and partition panel and member recited in claim 1 are same component or different components. For the examination purpose they are considered to be the same and the limitation of claim 4 is interpreted as “wherein the partition panel and the member are arranged on either side of the seat, and the end portions of the table…. are respectively supported on the partition panel and the member.”.
Claim 10 recites “wherein both ends of the table unit are fixed to and supported by a pair of the partition panels” which renders the claim indefinite as claim 8, on which claim 10 depends on, recites “wherein one end of the table unit is fixedly supported on the partition panel arranged adjacent to a seat, and wherein the other end of the table unit is fixedly supported on a member”, thus it is unclear if a pair of the partition panels of claim 10, and partition panel and member recited in claim 8 are same component or different components. For the examination purpose they are considered to be the same and the limitation of claim 10 is interpreted as “wherein the ends of the table unit are fixed to and supported by the partition panel and the member”.
Claims not addressed above are rejected due to their dependency on rejected base claim.
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, 4, 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley et al. (US 2019/0077512) in view of Udriste et al. (US 2025/0214711) and Rubel et al. (US 2015/0345778).
Regarding claim 1, Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) a seat unit disposed between a window and an aisle of an aircraft (clearly seen in figure 1), comprising:
a seat/seat assembly (102) including a seat section/base (110) disposed on the window side (106), and a backrest (112) disposed on the aisle side (108) (Para 0031-0032; seat/seat assembly (102) is outboard-facing i.e., facing the corresponding adjacent wall 106A-B); and
a table/tray table disposed between the window and the seat section/base (110) (Para 0035; privacy console (122) for seat/seat assembly (102) comprises a table/ tray table, and since seat section/base (110) is disposed on the window side the table/ tray table is between the window and the seat section/base (110));
wherein a center axis/central seat plane (336) of the seat/seat assembly (102) is approximately orthogonal to an axis/ central aisle plane (334) of the aircraft in a front-rear/longitudinal direction (330) when viewed along a direction orthogonal to a floor surface of the aircraft (Para 0037-0038; angle (338) between the central axis/central seat plane (336) and axis of the aircraft/central aisle plane (334) is from greater than 0 degree to less than 90 degrees; 89.9 degrees is less than/approximately 90 degrees/orthogonal),
wherein a partition panel (clearly shown in the figure below) is arranged adjacent to the seat/seat assembly (102), and
a member (clearly shown in the figure)
PNG
media_image1.png
537
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the seat unit comprising:
a table supported in a fixed manner at least at two points,
wherein one end portion of the table in a width direction is supported on the partition panel, and
a member supporting other end of the table in the width direction.
Udriste et al. ‘711 teaches (figures 1-9) an aircraft seat arrangement comprising an aircraft seat module (24a), a pair of partition panels (clearly shown in the figure below), and a fixed table element (96a) supported by the pair of partition panels (clearly seen in the figure below) and an adjustable table element/movable portion (110a) arranged to be linearly displaceable relative to the enclosure unit (Para 0059-0061).
PNG
media_image2.png
467
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Bentley et al. ‘512 to incorporate the teachings of Udriste et al. ‘711 to configure the seat unit comprising:
a table supported in a fixed manner at least at two points,
wherein one end portion of the table in a width direction is supported on the partition panel, and
a member supporting other end of the table in the width direction.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would rigidly place and stabilize the table.
Modified Bentley et al. ‘512 is silent about the seat unit wherein a bassinet is disposed on a member.
Rubel et al. ‘778 teaches (figure 1a) an aircraft (10) comprising a passenger cabin (12) which includes a bassinet system (18) coupled to the monument (16) or any other suitable portion of the passenger cabin (Para 0017)
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 Bentley et al. ‘512 to incorporate the teachings of Rubel et al. ‘778 to configure the seat unit wherein a bassinet is disposed on a member.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to provide sleep space for infants and enhance passenger experience.
Regarding claim 4 (as best understood), modified Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) the seat unit wherein the partition panel and the member are arranged on either side of the seat (clearly seen in the annotated figure above), and the end portions of the table in the width direction are respectively supported on the partition panel and the member (as modified by Udriste et al. ‘711).
Regarding claim 7, modified Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) the seat unit wherein an ottoman fixed to the partition panel is arranged on a lower side of the table (clearly shown in the figure below) (ottoman is next to the floor whereas table is at a height from the floor).
