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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 10/28/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Paragraph 0025, lines 12-18, “In certain embodiments, the electronic control unit (ECU) of the vehicle may receive one or more input signals from vehicle systems such as speed sensors, seat-occupancy detectors, or in-cabin object sensors. Based on these inputs, the ECU may selectively actuate the rotation control device 104B to move the pivot structure 104A between open and closed configurations to control access to the foot space. Such control may include maintaining the pivot structure in a closed position when the vehicle is in motion or when an object is detected within the foot space, and opening the pivot structure when an adjacent seat is occupied” is not supported by the original disclosure.
Applicant has stated in the Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment dated 10/28/2025 that the amendment of Paragraph 0025 merely elaborates upon and clarifies concepts already disclosed in Paragraphs 0024-0025 of the original disclosure, however there is no evidence presented in the original disclosure that the ECU receives input signals from sensors or detectors of the vehicle, and further there are no vehicle sensors or detectors disclosed.
Paragraph 0024 merely states “the movement of the pivot structure 104A may be automatically controlled, via an electronic control unit (ECU) associated with the vehicle 102, in an autonomous mode” which fails to disclose any interaction with sensors/detectors, or the presence of sensors/detectors. Paragraph 0025 states “the rotation control device 104B may include suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to control the movement of the pivot structure 104A … may include an electronic control unit processor to control distinct functions, such as, but not limited to, controlling the movement of the pivot structure 104A” which fails to support the presence of speed sensors, seat-occupancy detectors, or in-cabin object sensors.
Paragraph 0032 further discloses that the ECU may receive commands “from a user such as a driver or an operator” and “via an automotive dashboard, an embedded device, a smartphone, a human-machine interface (HMI), a computer workstation, a handheld computer, or a cellular/mobile phone” none of which would be reasonably understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to include speed sensors, seat-occupancy detectors, or in-cabin object sensors. Instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand these commands as a physical or touchscreen button that a user must consciously and intentionally interact with the send a command to the ECU.
Paragraph 0045 further discloses “in case, the passenger seat (e.g., the at least one seat 102B) is empty and/or carried objects or pets are present on the passenger seat (e.g., the at least one seat 102B), the rotation control device 104B may be configured to move the pivot structure 104A from the closed configuration 404 to the open configuration 402” however there is no seat-occupancy detection disclosed. Rather, a user of the vehicle may determine whether the pivot structure should be opened or closed based on the presence of a passenger/pet/object and use an input of Paragraph 0032 (dashboard, embedded device, smartphone) to send an open or close command to the rotation control device.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the ECU being configured to selectively actuate the pivot structure… based on one or more vehicle state inputs including at least one of occupant presence, vehicle motion or object detection” is new matter.
The original disclosure does not include any structure that can sense/detect occupant presence, vehicle motion or object detection or communicate with the ECU or rotation control device. The ECU is disclosed to automatically control the pivot structure (Page 11, Paragraph 0024, lines 4-6), and receive commands from a user, an automotive dashboard, embedded device, smartphone, HMI, computer workstation, handheld computer, or cell phone (Page 15, Paragraph 0032, line 6 – Page 16, Paragraph 0032, line 6), however there is no disclosed presence of any sensors/detectors capable of detecting occupant presence, vehicle motion, or object presence, and further there is no disclosed relationship between the ECU and any sensors/detectors. The new matter introduced into the specification (Paragraph 0025, lines 12-18) to support this limitation of claim 1 is unsupported by the original disclosure and is addressed in the new matter objection to the specification above.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the ECU is configured to selectively actuate the pivot structure… based on one or more vehicle state inputs including at least one of occupant presence, vehicle motion or object detection” is new matter. Similar to claim 1, the original disclosure does not include any structure that can sense or detect occupant presence, vehicle motion or object presence, and further there is no disclosed relationship between the ECU and any sensors/detectors. The new matter introduced into the specification (Paragraph 0025, lines 12-18) to support this limitation of claim 10 is unsupported by the original disclosure and is addressed in the new matter objection to the specification above.
Claims 11-18 are rejected for depending from claim 10.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “wherein controlling the movement includes electronically actuating the rotation control device via an ECU… based on one or more vehicle state inputs including at least one of occupant presence, vehicle motion or object detection” is new matter. Similar to claims 1 and 10, the original disclosure does not include any structure that can sense or detect occupant presence, vehicle motion or object presence, and further there is no disclosed relationship between the ECU and any sensors/detectors. The new matter introduced into the specification (Paragraph 0025, lines 12-18) to support this limitation of claim 10 is unsupported by the original disclosure and is addressed in the new matter objection to the specification above.
Claims 20-22 are rejected for depending from claim 19.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the limitation “the ECU maintains the pivot structure in a closed configuration when a detected condition indicates that an object is present in the foot space” is new matter. Similar to claims 1, 10, and 19, the original disclosure does not include any structure that can detect conditions such as object presence, or any relationship between such sensing/detecting structure and the ECU. The new matter introduced into the specification (Paragraph 0025, lines 12-18) to support this limitation of claims 11 and 20 is unsupported by the original disclosure and is addressed in the new matter objection to the specification above.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the ECU receives the one or more vehicle state inputs via a vehicle control network bus” is new matter. The specification fails to disclose a vehicle control network bus that communicates a vehicle state input to the ECU. Paragraph 0031 discloses “a network interface 202 may receive control commands from a server (or the other electronic devices) to control a movement of the pivot structure 104A, via operation of the rotation control device 104B” but fails to disclose a network bus that communicates information about a vehicle state input to the ECU. The power system 210 is disclosed to receive control signals from the network interface 202 (Paragraph 0035), the steering system 214 is disclosed to receive control commands from the ECU (Paragraph 0037), and the rotation control device 104B is disclosed to be controlled remotely using the network interface, which may receive control commands from the user (Paragraph 0038), however there is no disclosure of a network bus communicating a vehicle state input to the ECU.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the ECU communicates with one or more sensors configured to detect vehicle speed, seat occupancy, or foreign objects in the foot space” is new matter. Similar to claims 1, 10, and 19, the original disclosure does not include any sensor structure that can detect conditions such as vehicle speed, seat occupancy, or object presence, or any relationship between such sensors and the ECU. The new matter introduced into the specification (Paragraph 0025, lines 12-18) to support this limitation of claims 11 and 20 is unsupported by the original disclosure and is addressed in the new matter objection to the specification above.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the rotation control device is configured to move the pivot structure to a closed configuration when the vehicle ignition is turned off” is new matter. At most, the specification discloses that the engine 206 provides power to the vehicle 102 (Paragraph 0033) and the battery 208 may be a source of electrical power for the ECU or the rotation control device 104B (Paragraph 0034), however there is no disclosure of the rotation control device moving the pivot structure to a closed configuration when the vehicle ignition is turned off.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the pivot structure further includes a height adjustment mechanism controlled by the ECU” is new matter. Although the ECU is disclosed to control the rotation control device (Paragraph 0024), neither the ECU nor the rotation control device are disclosed to have any relationship with the height-adjustment mechanism 502. Paragraph 0048 discloses the height-adjustment mechanism 502 may be operated by a driving mechanism such as “a hydraulic mechanism, a pneumatic mechanism, a slider and roller mechanism, or a gear” or arms or a ball screw/nut assembly. There is no evidence that the height-adjustment mechanism is controlled by either an ECU or a rotation control device.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the ECU adjusts the height of the pivot structure on one or more occupant-related parameters obtained from seat position sensors” is new matter. Similar to claim 16, neither the ECU nor the rotation control device are disclosed to have any relationship with the height adjustment mechanism 502. Further, there is no disclosed seat position sensor, or communication between the ECU and such sensor.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “the ECU automatically moves the pivot structure to the closed configuration when the vehicle is in motion” is new matter. At most, the specification discloses that the engine 206 provides power to the vehicle 102 (Paragraph 0033) and the battery 208 may be a source of electrical power for the ECU or the rotation control device 104B (Paragraph 0034), however there is no disclosure of the ECU automatically moving the pivot structure to a closed configuration when the vehicle is in motion.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “the ECU adjusts the height of the pivot structure based on occupant-size or seat-position information obtained from vehicle sensors” is new matter. Similar to claims 16 and 17, the neither the ECU nor the rotation control device are disclosed to have any relationship with the height-adjustment mechanism responsible for adjusting the height of the pivot structure. Further, there are no disclosed vehicle sensors capable of determining occupant size or seat position.
