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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (20060175520) in view of Rogers (20190084609), Dessl (DE102015216434), & Pajic (20150068434).
PNG
media_image1.png
376
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Cooper teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a tray (100, 150) assembly for a vehicle (Fig. 9), the tray assembly comprising: a steering wheel rim (A in Fig. 9 Annotated); and a plate-shaped tray unit (100) configured to be arranged on the steering wheel rim (Fig. 9) & secured thereto by a strap (30). Cooper fail(s) to teach a steering wheel rim pivotable about a horizontal axis; a rounded protrusion; or an integrated power bank.
However, Rogers teaches mounting a steering wheel rim to be pivotable (via 30, 32, & 34) about a horizontal pivot axis (Figs. 1-4) between a steering position (Fig. 1) and a tray position (Fig. 2), in which the steering wheel rim is arranged at a smaller angle of inclination than in the steering position (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the steering wheel rim of Cooper to be pivotable, as taught by Rogers, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the steering wheel rim to be more closely aligned with a longitudinal axis of the vehicle, thereby allowing the steering wheel rim to better function as a work surface or a work surface support (as suggested by par. 4 of Rogers). Hence, Cooper as modified would teach an edge of the tray unit (100 of Cooper) that is matched to a profile of the steering wheel rim (A of Cooper) such that the tray unit arranged on the steering wheel rim located in the tray position (as in Figs. 2 & 7 of Rogers) partially or completely covers the steering wheel rim from above (implied by Fig. 9 of Cooper), without projecting beyond the steering wheel rim on an outside (as in Fig. 9 of Cooper).
Additionally, Dessl teaches the inclusion, on a bottom surface (i.e., surface of 8 facing 2) of plate-shaped unit (8), of a rounded protrusion (19)1 along at least a portion of an edge of the plate-shaped unit (Figs. 1-4) to form at least one partially circumferential sealing lip (par. 77 & 128 and Figs. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a rounded protrusion, as taught by Dessl, between the plate-shaped tray unit & steering wheel rim of Cooper as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the infiltration of liquid therebetween (as suggested by par. 128 of Dessl). Concerning the positioning of the rounded protrusion of Cooper as modified: It is noted that Dessl broadly teaches positioning a rounded protrusion (19) on a surface of a plate-shaped unit (8) that faces a second component (2) to which that plate-shaped unit is mounted (Figs. 1-2 & 4). In Cooper as modified, it is the bottom surface of the plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper) that faces the steering wheel rim (A of Cooper) to which the plate-shaped tray unit is mounted (Fig. 9 of Cooper). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that, in the structure of Cooper as modified, the rounded protrusion (19 of Dessl) would be positioned on the bottom surface of the plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper). Hence, Cooper as modified would teach wherein a bottom surface of the plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper) that comprises a rounded protrusion (19 of Dessl) along at least a portion of the edge (B of Cooper) of the plate-shaped tray unit to form at least one partially circumferential sealing lip (as in par. 77 & 128 of Dessl), which contacts (as implied by Figs. 1-4 of Dessl) the steering wheel rim (A of Cooper) when the plate-shaped tray unit is arranged on the steering wheel rim located in the tray position (as in Fig. 9 of Cooper & Fig. 2 of Rogers).
Additionally, Pajic teaches the inclusion, in a plate-shaped tray unit (104, 108), of at least one integrated power bank (see par. 64 & 74, which teach the integration of a battery pack into the plate-shaped tray unit (104)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add an integrated power bank, as taught by Pajic, to the plate-shaped tray unit of Cooper, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to supply power to portable electronic devices (as suggested by par. 64 & 74 of Pajic).
Regarding claim 2, Cooper as modified teaches an edge (B of Cooper) of the plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper) that is matched to the profile of the steering wheel rim (A of Cooper) such that the edge is arranged in a circumferential region (i.e., portion of A of Cooper covered by 100 of Cooper) with a maximum material thickness of the steering wheel rim (Fig. 9 of Cooper) located in the tray position (as in Fig. 2 of Rogers). Even assuming arguendo that the edge of Cooper’s plate-shaped tray unit is not so shaped, altering the size of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify structure of Cooper as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, by reshaping & resizing the edge of the plate-shaped tray unit to be congruent with a circumferential region with maximum material thickness of the steering wheel rim when in the tray position, depending on the desired needs of the person constructing the structure (e.g., intended use of the structure, aesthetic considerations, compactness, ease of manufacture, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Cooper as modified teaches a plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper) that is configurable to be arranged on a steering wheel rim (A of Cooper) such that the plate-shaped tray unit is arranged partially below (via 25 - see Figs. 2 & 4 of Cooper) a plane defined by an upper side of the steering wheel rim located in the tray position (implied by Fig. 9 of Cooper & Fig. 2 of Rogers).
Regarding claim 6, Cooper teaches a plate-shaped tray unit (100) that has at least one holding unit (22a-b - labeled “C” in Fig. 9 Annotated) for temporarily holding an object (D - see par. 39-42).
Regarding claim 7, Pajic teaches the inclusion, on a tray unit (104), of at least one induction charging unit (par. 64 & 74). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an induction charging unit, as taught by Pajic, to the plate-shaped tray unit of Cooper as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to supply power to portable electronic devices (as suggested by par. 64 & 74 of Pajic).
Regarding claim 8, Cooper teaches at least one coupling unit (C).
Regarding claim 10, Pajic teaches the inclusion, on a plate-shaped tray unit (104), of at least one electrical supply connection (i.e., an inductive charger) for supplying electrical energy to at least one external device or internal device (par. 64 & 74). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an electrical supply connection, as taught by Pajic, to the plate-shaped tray unit of Cooper as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order supply power to portable electronic devices (as suggested by par. 64 & 74 of Pajic).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (20060175520), Rogers (20190084609), Dessl (DE102015216434), & Pajic (20150068434) in view of Rabe (6116167). Cooper as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including an upper side (E of Cooper) of the plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper), which upper side provides a tray surface (Fig. 9 of Cooper); but fail(s) to teach an anti-slip design. However, Rabe teaches the provision of an anti-slip design to an upper side (9) of a tray unit (2), via the inclusion of an anti-slip coating (10 - see Fig. 5 & col. 2, lines 7-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the upper side of Cooper as modified with an anti-slip design, as taught by Rabe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to resist slippage of articles placed upon the upper side (as suggested by col. 1, lines 19-20 of Rabe).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (20060175520), Rogers (20190084609), Dessl (DE102015216434), & Pajic (20150068434) in view of Rivera (8327774). Cooper as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper); but fail(s) to teach a lighting unit. However, Rivera teaches the inclusion, on a plate-shaped tray unit (10), of a lighting unit (54, 60, 66, 74, 78). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a lighting unit, as taught by Rivera, to the plate-shaped tray unit of Cooper as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide light to a user of the tray (as suggested by col. 4, lines 2-6 of Rivera).
Claims 11-13, 16, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (20060175520) in view of Rogers (20190084609), Dessl (DE102015216434), Zuidema (EP1330972), & Sculley (10264213).
Regarding claim 11, Cooper teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including steering wheel (100, 150) for a vehicle (Fig. 9), the steering wheel comprising: a steering wheel rim (A); and a plate-shaped tray unit (100) secured to the steering wheel rim by a strap (30). Cooper fail(s) to teach a steering wheel rim pivotable about a horizontal axis; a sealing lip; a depression; or an integrated capacitive keyboard.
However, Rogers teaches mounting a steering wheel rim to be pivotable (via 30, 32, & 34) about a horizontal pivot axis (Figs. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the steering wheel rim of Cooper to be pivotable, as taught by Rogers, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the steering wheel rim to be more closely aligned with a longitudinal axis of the vehicle, thereby allowing the steering wheel rim to better function as a work surface or a work surface support (as suggested by par. 4 of Rogers).
Additionally, Dessl teaches the inclusion, on a bottom surface (i.e., surface of 8 facing 2) of plate-shaped unit (8), of a sealing lip (19) along at least a portion of an edge of the plate-shaped unit (Figs. 1-4) to form at least one partially circumferential sealing lip (par. 77 & 128 and Figs. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a sealing lip, as taught by Dessl, between the plate-shaped tray unit & steering wheel rim of Cooper as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the infiltration of liquid therebetween (as suggested by par. 128 of Dessl).
Additionally, Zuidema teaches the inclusion, in a top surface (6) of a plate-shaped unit (2), of a depression (1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a depression, as taught by Zuidema, to the plate-shaped tray unit of Cooper as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to inhibit liquid or objects from flowing or falling off the unit (as suggested by par. 2 & 23 of Zuidema), and to provide additional storage capacity for foods, tools, liquid and the like (as suggested by par. 31 of Zuidema).
Additionally, Sculley teaches the inclusion, in a plate-shaped tray unit (26), of an integrated capacitive keyboard (col. 22, line 65 to col. 23, line 12). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a keyboard, as taught by Sculley, to the plate-shaped tray unit of Cooper as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow user access & control of electronic devices (as suggested by col. 22, lines 55-63 of Sculley).
Concerning the shape & location of the depression of Cooper as modified: It is noted that Zuidema teaches a depression (1) that extends along (Figs. 5-6) an edge (11, 12) of a plate-shaped unit (2). Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that, in the structure of Cooper as modified, the depression (1 of Zuidema) would extend along (as in Figs. 5-6 of Zuidema) an edge (B of Cooper) of the plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper). It is further noted that, in Zuidema, the depression (1) has the same shape as (Figs. 5-6) the edge (11, 12) of a plate-shaped unit (2). In Cooper, the edge (B) of the plate-shaped tray unit (100) has a curved shape (Fig. 9). Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that, in the structure of Cooper as modified, the depression (1 of Zuidema) would likewise have a curved shape (as in Figs. 5-6 of Zuidema). Cooper as modified would therefore teach a depression (1 of Zuidema) that curves along at least a portion of the edge (B) of the plate-shaped tray (100) to receive the steering wheel rim (note that the depression (1 of Zuidema) could receive at least a portion of the steering wheel rim (A of Cooper) if the plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper) was positioned with the depression facing the steering wheel rim (as in Figs. 5-6 of Zuidema)).
Concerning the relative locations of the depression and sealing lip of Cooper as modified: It is noted that Zuidema teaches a depression (1) positioned proximate to (Figs. 5-6) the edge (11, 12) of a plate-shaped unit (2); and Dessl teaches a sealing lip (19) positioned proximate to the edge (Figs. 1-2 & 4) of a plate-shaped unit (8). Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that, in the structure of Cooper as modified, both the depression (1 of Zuidema) and the circumferential sealing lip (19 of Dessl) would be positioned proximate to (Figs. 1-2 & 4) the edge (B of Cooper) of a plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper), and that said depression (1 of Zuidema) would therefore abut (indirectly, via 100 of Cooper) the at least one partially circumferential sealing lip (19 of Dessl).
Regarding claims 12-13, 16, & 18, for the reasons stated in par. 8, 9, 10, & 12 above, the structure of Cooper as modified would read upon the limitations of these claims.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (20060175520), Rogers (20190084609), Dessl (DE102015216434), Zuidema (EP1330972), & Sculley (10264213) in view of Rabe (6116167). Cooper as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including an upper side (E of Cooper) of the plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper), which upper side provides a tray surface (Fig. 9 of Cooper); but fail(s) to teach an anti-slip design. However, Rabe teaches the provision of an anti-slip design to an upper side (9) of a tray unit (2), via the inclusion of an anti-slip coating (10 - see Fig. 5 & col. 2, lines 7-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the upper side of Cooper as modified with an anti-slip design, as taught by Rabe, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to resist slippage of articles placed upon the upper side (as suggested by col. 1, lines 19-20 of Rabe).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (20060175520), Rogers (20190084609), Dessl (DE102015216434), Zuidema (EP1330972), & Sculley (10264213) in view of Mehandjiysky (20200268144). Cooper as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper); but fail(s) to teach an induction charging unit. However, Mehandjiysky teaches the inclusion, on a tray unit (102, 106), of at least one induction charging unit (408 - see par. 47 & Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an induction charging unit, as taught by Mehandjiysky, to the plate-shaped tray unit of Cooper as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide for wireless charging of user devices placed upon the plate-shaped tray unit (as suggested by par. 47 of Mehandjiysky).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (20060175520), Rogers (20190084609), Dessl (DE102015216434), Zuidema (EP1330972), & Sculley (10264213) in view of Rivera (8327774).
Regarding claim 19, Cooper as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper); but fail(s) to teach a lighting unit. However, Rivera teaches the inclusion, on a plate-shaped tray unit (10), of a lighting unit (54, 60, 66, 74, 78). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a lighting unit, as taught by Rivera, to the plate-shaped tray unit of Cooper as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide light to a user of the tray (as suggested by col. 4, lines 2-6 of Rivera).
Regarding claim 20, Cooper as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a plate-shaped tray unit (100 of Cooper); but fail(s) to teach an electrical supply connection. However, Rivera teaches the inclusion, on a plate-shaped tray unit (10), of at least one electrical supply connection (114, 128, 130) for supplying electrical energy to at least one external device or internal device (Figs. 1 & 10 and col. 3, lines 41-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an electrical supply connection, as taught by Rivera, to the plate-shaped tray unit of Cooper as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to supply power to users of the plate-shaped tray unit (as suggested by col. 3, lines 41-55 of Rivera).
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 MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
1 Note that 19, being circular, is therefore round (Figs. 3 & 9). Note also that 19 protrudes (Figs. 2 & 4) from the plate-shaped unit (8). Hence, the examiner submits that 19 can therefore be reasonably characterized as a “rounded protrusion”.