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 .
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete or unclear for reciting that “the inertial member is configured to operate the inertial member interlocking portion by rotating due to inertia force upon a collision of the vehicle”. The specification states that the inertial member is moved in the event of a collision, and the drawings depict a ball which is displaced in order to cause the interlocking portion and pivoting lever to pivot due to being biased by the movement of the ball. The claim language stating that the inertial member is configured to rotate due to inertial force is unclear because rotation of the ball is not shown or described in the specification. Revision is required to provide clarity to the claim.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for depending upon claim 1.
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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin (US 20200123814 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches a locking mechanism for a console device, being configured to restrict a console armrest of the console device disposed between a driver seat and a passenger seat inside a vehicle, the locking mechanism comprising: a housing (110) mounted on a front surface of a console box of the console device; a pivoting lever (120) pivotably coupled to an inner surface of the housing (fig. 2); a slider (140) pivotably coupled to an upper body of the pivoting lever (pivots in 121A); an inertial member interlocking portion (annotated fig. 1; top surface of housing for 130, and bottom portion of lever 120 which has the curved radius to receive weight 130) coupled to a lower body of the pivoting lever; and an inertial member seating portion (annotated fig. 1) mounted on the housing (mounted on the housing through pivot pin 121) and on which an inertial member (130) is seated; and wherein the inertial member is positioned between the inertial member interlocking portion and the inertial member seating portion (130 is seated inside the inertial member seating portion placing it between the lower end of the seating portion and the interlocking portion which is located above the weight 130 as shown in annotated fig. 1), and wherein the inertial member is configured to operate the inertial member interlocking portion by rotating (130 rotates around pivot 121) due to inertia force upon a collision of the vehicle (para. 0034).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Shin teaches the locking mechanism of claim 1, wherein: the pivoting lever (120) is pivotably coupled by a first fastening pin (121) coupled to an intermediate portion of the pivoting lever; and the upper body and lower body are each formed in a bent shape based on the intermediate portion (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Shin teaches the locking mechanism of claim 2, wherein one end portion of the slider (140) is pivotably coupled to an end portion of the upper body (pivotably coupled in 121a), and when the pivoting lever is pivoted, an other end portion of the slider passing through a rear surface of the housing is inserted into the console armrest to restrict an opening operation of the console armrest (fig. 2 to fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Shin teaches the locking mechanism of claim 3, Mori further teaches wherein a seating groove (the bottom of the rounded portion of the inertial member seating portion is being interpreted as a groove) on which the inertial member is seated is formed in the inertial member seating portion.
Regarding claim 5, Shin teaches the locking mechanism of claim 4, wherein a surface (rounded bottom of lever 120 and upper end of housing for 130 forms an incline towards the top of the rounded portion) of the inertial member interlocking portion, which supports an upper surface of the inertial member (annotated fig. 1), is inclined from a center to an edge.
Regarding claim 6, Shin teaches the locking mechanism of claim 3, further comprising: a first spring (150) having a first end coupled to the housing and a second end coupled to the pivoting lever (para. 0031).
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(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 20200123814 A1) in view of Hodgson (US 20210348425 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Shin teaches the locking mechanism according to claim 1.
Shin does not explicitly teach a friction hinge mounted on the lid of a console box arm rest.
Hodgson teaches a similar vehicular console device positioned between a driver seat and a passenger seat inside a vehicle, the vehicular console device comprising: a console box (1000); a console armrest (200) provided on a cover of the console box; a friction hinge mechanism (para. 0041) mounted on a rear end portion of the console box to pivotably couple the console armrest to the console box, the friction hinge mechanism including a friction member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Shin as utilized above with those of Hodgson to utilize a friction hinge device on the vehicular console device. Utilizing a friction hinge device provides increased access by providing a holding force at various positions. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Shin in view of Hodgson teach the vehicular console device of claim 10, Shin further teaches wherein: the pivoting lever of the locking mechanism is pivotably coupled by a first fastening pin (121) coupled to an intermediate portion of the pivoting lever; the upper body and lower body are each formed in a bent shape based on the intermediate portion (fig. 2); and one end portion of the slider is pivotably coupled to an end portion of the upper body (connected at 121a), and when the pivoting lever is pivoted, an other end portion of the slider passing through a rear surface of the housing is inserted into an armrest groove formed in the console armrest to restrict an opening operation of the console armrest (140 fig 2 to fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, Shin in view of Hodgson teach the vehicular console device of claim 11, Shin further teaches wherein a surface of the inertial member interlocking portion (82) of the locking mechanism, which supports an upper surface of the inertial member, is inclined from a center to an edge (82 is rounded with inclined surfaces, fig. 7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 13-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7 and 13 contain allowable subject matter for disclosing that the pivoting lever and the slider are fastened together by sliding a pin through a hole in the pivoting lever and a hole in the slider and compressing a spring positioned inside the fastening hole. The slider of Shin has an integral pin which rotates and slides in slot 121a of the pivot lever 120. It would be improper hindsight for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the slit and pin arrangement of Shin for a fastening pin which couples two fastening holes while compressing a spring as the motion of Shin requires both rotational and sliding movement for the connection between the pivoting lever and the slider.
Claims 8-9 and 14-15 contain allowable subject matter for depending upon claim 7 which contains allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At the outset, the examiner acknowledges that in the previous action, he stated that Shin did not teach all of the limitations of claim 1. After further consideration in view of the new amendments to independent claim 1, due to the broad language of the claim Shin does teach the limitations required of independent claim 1 without modification.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1, the applicant asserts that the combination utilized by the examiner in the previous office action utilizing Mori to modify Shin would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as it is not a simple replacement. The examiner notes that this argument is moot as the new rejection does not rely on the combination of Shin and Mori.
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 JAMES EDWARD IGNACZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571)272-7376. 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.
/J.E.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3675 /KRISTINA R FULTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
