Design patent for the Club World seat revealed
Aug 24, 2014, 10:00 am
#46
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold & GGL & CCR, HH Diam, Bonvoy Titanium, IHG Spire, Tastecard
Posts: 7,549
As noted, BA filed an initial application in January and filed the application which has now been published in May. Additional information was included in the May application. There is nothing unusual about this strategy where developments are made to an invention included in an initial application.
What is more unusual is that the May application was filed with a request for early publication (which is why it's appeared now not in July 2015 when it would normally be published). BA requested that the search of application was accelerated under a program run by the UK Patent Office where applications which are in someway environmentally friendly are prioritised. BA's reasoning was that the invention provided "weight savings" thereby "reducing fuel consumption and atmospheric emissions".
What is clear from all this is that BA felt it was in their commercial interests to get the application published as soon as possible. There could be a number of reasons for this. It does suggest, however, that this is a 'real' product not purely something speculative.
Perhaps of greatest interest is the first application (the January 14 application) which is also available and includes photos of the proposed seat:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Docume...20document.pdf
What is more unusual is that the May application was filed with a request for early publication (which is why it's appeared now not in July 2015 when it would normally be published). BA requested that the search of application was accelerated under a program run by the UK Patent Office where applications which are in someway environmentally friendly are prioritised. BA's reasoning was that the invention provided "weight savings" thereby "reducing fuel consumption and atmospheric emissions".
What is clear from all this is that BA felt it was in their commercial interests to get the application published as soon as possible. There could be a number of reasons for this. It does suggest, however, that this is a 'real' product not purely something speculative.
Perhaps of greatest interest is the first application (the January 14 application) which is also available and includes photos of the proposed seat:
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Docume...20document.pdf
Aug 24, 2014, 10:05 am
#47
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,500
If you can't see the many photos in the link above, they include shots like this:
Looks like you have to use a cushion to provide the 'recline', and there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of leg room once you lay down fully, if we assume the person pictured is of average height.
Seems a bit strange to push this patent out speedily due to its 'eco credentials' when it reduces the number of seats for sale by 15% or so (so you need more planes to fly the same number of people around). It's certainly a different design, but it seems (much like the new F seat) there's a waste of space when you look at the footprint taken up - you could have a baby lying next to you quite easily.
Looks like you have to use a cushion to provide the 'recline', and there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of leg room once you lay down fully, if we assume the person pictured is of average height.
Seems a bit strange to push this patent out speedily due to its 'eco credentials' when it reduces the number of seats for sale by 15% or so (so you need more planes to fly the same number of people around). It's certainly a different design, but it seems (much like the new F seat) there's a waste of space when you look at the footprint taken up - you could have a baby lying next to you quite easily.
Aug 24, 2014, 10:18 am
#48
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,188
Aug 24, 2014, 10:22 am
#49
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: MUCCI
Posts: 1,926
I have now had a look at the second patent document that we have a link to as well. I think its a bit easier to see how it works.
I quite like the overall design and think that it could work. When you make the bed there is a space (by the window) that gets wasted but I am sure that this could be sorted so that you have a really nice bed. In terms of sleep there are 2 critical factors - firstly the incline - if its more than around 8% then you wake up every time you try to turn in your sleep and then the width around your torso - again if you cannot turn then you just keep waking up...... It would seem BA is now addressing that the seats need to be a bit wider.
There does seem quite a bit of scope to adapt this so I think that things might be adapted a bit. What it does increasingly make me wonder if how big is the next NNF going to be as its going to have to be much larger to make it stand out against what are ever increasingly strong J products.....
FD.
I quite like the overall design and think that it could work. When you make the bed there is a space (by the window) that gets wasted but I am sure that this could be sorted so that you have a really nice bed. In terms of sleep there are 2 critical factors - firstly the incline - if its more than around 8% then you wake up every time you try to turn in your sleep and then the width around your torso - again if you cannot turn then you just keep waking up...... It would seem BA is now addressing that the seats need to be a bit wider.
There does seem quite a bit of scope to adapt this so I think that things might be adapted a bit. What it does increasingly make me wonder if how big is the next NNF going to be as its going to have to be much larger to make it stand out against what are ever increasingly strong J products.....
FD.
Aug 24, 2014, 10:29 am
#50
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,607
Here are the photos from the above post (click for 640x480 images)
[EDITED to add:]
Fwiw these are obviously not real photos, they seem to be photos of the demo seat that are then doctored in Photoshop. Still I find them much easier to grasp than the diagrams.
It seems like a good idea but I think the demo still has a long way to go to be viable. The cushion isn't really tenable as a substitude for a reclining seat. The lack of real back support will be unbearable after a few hours and can you imagine how that cushion will look after a few months of constant use?
Also the storage, while an improvement on the existing setup, is still repeating some of the same mistakes. A drawer down below your feet where you can't reach it? A vertical cubby to swallow up anything you put in it - and that's underneath the only horizontal surface available making it hard to get into it once you've put down your phone, book, camera, or of course your bubbly.
I still don't get how this could possibly be any saving over a herringbone pod. It's basically the same plus some extra space so you can sit sidewise in the pod.
[EDITED to add:]
Fwiw these are obviously not real photos, they seem to be photos of the demo seat that are then doctored in Photoshop. Still I find them much easier to grasp than the diagrams.
It seems like a good idea but I think the demo still has a long way to go to be viable. The cushion isn't really tenable as a substitude for a reclining seat. The lack of real back support will be unbearable after a few hours and can you imagine how that cushion will look after a few months of constant use?
Also the storage, while an improvement on the existing setup, is still repeating some of the same mistakes. A drawer down below your feet where you can't reach it? A vertical cubby to swallow up anything you put in it - and that's underneath the only horizontal surface available making it hard to get into it once you've put down your phone, book, camera, or of course your bubbly.
I still don't get how this could possibly be any saving over a herringbone pod. It's basically the same plus some extra space so you can sit sidewise in the pod.
Last edited by zkzkz; Aug 24, 2014 at 6:57 pm
Aug 24, 2014, 10:34 am
#51
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,916
On page 12, Line 25....
"Since no reclining mechanism is provided..."
referring to having more storage space --- but perhaps answering the question on recline.
If there are not motors for reclining/moving seat -- that could be a significant weight savings?
"Since no reclining mechanism is provided..."
referring to having more storage space --- but perhaps answering the question on recline.
If there are not motors for reclining/moving seat -- that could be a significant weight savings?
Last edited by elitetraveler; Aug 24, 2014 at 10:44 am
Aug 24, 2014, 10:50 am
#53
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Leicestershire / Dubai
Programs: BA Silver, Marriott Bonvoy Titanium Elite & Lifetime Gold, Heathrow Rewards Premium, Tesco Clubcard
Posts: 663
I'm not a fan of diagonal seats but I would be glad if BA gets rid of the yingyang layout due to window seated passengers having to disturb those in the aisle seats. And yes, I'm also in favour of BA not squeezing in as many seats as possible in what is supposed to be a premium cabin.
Aug 24, 2014, 10:53 am
#54
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 43,005
Yes, but only when they get published at 18 months usually. If you pull the application before then, or fail to comply with what is needed at the 12 months stage the application in full will be deemed abandoned and never publish. The only thing that is usually published on filing is the number, the title, and I think the aplplicant.
To answer chris1979's question, this publication was deliberate and so this is not "leaked". However, there was no specific requirement that it is published so early on. Therefore, they have chosen to publish very early. One reason is that once published the document is then in the public domain and therefore prior art against anyone filing something after the publication date. It would be prior art for novelty and inventive step, so anything filed no has to be both new/different and non obvious over this published ba application. Prior to publication but after filing, anything filed in that interim period just has to be novel, so any arbitrary difference will overcome the co-pending application.
They have got an early search as well which is at the end of the document I posted a link to earlier. However, they could have got an early search without publishing.
The other strange thing is filing a second application so soon after the priority application. As noted, the priority application was filed in January, that was 1400219.0. That earlier one isn't published yet. However, they have filed the second application, i.e. the one filed in May and published a few weeks ago as GB2510765, and claimed priority to the first application. The only reason really to do that is because there is some addition subject matter in this second one that isn't in the priority. The priority claim will only be valid for common subject matter, not the additional stuff. Sorry, I haven't read them so can't tell you what this additional matter is.
The second one was filed with a request for early search, and publication. This is as a result of a request for accelerated prosecution which was filed along with the application in May. As the second was filed claiming priority to the first application the priority application is on the file wrapper of the second, and hence is available publicly as you can see from the link from ManchesterMark.
The other thing to note is that there are no foreign equivalent application yet. Not unusual though. They can file an international PCT application until January next year so that may well still be on the cards. Based on the patents for NCW and NGCW that Ba filed I would be very surprised if they didn't file a PCT and extend the territorial coverage of this one.
Anyway, sorry this is a limited analysis. I am currently on holiday (NYC) so this is written during a quick pit stop at my hotel before I head out again. Just been sailing on the Hudson this morning, glorious weather
To answer chris1979's question, this publication was deliberate and so this is not "leaked". However, there was no specific requirement that it is published so early on. Therefore, they have chosen to publish very early. One reason is that once published the document is then in the public domain and therefore prior art against anyone filing something after the publication date. It would be prior art for novelty and inventive step, so anything filed no has to be both new/different and non obvious over this published ba application. Prior to publication but after filing, anything filed in that interim period just has to be novel, so any arbitrary difference will overcome the co-pending application.
They have got an early search as well which is at the end of the document I posted a link to earlier. However, they could have got an early search without publishing.
The other strange thing is filing a second application so soon after the priority application. As noted, the priority application was filed in January, that was 1400219.0. That earlier one isn't published yet. However, they have filed the second application, i.e. the one filed in May and published a few weeks ago as GB2510765, and claimed priority to the first application. The only reason really to do that is because there is some addition subject matter in this second one that isn't in the priority. The priority claim will only be valid for common subject matter, not the additional stuff. Sorry, I haven't read them so can't tell you what this additional matter is.
The second one was filed with a request for early search, and publication. This is as a result of a request for accelerated prosecution which was filed along with the application in May. As the second was filed claiming priority to the first application the priority application is on the file wrapper of the second, and hence is available publicly as you can see from the link from ManchesterMark.
The other thing to note is that there are no foreign equivalent application yet. Not unusual though. They can file an international PCT application until January next year so that may well still be on the cards. Based on the patents for NCW and NGCW that Ba filed I would be very surprised if they didn't file a PCT and extend the territorial coverage of this one.
Anyway, sorry this is a limited analysis. I am currently on holiday (NYC) so this is written during a quick pit stop at my hotel before I head out again. Just been sailing on the Hudson this morning, glorious weather
Aug 24, 2014, 11:07 am
#55
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYZ
Programs: BA Gold/Marriott Gold/HH Diamond/IC Plat Amba
Posts: 5,992
Maybe I'm strange but I like to look out the window. My main complaint with AC's aisle facing pods is how hard it is to do this. This design seems to have the same issue.
Aug 24, 2014, 11:14 am
#56
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: UK
Programs: I go wherever the content takes me.
Posts: 5,698
Here are the photos from the above post (click for 640x480 images)
[EDITED to add:]
Fwiw these are obviously not real photos, they seem to be photos of the demo seat that are then doctored in Photoshop. Still I find them much easier to grasp than the diagrams.
It seems like a good idea but I think the demo still has a long way to go to be viable. The cushion isn't really tenable as a substitude for a reclining seat. The lack of real back support will be unbearable after a few hours and can you imagine how that cushion will look after a few months of constant use?
Also the storage, while an improvement on the existing setup, is still repeating some of the same mistakes. A drawer down below your feet where you can't reach it? A vertical cubby to swallow up anything you put in it - and that's underneath the only horizontal surface available making it hard to get into it once you've put down your phone, book, camera, or of course your bubbly.
I still don't get how this could possibly be any saving over a herringbone pod. It's basically the same plus some extra space so you can sit sidewise in the pod.
[EDITED to add:]
Fwiw these are obviously not real photos, they seem to be photos of the demo seat that are then doctored in Photoshop. Still I find them much easier to grasp than the diagrams.
It seems like a good idea but I think the demo still has a long way to go to be viable. The cushion isn't really tenable as a substitude for a reclining seat. The lack of real back support will be unbearable after a few hours and can you imagine how that cushion will look after a few months of constant use?
Also the storage, while an improvement on the existing setup, is still repeating some of the same mistakes. A drawer down below your feet where you can't reach it? A vertical cubby to swallow up anything you put in it - and that's underneath the only horizontal surface available making it hard to get into it once you've put down your phone, book, camera, or of course your bubbly.
I still don't get how this could possibly be any saving over a herringbone pod. It's basically the same plus some extra space so you can sit sidewise in the pod.
I'm starting to like the seat a little more with those new visualisations (though not 100% convinced about the cushion), but the proof will obviously be in the pudding. Hopefully they'll be running a few demos at industry expos prior to unveiling on the main fleet.
Aug 24, 2014, 11:15 am
#57
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: UK
Programs: I go wherever the content takes me.
Posts: 5,698
I too am a stickler for window alignment. I don't mind craning a little to see out on take-off and landing. At 35000 feet as long as there's a good amount of natural light coming in when I eat my lunch I'm not fussed much.
Aug 24, 2014, 11:19 am
#58
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2014
Programs: Regarded as total and utter snob amongst the BAEC community.
Posts: 971
Design consultants
Interesting that BA have severed their long term ties with Tangerine & ForPeople in favour of Priestmangoode, who have developed First seats for the likes of Lufthansa, Swiss, Jet and Air France's new cabin. It will be interesting to see if they develop the new First seat for the 787.
http://www.priestmangoode.com/aviation/
As for the new CW seat this looks like another missed opportunity. Whist on first view I became excited my view changed very quickly the more I read about the seat. This is nothing more than classic herring bone design not different to VS upper class and CX old J and lack privacy. I would prefer the seat facing towards the window and not the isle, a larger table, somewhere to hand your coat and the "Z" bed function. They should just make the First seat Club and introduce a new First.
Aug 24, 2014, 11:26 am
#59
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: MUCCI
Posts: 1,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crampedin13A
Maybe I'm strange but I like to look out the window. My main complaint with AC's aisle facing pods is how hard it is to do this. This design seems to have the same issue.
+1
Interesting that BA have severed their long term ties with Tangerine & ForPeople in favour of Priestmangoode, who have developed First seats for the likes of Lufthansa, Swiss, Jet and Air France's new cabin. It will be interesting to see if they develop the new First seat for the 787.
http://www.priestmangoode.com/aviation/
As for the new CW seat this looks like another missed opportunity. Whist on first view I became excited my view changed very quickly the more I read about the seat. This is nothing more than classic herring bone design not different to VS upper class and CX old J and lack privacy. I would prefer the seat facing towards the window and not the isle, a larger table, somewhere to hand your coat and the "Z" bed function. They should just make the First seat Club and introduce a new First.
Originally Posted by Crampedin13A
Maybe I'm strange but I like to look out the window. My main complaint with AC's aisle facing pods is how hard it is to do this. This design seems to have the same issue.
+1
Interesting that BA have severed their long term ties with Tangerine & ForPeople in favour of Priestmangoode, who have developed First seats for the likes of Lufthansa, Swiss, Jet and Air France's new cabin. It will be interesting to see if they develop the new First seat for the 787.
http://www.priestmangoode.com/aviation/
As for the new CW seat this looks like another missed opportunity. Whist on first view I became excited my view changed very quickly the more I read about the seat. This is nothing more than classic herring bone design not different to VS upper class and CX old J and lack privacy. I would prefer the seat facing towards the window and not the isle, a larger table, somewhere to hand your coat and the "Z" bed function. They should just make the First seat Club and introduce a new First.
FD.
Aug 24, 2014, 11:30 am
#60
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,380
I like this new design. The footguard looks like a convenient protection against being knocked by aisle traffic. The two table thing is interesting too, and the big curvy back to the chair. My only concern is how comfortable it will be watching a film when reclined, if the only means of providing the recline is a cushion.