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 12 and 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 12 recites the limitation “wherein the ECU is further configured to open the pivot structure when the seat adjacent to the foot space is occupied”. It is unclear whether “open the pivot structure” means to move the pivot structure into the open configuration of claim 10 as represented by the horizontal position of Fig. 4A, or to move the pivot structure into any unstowed configuration such as shown in Figs. 3B or 4A.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the vehicle ignition" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauernfeind (U.S. Pat. No. 11628757) in view of Rawlinson (U.S. Pat. No 9428118) in further view of Gempel (DE 102021116559A1, using U.S. Pat. No. 11628757 for translation).
With respect to claim 1, Bauernfeind discloses a pivotable system (Fig. 1, storage compartment module 1 with table element 2) associated with a dashboard of a vehicle (Col. 2, lines 43-45, “Such a table element provided with a storage space thus can replace a conventional glove compartment in the dashboard of a motor vehicle”), the pivotable system comprising: a pivot structure (Fig. 1, table element 2) rotatably attached to a pivot point (adjustment device 4) on the dashboard of the vehicle, wherein the pivot structure (table element 2) is capable of controlling access to a foot space (area around and below table element 2); and a rotation control device (motorized drive unit 40) associated with the pivot point (adjustment device 4) on the dashboard of the vehicle, wherein the rotation control device (motorized drive unit 40) is configured to control a rotation of the pivot structure (table element 2) about the pivot point (Col. 9, lines 39-40, “This adjustment device 4 can be put into rotation by a motorized (electromotive) drive unit 40”).
Bauernfeind is silent to the foot space located forward of at least one seat within a cabin of the vehicle and positioned below the dashboard.
Rawlinson discloses a pivoting desktop structure in a vehicle dashboard capable of controlling an access (Col. 4, lines 48-49 “lip 113 prevents objects from sliding off of the desktop”) to a foot space area located forward of at least one seat (Fig. 1, empty floor space in front of car seat) within a cabin of the vehicle (Col. 1, lines 8-9, “a retractable workstation that is integrated into a vehicle's passenger cabin”) and positioned below the dashboard (Fig. 1, empty floor space beneath dashboard 105).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the storage compartment module of Bauernfeind in the dashboard of a vehicle such as taught by Rawlinson in order to allow a vehicle user to utilize the table element while comfortably seated and to further hold items at an easily accessible height above the seat and foot space.
The combination further discloses the rotation control device (Bauernfeind, motorized drive unit 40) is operatively coupled to an electronic control unit (Bauernfeind, Col. 11, lines 36-38, " the electronic control unit SE can be configured to receive a control signal s2 of a vehicle-mounted pre-crash sensor system”) of the vehicle (vehicle of Rawlinson utilizes non-manual, electro-mechanical positioning system 1201 (Col. 6, lines 49-52), controlled by “touch screen user interface” which has been modified to integrate with the ECU of Bauernfeind) and configured to selectively actuate the pivot structure (Bauernfeind, Fig. 1, electronic control unit SE associated with the adjustment device 4) between an open configuration, in which the foot space is accessible (Bauernfeind, Fig. 3C, horizontal position of table element 2 would allow a user to extend their feet into the foot space of Rawlinson), and a closed configuration, in which the foot space is blocked (Bauernfeind, Fig. 4B inclined position of table element 2 is capable of blocking a vertical access to the foot space of Rawlinson).
The combination fails to disclose the ECU actuates the pivot structure based on one or more vehicle state inputs including at least one of occupant presence, vehicle motion, or object detection.
Gempel discloses a vehicle’s ECU (drive arrangement 6 responsible for adjusting the motor-adjustable tray interior element is “integrated in a central motor vehicle controller”, Paragraph 0057) actuates a pivot structure (see modified Figs. 1a and 1b below, motor-adjustable interior element 4 is a pivoting tray) based on one or more vehicle state inputs including at least one of occupant presence, vehicle motion, or object detection (Paragraph 0026, “a motorized adjustment of the interior element are predicted by means of the control arrangement on the basis of the person model and the interior element model, and in that the control in the adjustment routine is implemented by means of the control arrangement” via sensing arrangement 12 which “can comprise a seat occupancy sensor, a capacitive sensor or the like, which makes it possible to draw a conclusion about the presence of an object in the interior 2” (Paragraph 0085)).
PNG
media_image1.png
707
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figs. 1a and 1b
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vehicle and table arrangement of Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson to include a sensing arrangement operatively coupled with the vehicle’s ECU such as taught by Gempel with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to easily recognize users and provide custom table positioning specified to each user. It is noted that features such a vehicle ECU are included in most motorized vehicles to control various systems of the vehicle, and sensors for detecting the presence of a person in a seat are further known in most vehicles for communicating with other vehicle systems such as a crash or air bag system. Further integration of these systems with a motorized pivoting table that is designed to integrate with a vehicle’s ECU would be obvious to one in the art.
With respect to claim 2, Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Bauernfeind) further discloses wherein the rotation control device (motorized drive unit 40) is configured to move the pivot structure (table element 2) in one of a stowed configuration (Fig. 3A, table element 2 is stowed) or an un-stowed configuration (Fig. 3C, table element 2 is unstowed).
With respect to claim 3, Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Bauernfeind) further discloses wherein the pivot structure (table element 2) is retracted toward the dashboard in the stowed configuration (Fig. 3A, table element 2 is stowed, modified by Rawlinson to be within a dashboard) and protracted from the dashboard in the unstowed configuration (Fig. 3C, table element 2 is unstowed, modified by Rawlinson to be protracted from a dashboard).
With respect to claim 4, Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the pivot structure (Bauernfeind, table element 2) is stowed within a slot of the dashboard (Rawlinson, Figs. 1 and 4A show a tray stowed in a slot within dashboard 105) in the stowed configuration (Bauernfeind, Fig. 3A, table element 2 in stowed configuration).
With respect to claim 5, Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Bauernfeind) further discloses wherein when the pivot structure (table element 2) is in the un-stowed configuration (Fig. 3C, table element 2 in unstowed), the pivot structure (table element 2) is configured to be in one of an open configuration (Fig. 3C, table element 2 in horizontal position) or a closed configuration (Fig. 4B, table element 2 in an inclined position).
With respect to claim 7, Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the rotation control device (Bauernfeind, motorized drive unit 40) is further configured to move the pivot structure (Bauernfeind, table element 2) in one of a horizontal orientation or an inclined orientation (Bauernfeind, Figs. 3C and 4B, table element 2 in horizontal and inclined positions) with respect to the at least one seat (Rawlinson, Fig. 1 shows a seat), and the horizontal orientation corresponds to the open configuration (Bauernfeind, Figs. 3C table element 2 in horizontal, open position) and the inclined orientation corresponds to the closed configuration (Bauernfeind, Figs. 4B table element 2 in inclined, closed position).
With respect to claim 8, Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above. Bauernfeind further discloses wherein the pivot structure (table element 2) further includes a locking mechanism (Fig. 3C, guide elements 23b and 423b) configured to restrict movement of the pivot structure (table element 2) in the opened configuration (Col. 10, lines 58-60, “table-element-side and lever-side guide elements 23a/23b and 423a/423b are fixed in order to adjustably hold the table element 2 at the side parts 3a and 3b” as shown in Fig. 3C).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauernfeind (U.S. Pat. No. 11628757) and Rawlinson (U.S. Pat. No. 9428118) in view of Gempel (DE 102021116559A1, using U.S. Pat. No. 11628757 for translation) in further view of KR ‘004 (KR200495004).
With respect to claim 6, Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses the foot space (Rawlinson, Fig. 1, empty floor space in front of car seat) is accessible in the open configuration (Bauernfeind, Figs. 3C table element 2 in horizontal, open position would allow access to a foot space).
The combination fails to disclose the foot space area being inaccessible in the closed configuration.
KR ‘004 discloses a foot space area (Fig. 1, foot space in front of car seat) being inaccessible in the closed configuration (Fig. 1, foot rest 100 in extended position prevents access to foot space).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the table element of Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in further view of Gempel to extend all the way to a passenger seat such as taught by KR ‘004 in order to provide a foot rest for a user and to further catch objects dropped by the user.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauernfeind (U.S. Pat. No. 11628757) and Rawlinson (U.S. Pat. No. 9428118) in view of Gempel (DE 102021116559A1, using U.S. Pat. No. 11628757 for translation) in further view of Park (U.S. Pat. No. 11590875).
With respect to claim 9, Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the pivot structure further includes a height adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a height of the pivot structure with respect to the at least one seat.
Park discloses a table structure (Fig. 3, table 200) includes a height adjustment mechanism (movable rails 320) configured to adjust a height of the table structure (Figs. 3 and 4 show table 200 at a lowered height and a raised height).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the table element of Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in further view of Gempel to be vertically adjustable such as taught by Park in order to comfortably accommodate passengers of different heights when using the table.
Claims 10-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rawlinson (U.S. Pat. No 9428118) in view of Bauernfeind (U.S. Pat. No. 11628757) in further view of Gempel (DE 102021116559A1, using U.S. Pat. No. 11628757 for translation).
With respect to claim 10, With respect to claim 10, Rawlinson discloses a vehicle including: a cabin (Title, “Retractable Workstation Integrated into the Passenger Cabin of a Vehicle”) including: a dashboard (Fig. 1, dashboard 105), at least one seat (Fig. 1, car seat), a foot space located forward of the at least one seat (Fig. 1, empty floor space in front of car seat) and located below the dashboard (Fig. 1, empty floor space beneath dashboard 105), and a pivotable system including: a pivot structure (desktop portion 101) rotatably attached to a pivot point on the dashboard (Figs. 4A-4C, hinge 111), and capable of controlling an access to the foot space (Fig. 1, desktop portion 101 has lip 113 “preventing a laptop or papers or other objects from sliding off of the edge of the desktop” and into the empty floor space in front of the car seat), the pivotable system is controlled by an ECU of the vehicle (vehicle utilizes non-manual, electro-mechanical positioning system 1201 (Col. 6, lines 49-52), controlled by “touch screen user interface”).
Rawlinson fails to disclose a rotation control device associated with the pivot point and configured to control rotation of the pivot structure about the pivot point; the pivot structure is actuated between an open configuration, in which the surrounding space is accessible, and a closed configuration, in which the foot space is blocked.
Bauernfeind discloses a pivotable system (Fig. 1, storage compartment module 1 with table element 2) including a pivot structure (Fig. 1, table element 2) rotatably attached to a pivot point (adjustment device 4) on the dashboard of a vehicle (Col. 2, lines 43-45, “Such a table element provided with a storage space thus can replace a conventional glove compartment in the dashboard of a motor vehicle”) and capable of controlling access to a surrounding space (area beneath table element 2); and a rotation control device (motorized drive unit 40) associated with the pivot point (adjustment device 4) and configured to control rotation of the pivot structure (table element 2) about the pivot point (Col. 9, lines 39-40, “This adjustment device 4 can be put into rotation by a motorized (electromotive) drive unit 40”); the rotation control device (motorized drive unit 40) is electronically controlled by an ECU (Fig. 1, electronic control unit SE associated with the adjustment device 4) capable of integrating with a vehicle’s electronic system (Col. 11, lines 36-38, " the electronic control unit SE can be configured to receive a control signal s2 of a vehicle-mounted pre-crash sensor system”) and is further capable of restricting access to the foot space area (area around and below table element 2); the pivot structure (table element 2) is actuated between an open configuration, in which the surrounding space is accessible (Fig. 3C, horizontal position of table element 2 would allow a user to extend their feet into an area below the table), and a closed configuration, in which the foot space is blocked (Fig. 4B inclined position of table element 2 is capable of blocking a vertical access to the area below the table).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the pivotable desktop of Rawlinson with a storage compartment module such as taught by Bauernfeind in order to allow a vehicle user to easily utilize the table element while comfortably seated and to further hold items at an easily accessible height above the seat and foot space, or stowed within the dashboard.
The combination fails to disclose the ECU of the vehicle being configured to selectively actuate the pivot structure based on one or more vehicle state inputs including at least one of occupant presence, vehicle motion, or object detection.
Gempel discloses the ECU of a vehicle being configured to selectively actuate a pivot structure (drive arrangement 6 responsible for adjusting the motor-adjustable tray interior element is “integrated in a central motor vehicle controller”, Paragraph 0057, see modified Figs. 1a and 1b below) based on one or more vehicle state inputs including at least one of occupant presence, vehicle motion, or object detection (Paragraph 0026, “a motorized adjustment of the interior element are predicted by means of the control arrangement on the basis of the person model and the interior element model, and in that the control in the adjustment routine is implemented by means of the control arrangement” via sensing arrangement 12 which “can comprise a seat occupancy sensor, a capacitive sensor or the like, which makes it possible to draw a conclusion about the presence of an object in the interior 2” (Paragraph 0085)).
PNG
media_image1.png
707
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figs. 1a and 1b
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vehicle and table arrangement of Rawlinson in view of Bauernfeind to include a sensing arrangement operatively coupled with the vehicle’s ECU such as taught by Gempel with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to easily recognize users and provide custom table positioning specified to each user. It is noted that features such a vehicle ECU are included in most motorized vehicles to control various systems of the vehicle, and sensors for detecting the presence of a person in a seat are further known in most vehicles for communicating with other vehicle systems such as a crash or air bag system. Further integration of these systems with a motorized pivoting table that is designed to integrate with a vehicle’s ECU would be obvious to one in the art.
With respect to claim 11, Rawlinson in view of Bauernfeind in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses the ECU (Gempel, Paragraph 0057 “central motor vehicle controller”) is further capable of maintaining the pivot structure in the closed configuration (Bauernfeind, table element 2 in closed/inclined position) when a detected condition indicates an object or obstruction in the foot space (Gempel, Paragraph 0088, “the instantaneous state of the interior 2, for example regarding the presence and/or position of persons 5 and/or articles 11, can also be taken into consideration in the path planning routine” therefore, the person profile/path routine is capable of maintaining the tray/table in a specified position based on the presence of an article 11 in the foot space as seen in Fig. 1a).
With respect to claim 12, Rawlinson in view of Bauernfeind in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses the ECU (Gempel, Paragraph 0057 “central motor vehicle controller”) is further capable of opening the pivot structure (Bauernfeind, table element 2) when the seat adjacent to the foot space (Rawlinson, seat adjacent to foot space) is occupied (Gempel, Paragraph 0087, “a seat occupancy sensor, which merely reflects the presence of a person 5” may generate the person model which can include positioning of the tray/table in a specified position).
With respect to claim 13, Rawlinson in view of Bauernfeind in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Gempel) further discloses the ECU (Paragraph 0057 “central motor vehicle controller” which is integrated with drive arrangement 6 and control arrangement 8) receives the one or more vehicle state inputs via a vehicle control network bus (Paragraph 0057, “control arrangement 8 has an interior controller 9, which communicates with a data server 10 via a communication network”).
With respect to claim 14, Rawlinson in view of Bauernfeind in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Gempel) further discloses the ECU (Paragraph 0057 “central motor vehicle controller”) communicates with one or more sensors (sensor arrangement 12) configured to detect vehicle speed, seat occupancy, or foreign objects in the foot space (sensor arrangement 12 may include seat occupancy sensors for detecting the presence of a person or cameras for detecting articles 11).
With respect to claim 18, Rawlinson in view of Bauernfeind in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses the pivot structure (Bauernfeind, table element 2) is capable of physically preventing a pet or an object from entering the foot space when in the closed configuration (table element 2 of Bauernfeind is capable of preventing a pet, such as a large dog or a pet placed in an animal carrier, from entering the foot space of Rawlinson when the table of Bauernfeind is extended in the inclined position and the seat of Rawlinson is moved to a forward-most position to contact the table element).
With respect to claim 19, Rawlinson discloses a method for controlling access to a foot space of a vehicle, comprising: attaching a pivotable system to a dashboard of the vehicle (Abstract, “A retractable workstation that is mounted within the dashboard of a vehicle”), wherein the pivotable system includes a pivot structure (desktop portion 101) rotatably attached to a pivot point on the dashboard (Figs. 4A-4C, hinge 111); the pivotable system is controlled by an ECU of the vehicle (vehicle of Rawlinson utilizes non-manual, electro-mechanical positioning system 1201 (Col. 6, lines 49-52), controlled by “touch screen user interface”).
Rawlinson fails to disclose the pivotable system includes a rotation control device associated with the pivot point; controlling a movement of the pivot structure about the pivot point to change a configuration of the pivotable system between an open configuration and a closed configuration.
Bauernfeind discloses a pivotable system (Fig. 1, storage compartment module 1 with table element 2) includes a rotation control device (motorized drive unit 40) associated with a pivot point (adjustment device 4); and controlling a movement of the pivot structure (table element 2) about the pivot point (adjustment device 4) to change a configuration of the pivotable system between an open configuration (Fig. 3C, horizontal position of table element 2) and a closed configuration (Fig. 4B inclined position of table element).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to
The combination fails to disclose wherein controlling the movement includes electronically actuating the rotation control device via an ECU of the vehicle to move the pivot structure based on one or more vehicle state inputs including at least one of occupant presence, vehicle motion, or object detection.
Gempel discloses wherein controlling the movement of a pivot structure (see modified Figs. 1a and 1b below, motor-adjustable interior tray element 4) includes electronically actuating the rotation control device (motor of the motor-adjustable interior tray element 4) via an ECU of the vehicle (Fig. 1, drive arrangement 6 controlled by control arrangement 8 and interior controller 9, Paragraph 0057, “interior controller 9 can in turn have a plurality of decentralized components, for example a drive controller assigned to the drive arrangement 6, and/or can be integrated in a central motor vehicle controller.”) to move the pivot structure (interior tray element 4) based on one or more vehicle state inputs including at least one of occupant presence, vehicle motion, or object detection (Paragraph 0026, “a motorized adjustment of the interior element are predicted by means of the control arrangement on the basis of the person model and the interior element model, and in that the control in the adjustment routine is implemented by means of the control arrangement” via sensing arrangement 12 which “can comprise a seat occupancy sensor, a capacitive sensor or the like, which makes it possible to draw a conclusion about the presence of an object in the interior 2” (Paragraph 0085)).
PNG
media_image1.png
707
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figs. 1a and 1b
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the vehicle and table arrangement of Rawlinson in view of Bauernfeind to include a sensing arrangement operatively coupled with the vehicle’s ECU such as taught by Gempel with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to easily recognize users and provide custom table positioning specified to each user. It is noted that features such a vehicle ECU are included in most motorized vehicles to control various systems of the vehicle, and sensors for detecting the presence of a person in a seat are further known in most vehicles for communicating with other vehicle systems such as a crash or air bag system. Further integration of these systems with a motorized pivoting table that is designed to integrate with a vehicle’s ECU would be obvious to one in the art.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rawlinson (U.S. Pat. No 9428118) and Bauernfeind (U.S. Pat. No. 11628757) in view of Gempel (DE 102021116559A1, using U.S. Pat. No. 11628757 for translation) in further view of Fitzpatrick (U.S. Pat. No. 10532685).
With respect to claim 21, Rawlinson in view of Bauernfeind in further view of Gempel discloses the limitation set forth above except the ECU automatically moves the pivot structure to the closed configuration when the vehicle is in motion.
Fitzpatrick discloses a vehicle’s ECU (Col. 4, lines 25-62, “movement actuation… may be initiated as part of an automated reconfiguration of the passenger cabin between the driving and autonomous configurations”) automatically moves a pivot structure (Fig. 5, footrest 20) to the closed configuration when the vehicle is in motion (Col. 4, line 67 – Col. 5, line 3, “When the vehicle changes to the autonomous mode… the foot rest 20 may rotate to its inclined second position”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the table element of Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in further view of Gempel to automatically pivot to an inclined position such as taught by Fitzpatrick in order to easily provide a surface for users to comfortably place their feet, or block off controls within the foot well, without having to manually adjust the table element, further providing a comfortable seating arrangement for the user of the vehicle.
There is currently no prior art for the rejection of claims 15, 16, 17, 20, and 22 however these claims are rejected for containing new matter as described in the 35 U.S.C. §112a rejection above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the claim has been amended to include the limitation “the ECU being configured to selectively actuate the pivot structure… based on one or more vehicle state inputs including at least one of occupant presence, vehicle motion, or object detection” overcoming the rejection of Bauernfeind (U.S. Pat. No. 11628757) in view of Rawlinson (U.S. Pat. No. 9428118). However, it does not overcome the rejection of Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in further view of Gempel (DE 102021116559A1 / US11628757) as mapped in the rejection above.
Applicant argues that Bauernfeind does not disclose any control of access to a foot space nor the electronic actuation or integration with vehicle control systems. However, Bauernfeind discloses a pivoting table element 2 within a storage module “is to be provided for example on a dashboard of a vehicle” (Col. 8, lines 63-65) which would inherently teach a foot space beneath the table element. Moreover, a table element controls access to this foot space by virtue of being a table coming out of a dashboard and capable of holding items from falling down into the foot space below.
Applicant further argues that the retractable workstation of Rawlinson does not teach the use of a pivotable dashboard structure to regulate physical access to the foot space. However, Rawlinson does disclose the pivotable workstation extending from the dashboard has a desktop portion 101 with lip 113, which prevents items from sliding off the edge of the desktop (Col. 4, lines 42-44) effectively regulating access to the foot space.
Applicant further argues that Gempel’s ECU-based control system coordinates interior features for user comfort, not for regulating access to a foot space by movement of a barrier or closure structure. However, Gempel does disclose a barrier/closure structure that is a pivotable tray (Paragraph 0051, “Other motor-adjustable interior elements designed for receiving at least one body part of a person 5 are likewise conceivable, for example a footrest, a handle, a tray or the like”) designated as interior element 4 as shown in modified Figs. 1a and 1b below. This tray controls access to the foot space beneath it by virtue of being a tray in horizontal position, capable of holding items from falling down into the foot space below.
Applicant argues that none of Bauernfeind, Rawlinson, or Gempel discloses a pivotable system in which a rotation control device is operatively coupled to a vehicle ECU that receives vehicle state inputs (seat occupancy, vehicle motion, object detection) to open/close a foot space. The examiner notes that this limitation is new matter and has been addressed in the objection to the specification and the 112a rejections above. However, each of Bauernfeind, Rawlinson, and Gempel each disclose a pivotable system as expressed above. Bauernfeind’s pivotable table element (2) is controlled by a rotation control device (motorized drive unit 40) capable of integration with a vehicle’s electronic system (Col. 11, lines 36-38, “the electronic control unit SE can be configured to receive a control signal s2 of a vehicle-mounted pre-crash sensor system”). It would be obvious to include this table element in the vehicle of Rawlinson, which provides a dashboard, foot space, and an ECU (non-manual, electro-mechanical positioning system 1201, controlled by “touch screen user interface”, Col. 6, lines 49-52) since the storage module/table element of Bauernfeind is designed to be placed in a vehicle’s dashboard and integrate with the vehicle’s ECU for rotation control.
Additionally, Gempel discloses a rotational control device (a motor of the motor-adjustable tray interior element 4) is operatively couple to a vehicle ECU (drive arrangement 6 responsible for adjusting the motor-adjustable tray interior element is “integrated in a central motor vehicle controller”, Paragraph 0057) that receives vehicle state inputs, such as identifying the presence of a specific person occupying the vehicle or object detection. The system has interior sensor arrangement 12 which may be a “radar sensor, optical sensor, … a camera, … an acoustic sensor… a seat occupancy sensor, a capacitive sensor or the like, which makes it possible to draw a conclusion about the presence of an object in the interior 2” (Paragraph 0085). These sensors are used to communicate information to control arrangement 8 which controls the motor-adjustable interior elements 4 via the drive arrangement 6.
As supported by Gempel, utilizing sensors to communicate with a vehicle ECU in order to control a pivoting structure such as a tray is known in the art. It would be obvious to include sensors such as taught by Gempel in the vehicle arrangement of Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in order to provide custom tray positioning depending on the presence of various users. This is a common and logical set up for most vehicles, which often already have sensors for detecting occupants, such as weight sensors within seats that communicate with other vehicle systems such as an air bag system, in order to provide comfortable and safe seating and table arrangements, and to further produce a more marketable vehicle.
Applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach or suggest (1) ECU-based actuation for a dashboard-mounted pivot structure and (2) regulation of access to the foot space as a safety or functional measure. However, Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson in further view of Gempel does teach (1) an ECU-based actuation (Gempel) for a dashboard-mounted pivot structure (Bauernfeind in view of Rawlinson) and (2) regulation of access to the foot space as a safety or functional measure, for instance it safer to place an item on a table structure at a height above the floor to avoid that item from getting caught beneath the seat. Additionally, a table structure may serve as an arm rest or a foot rest for a passenger, increasing a user’s level of comfort.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
PNG
media_image1.png
707
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figs. 1a and 1b
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 ac