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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kong (U.S. Pub. No. 20160375810).
With respect to claim 1, Kong discloses a tray apparatus (Fig. 2, foldable table assembly 100) for a vehicle comprising: a vertical support (base plate 141) attached to a console (base plate 141 attaches to console housing 2 via rotatable arm 121) at a fixed-position pivot (Fig. 3, cylindrical housing 111 which includes arm 121) enabling the vertical support (base plate 141) to rotate around the fixed pivot (cylindrical housing 111) between a stored position substantially parallel to a top surface of the console (Fig. 4A shows table assembly 100 in a stored position, base plate 141 extends along a plane parallel to the top surface of console 2 as depicted in Fig. 5A) and an extended position substantially perpendicular to the top surface of the console (Fig. 9A shows table assembly 100 in an extended position, base plate 141 extends along a plane perpendicular to the top surface of console 2); a horizontal support (base plate 142) connected to the vertical support and extended from the vertical support (base plate 141); and a tray (table 140) attached to the horizontal support (base plate 142), wherein the tray (table 140) is storable in a console (Figs. 8B and 9A, table 140 received in console 1) next to a seat and the tray is configured to be extended to a position over the seat (Fig. 12, table 140 extended over seat).
With respect to claim 2, Kong discloses the tray (table 140) is configured to be expandable (Figs. 6C and 6D, folded and unfolded table assembly).
With respect to claim 3, Kong discloses the tray (table 140) includes a hinge (Fig. 9A, hinge member 146) between two portions of the tray (table plates 144, 145) that enables the tray to expand by unfolding (Figs. 6C and 6D, folded and unfolded table assembly).
With respect to claim 4, Kong discloses a pivot (pivot shown in Figs. 6B and 6C shows the pivot connection movement between 141 and 142) connecting an end of the horizontal support (base plate 142) and an end of the vertical support (base plate 141), wherein the pivot enables the horizontal support to move from a first position substantially parallel to the vertical support for storage (Figs. 8A and 8B, 141 and 142 parallel during storage) to a second position substantially perpendicular to the vertical support (Fig. 9A, 141 and 142 perpendicular).
With respect to claim 5, Kong discloses wherein the vertical support (base plate 141) is configured to rotate rearward in the vehicle around the fixed-position pivot (Fig. 2 shows table assembly 100 in extended position, Fig. 8B shows “rearward” rotation of base plate 141 toward the direction of the seats) into the console (console housing 2) for storage in the stored position (stored position of Fig. 4A).
With respect to claim 6, Kong discloses wherein a latch (Fig. 9B, locking device 160) engages when the tray apparatus (tray assembly 100) is extended to ensure the tray apparatus (100) remains extended (Paragraphs 0091-0093, “…to prevent the table 140 from being lowered from the predetermined height and the useable state of the table 140… the locking device 160 to prevent reverse rotation of the first rotary arm 121 and the second rotary arm 122 after pop-up of the table 140 is necessary” shown in Fig. 9B).
With respect to claim 7, Kong discloses a second pivot (Fig. 10, bearing member 148) attaching the tray to the horizontal support (table 140 attached to base plate 142 via intermediate support plate 143), wherein the tray (table 140) is configured to swivel on the second pivot (table 140 is attached to intermediate support plate 143 swivels on the bearing member 148) while remaining substantially parallel to the horizontal support (Paragraph 0111, “The intermediate support plate 143 is combined or connected with the second base plate 142 under the condition that the bearing member 148 is interposed therebetween so as to be rotatable on the second base plate 142 which is laid horizontally”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (U.S. Pub. No. 20160375810) in view of Maier (U.S. Pub. No. 20220212585).
With respect to claim 8, Kong discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the seat is a driver seat of the vehicle and wherein the console is disposed between a passenger seat and the driver seat of the vehicle.
Maier discloses wherein the seat is a driver seat of the vehicle (Paragraph 0043, “in order to position the table element 2 in the direction of the vehicle user or the front-seat passenger, the table element 2 is manually pivoted horizontally in the relevant direction”) and wherein the console is disposed between a passenger seat and the driver seat of the vehicle (Paragraph 0031, “the center console 1 is arranged in particular between a driver's seat and a front passenger seat of the vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the table apparatus within a console disposed between a driver and passenger seat such as taught by Maier in order to enable the driver/passenger to easily place and support their items (such as food or a computer) while seated in the vehicle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong (U.S. Pub. No. 20160375810) in view of Murray (U.S. Pub. No. 20210078405).
With respect to claim 9, Kong discloses the limitation set forth above. Kong further discloses wherein the tray apparatus (tray assembly 100) is capable of causing a sensor to recognize when the tray is in a stored position (the physical presence of tray assembly 100 within console 2 may cause a sensor to recognize the position of the tray).
Kong fails to disclose wherein a sensor sends tray-position information to a processor of the vehicle configured to prevent the vehicle from entering a mobile state when the tray apparatus is extended.
Murray discloses wherein a sensor of a console storage compartment (Fig. 1 sensor 35 of storage compartment 30) sends object-position information to a processor of the vehicle (Paragraph 0025, “The sensor 35 is operably coupled to the controller 10 and is configured to transmit a signal of the presence of a cellular phone 98 within the interior volume 32 of the storage compartment 30”) capable of prevent the vehicle from entering a mobile state when the object is not fully stored in the compartment (Paragraph 0026, “A signal transmission from the sensor 35 of a cellular phone detected in the interior volume 32 and a signal status of unlocked will result in the controller 10 inhibiting operation of the vehicle”).
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 assembly of Kong to include a console sensor such as taught by Murray in order to determine the position of the tray and communicate with the vehicle controls, preventing the tray from potentially causing injury in the instance of a car crash, and further preventing a user’s ability to place items on a tray that may shift or fall while the car is in motion.
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicant’s response to rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. §102 based on Kong (U.S. Pub. No. 20160375810):
Applicant's arguments filed 9/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Independent claim 1 has been amended to include “a vertical support attached to a console at a fixed-position pivot enabling the vertical support to rotate around the fixed pivot between a stored position substantially parallel to a top surface of the console and an extended position substantially perpendicular to the top surface of the console” which fails to overcome the prior art rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that “neither rotatable arms 121-122 are perpendicular to armrest 16 or any other component of console 10 that could be considered the top console,” the amended claim limitation requires the vertical support to be perpendicular to the top surface of the console while in extended position. Kong teaches a vertical support (base plate 141) that is shown extending along a plane vertical to the top surface of the console (console housing 2) while in the extended position as shown in Figs. 2 and 9A.
Regarding applicant’s response to rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. §102 based on Maier (U.S. Pub. No. 20220212585):
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 lines 13-15, filed 9/12/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-8 under U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an obvious combination of Kong in view of Maier under U.S.C. §103.
Claims 1-7 have been rejected in view of Kong (U.S. Pub. No. 20160375810) as discussed and mapped above. Kong alone fails to disclose “wherein the seat is a driver seat of the vehicle and wherein the console is disposed between a passenger seat and the driver seat of the vehicle” however Kong in view of Maier does disclose the limitation as claimed. Maier discloses the center console 1 (which contains table element 2) “is arranged in particular between a driver’s seat and a front passenger seat of the vehicle” (Paragraph 0031). It would be obvious to include the table of Kong in a console between a driver and passenger seat such as taught by Maier so that the driver/passenger of a vehicle may place items, such as food or a computer, when seated within the vehicle. Further, this set up may provide greater utility and more frequent use of the console table, increasing the marketability of the vehicle.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ELIZABETH IRENE ARTALEJO whose telephone number is (571)272-4292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6.
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, 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.
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.
/E.I.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3637 /DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637