PNG
media_image3.png
505
476
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) a table unit/tray table disposed between a window and an aisle/central aisle plane (334) of an aircraft, wherein the table unit/tray table is disposed in a direction approximately orthogonal to an axis/ central aisle plane (334) of the aircraft in a front-rear direction/longitudinal direction (330), a partition panel arranged adjacent to a seat/seat assembly (102) (clearly shown in the figure below), and a member disposed on an opposite side of the seat (clearly shown in the figure below) (Para 0031-0032, 0035, 0037-0038; seat (102) is outboard-facing i.e., facing the corresponding adjacent wall 106A-B; privacy console (122) for seat/seat assembly (102) comprises a table unit/ tray table, and since seat (102) is outboard-facing the table/ tray table is between the window and the seat (102); angle (338) between the central axis/central seat plane (336) of the seat and axis of the aircraft/central aisle plane (334) is from greater than 0 degree to less than 90 degrees; 89.9 degrees is less than/approximately 90 degrees/orthogonal; table is between seat and window; since table and seat are aligned, at least when table is deployed, table is disposed in a direction approximately orthogonal to an axis/ central aisle plane (334) of the aircraft ),
PNG
media_image1.png
537
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the table unit wherein the table unit is fixedly supported on a partition panel, wherein one end of the table unit is fixedly supported on the partition panel, and wherein other end of the table unit is fixedly supported on a member.
Udriste et al. ‘711 teaches (figures 1-9) an aircraft seat arrangement comprising an aircraft seat module (24a), a pair of partition panels (clearly shown in the figure below), and a fixed table element (96a) supported by the pair of partition panels (clearly seen in the figure below) and an adjustable table element/movable portion (110a) arranged to be linearly displaceable relative to the enclosure unit (Para 0059-0061).
PNG
media_image2.png
467
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Bentley et al. ‘512 to incorporate the teachings of Udriste et al. ‘711 to configure the table unit wherein the table unit is fixedly supported on a partition panel, wherein one end of the table unit is fixedly supported on the partition panel, and wherein other end of the table unit is fixedly supported on a member disposed in a width direction is supported on the partition panel.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would rigidly place and stabilize the table.
Modified Bentley et al. ‘512 is silent about the table unit wherein a member is equipped with a bassinet.
Rubel et al. ‘778 teaches (figure 1a) an aircraft (10) comprising a passenger cabin (12) which includes a bassinet system (18) coupled to the monument (16) or any other suitable portion of the passenger cabin (Para 0017)
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 Bentley et al. ‘512 to incorporate the teachings of Rubel et al. ‘778 to configure the table unit wherein a member is equipped with a bassinet.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to provide sleep space for infants and enhance passenger experience.
Regarding claim 10 (as best understood), modified Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) the table unit wherein the ends of the table unit are fixed to and supported by the partition panel and the member (as modified by Udriste et al. ‘711).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley et al. (US 2019/0077512), Udriste et al. (US 2025/0214711) and Rubel et al. (US 2015/0345778) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Lawson (US 11,465,749).
Regarding claim 5, modified Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) the seat unit wherein the table includes a fixed portion that is supported in a fixed manner on the partition panel, and a movable portion that is movable with respect to the fixed portion (as modified by Udriste et al. ‘711),
but it is silent about the seat unit wherein a groove to which the movable portion is engaged is formed on the partition panel, and the movable portion is moved along the groove.
Lawson ‘749 teaches (figures 5A-5B) an aircraft passenger compartment (104) comprising actuation assembly (500) for actuating tray (116) including an extension rail assembly/groove (502) on monument (114) and a linear rail assembly/groove (504) on passenger compartment shell section (108) (clearly seen in figures 5A-5B).
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 Bentley et al. ‘512 to incorporate the teachings of Lawson ‘749 to configure the seat unit wherein a groove to which the movable portion is engaged is formed on the partition panel, and the movable portion is moved along the groove (table is supported on partition panels).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would maximize the usable surface area of the movable portion of the table.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley et al. (US 2019/0077512), Udriste et al. (US 2025/0214711) and Rubel et al. (US 2015/0345778) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2021/0214084).
Regarding claim 6, modified Bentley et al. ‘512 teaches (figures 1-5) the seat unit comprising In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) monitors facing the seat (Para 0035; IFE monitor is for a passenger thus faces a passenger and a seat occupied by the passenger)
but it is silent about the seat unit wherein a screen for having a projector image projected thereon is disposed in a manner capable of being wound up on an upper portion of the table and facing the seat.
Johnson et al. ‘084 teaches (figures 1A-1B) one or more IFEs include one or more display devices (130) wherein the one or more display devices (130) include a collapsible screen (Para 0067-0069).
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 Bentley et al. ‘512 to incorporate the teachings of Johnson et al. ‘084 to configure the seat unit wherein a screen for having a projector image projected thereon is disposed in a manner capable of being wound up on an upper portion of the table and facing the seat.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to see through a window when the screen is not in use.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights