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 .
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 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.
Examiner's Note.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers and/or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that it has been held that a recitation that a structural element is "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” perform a function does not limit the claim to a particular structure and thus only requires the ability to so perform the function. (See In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. See also, MPEP 2111.04) As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the recitations of "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to” will be deemed met by an element in the prior art capable of performing the function recited in connection with "adapted to", “configured to”, “capable of”, “arranged to”, “intended to”, "so as" or “operable to”.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The above identified claims will be examined as best understood.
Re claim 1 the phrases "the slats of the plurality of slats”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Re claim 1 the phrase "a plurality of at least partially overlapping" is improper claim language rendering the claim vague and indefinite for examination. It is unclear what is
"a plurality of at least partially overlapping" recited in the claim refers to.
Reference of prior art
Lange et al. (US 20020005424, RECEPTACLE COVER).
Hipshierr er al. (US 9573529, Vehicle Interior Component Having A Segmented Cover Panel).
Schumacher er al. (US 20080099608, SEAT DEVICE FOR AN AIRCRAFT).
Guitton. (US 20180312259, VIBRATION FILTER MECHANISM FOR ARRANGING BETWEEN A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT AND AN AIRCRAFT FUSELAGE, AND A SEAT FITTED WITH SUCH A MECHANISM).
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 1-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange in view of Hipshier.
Re claim 1 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lange discloses:
A closeout for covering a region of a passenger seating arrangement (¶ 0001, 0003 and item 8), the closeout comprising:
- a first cover (fig. 9b, item 18), the first cover comprising a foldable sheet ;
However Lange fails to teach as disclosed by Hipshier: - a second cover (fig. 8, item 24), the second cover comprising a plurality of at least partially overlapping (fig.8, items 48, 50, 52 and 54),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Hipshier teachings of a second cover the second cover comprising a plurality of at least partially overlapping into the Lange, for lighter weight and reduced space when closed.
- a sliding mechanism supporting the first cover (fig. 2, item 26), such that the first cover is moveable between an extended position and a retracted position (depicted in figs. 3-5),
wherein, -
in the extended position, the first cover is arranged to fully cover the region of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement (item 18, in the extended position), and
- in the retracted position, the first cover only partially covers the region of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement (item 18, in the retracted position),
wherein the first cover is configured to fold at least once in the retracted position (depicted in fig, 8), and
wherein the first cover is coupled to at least one of the slats of the plurality of slats of the second cover (depicted in fig, 8), such that,
- when the first cover is moved into the extended position (item 18, in the extended position), the second cover is moved into an extended position (item 12, in the extended position), which fully covers the region of the aircraft passenger seating arrangement (items 18, 12 fully covers the region of the aircraft passenger seating arrangement 8), and
- when the first cover is moved into the retracted position, the second cover is moved into a retracted position, which only partially covers the region of the aircraft passenger seating arrangement (items 18, 12 partially covers the region of the aircraft passenger seating arrangement 8).
On the other hand, Lange, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Schumacher: an aircraft passenger seating arrangement (col. 3, l 10-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Schumacher teachings of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement into the Lange, for lighter weight and reduced cost of the aircraft.
Re claim 2 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lange, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the closeout for covering a region of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first cover comprises a foldable fabric sheet (Hipshier COL. 4, l 40-44).
Re claim 3 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lange, as modified above, discloses: the closeout for covering a region of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first cover is arranged to move between the extended position and retracted position along a longitudinal axis (along item 26).
Re claim 4 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lange, as modified above, discloses: the closeout for covering a region of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement as claimed in claim 1 wherein the foldable sheet of the first cover is configured to fold in a concertina in the retracted position (depicted in fig, 8).
Re claim 5 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lange, as modified above, discloses: the closeout for covering a region of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement as claimed in claim 1wherein the first cover comprises at least one stiffening element (fig. 9b, item 16c).
Re claim 6 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lange, as modified above, discloses: the closeout for covering a region of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement as claimed in claim 5, wherein the at least one stiffening element comprises solid panels attached to, or housed within, the foldable sheet (panels of items 12a-12c).
Re claim 7 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lange, as modified above, discloses: the closeout for covering a region of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement as claimed in claim 6, wherein the first cover comprises at least two stiffening elements, wherein each of the at least two stiffening elements is a solid panel, and wherein, in the retracted position, the foldable sheet of the first cover is configured to fold, such that at least two of the solid panels are arranged such that faces of the at least two solid panels are substantially perpendicular to [[the]] a longitudinal axis along which the first cover is moveable between the extended position and retracted position (depicted in figs., 1, 2 and 4).
Re claim 8 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lange, as modified above, discloses: the closeout for covering a region of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement as claimed in claim 1,wherein the second cover comprises an inside face, which is adjacent to the region, and an outside face, which is adjacent to the first cover (depicted in fig, 9).
Re claim 9 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lange, as modified above, discloses: the closeout for covering a region of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement as claimed in claim 1wherein the slats comprise, with reference to a length of the slat, at least one swept edge, wherein said swept edge is located towards an end of the slat (depicted in fig, 8, item 12).
Re claim 11 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lange, as modified above, discloses: the closeout for covering a region of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement as claimed in claim 1 wherein the slide mechanism comprises a guide rail arranged to support and/or constrain the movement of the slats of the second cover (item 26).
Re claim 12 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lange, as modified above, discloses: the closeout for covering a region of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement as claimed in claim 1wherein the closeout comprises a plurality of guide supports configured to support the slats and positioned such that guide supports support each of the slats towards ends of the slats, with reference to a length of the slats (¶ 0053, items 26, 28).
Re claim 13 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lange, as modified above, discloses: An aircraft passenger seating arrangement comprising a region and the closeout according to claim 1,wherein the closeout is arranged such that - when the first cover is in the extended position, the region is fully covered by the first cover, and- when the first cover is in retracted position, the region is only partially covered by the first cover (figs. 1, 2, item 12).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lange in view of Hipshier and further in view of Schumacher and further in view of Guitton.
Re claim 10 Referring to the figures and the Detailed Description, Lange, as modified above, fails to teach as disclosed by Guitton: the closeout for covering a region of an aircraft passenger seating arrangement as claimed in claim 1 wherein the first cover is coupled to at least one of the plurality of slats by a reversible fastener.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the Guitton teachings of the first cover is coupled to at least one of the plurality of slats by a reversible fastener into the Lange, as modified above, to be repeatedly engaged and disengaged without damaging the components or the fastener itself.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 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, and overcome all the rejections above.
The prior art of record including the disclosures above neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP ~ 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEDHAT BADAWI whose telephone number is (571)270-5983. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA MICHENER can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights