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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 5th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 8-11 remain pending in the application. The applicant’s amendments to the Specifications and Claims have overcome all objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 19th, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on October 17, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. The non-patent literature document citation copies (“KR OA dated January 10, 2023”; “KR NOA dated May 17, 2023”) do not include a concise explanation of the relevance in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. This formality issue was also discussed in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 19th, 2026.
Drawings
The applicant’s amendments to the Drawings regarding reference character 160, and the applicant’s response to the “rotation shaft” (claim 3) have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 19th, 2026.
However, the drawings maintain being objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 150 (Replacement Sheet Fig. 2). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference characters in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strasdat et al. US 20160152163 A1, in view of Fouet et al. EP 4292879 A1, and further in view of Botta et al. US 20250010782 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Strasdat et al. disclose:
A console device (14/15; Fig. 8) for a vehicle (3) comprising:
a main body (see annotated Fig. 8) provided to one side of a seat (4) (Fig. 1A);
an accommodating groove depressed from the main body (see annotated Fig. 6B) in an up-down direction (see annotated Fig. 6B), wherein an upper portion of the accommodating groove opens (31; paragraph 0046); and
a convenient module (see annotated Fig. 6B) configured to be liftable (30) from the accommodating groove (paragraph 0046),
wherein the convenient module comprises:
a partition (26) configured to partition a space where the seat is positioned (see annotated Fig. 7A);
at least one table (24/25) connected to a front end of the partition (see annotated Fig. 5);
a display provided on the table (paragraph 0050);
a hinge connection portion (33) rotatably supporting the table and the display with respect to the partition (Fig. 5); and
a module box accommodating a component therein (see annotated Fig. 6B), wherein an upper portion of the module box includes an opening (31; paragraph 0046), the module box being configured to be put in or taken out of the accommodating groove (paragraph 0046).
Strasdat et al. disclose a display on the table, but do not disclose that this display is provided on a rear surface of the table.
However, Fouet et al. disclose a turntable with one side configured for receiving equipment as a conventional table (3; Fouet et al. Fig. 2), and a second side comprising a display surface (5; Fouet et al. Fig. 2) (Fouet et al. paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the console device of Strasdat et al. with the turntable as taught by Fouet et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of a passenger being able to engage in different activities such as taking meals, completing paperwork, as well as viewing media content and video sequences using a single integrated table assembly (Fouet et al. paragraphs 0002 and 0006).
Additionally, Strasdat et al. disclose a convenient module, but do not disclose that the convenient module further includes a pair of doors respectively provided at both sides of the opening, and configured to open or close the opening.
However, Botta et al. disclose a console device that includes a pair of doors (Botta et al. 30) respectively provided at both sides of an opening (Botta et al. Fig. 1; Botta et al. paragraphs 0068-0069), and configured to open or close the opening (Botta et al. paragraph 0006).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the convenient module of Strasdat et al. with the pair of doors as taught by Botta et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of preventing damage to the convenient module when the doors are closed and the table and display are not in use (Botta et al. 0069).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
405
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
354
402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
359
518
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Strasdat et al. disclose the console device for a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the convenient module further includes a rotation connection portion (28) rotatably supporting the table and the display with respect to the hinge connection portion (paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 10, Strasdat et al. disclose the console device for a vehicle of claim 2, wherein a pair of tables (24/25) and a pair of displays are provided (paragraph 0050), and a pair of hinge connection portions are provided to rotatably support the pair of tables and the pair of displays independently with respect to the partition (28; see annotated Fig. 5; paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 11, Strasdat et al. disclose the console device for a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the accommodating groove is formed in the main body and extends in a front-rear direction (see annotated Fig. 8).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strasdat et al. US 20160152163 A1, Fouet et al. EP 4292879 A1, and Botta et al. US 20250010782 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Cauldham (Amazon.com product), and further in view of Uxcell (Amazon.com product).
Regarding claim 3, Strasdat et al., in view of Fouet et al. and Botta et al., disclose the console device for a vehicle of claim 2, wherein the hinge connection portion and rotation connection portion are configured by a pivot axis and a swivel joint (Strasdat et al. paragraphs 0045-0046). Strasdat et al., in view of Fouet et al. and Botta et al., do not disclose these connection portions having rotation shafts.
Regarding claim 4, Strasdat et al., in view of Fouet et al. and Botta et al., do not disclose that the rotation connection portion includes a ball joint.
However, Cauldham discloses a hinge connection with a rotation shaft that extends in the up-down direction (see annotated Cauldham Fig. A).
Additionally, Uxcell discloses a ball joint with a rotation shaft that extends in a horizontal direction (see annotated Uxcell Fig. B).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the console device of Strasdat et al., in view of Fouet et al. and Botta et al., with the hinge and rotation connection portion features as taught by Cauldham, and further in view of Uxcell, with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of providing greater stability for supporting the table and the display. The hinge connection portion as taught by Cauldham includes a removeable rotation shaft for quick assembly or disassembly of the table (Cauldham Product Description). The rotation connection portion as taught by Uxcell includes a rotation shaft for ease of connectivity from the hinge connection portion to the table, and includes a ball joint for a greater range of motion than a swivel joint, as known by one of ordinary skill in the art, with the benefit of providing additional configurations for a passenger to orient the table.
PNG
media_image5.png
558
464
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
279
405
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strasdat et al. US 20160152163 A1, Fouet et al. EP 4292879 A1, and Botta et al. US 20250010782 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gou et al. CN 212098687 U.
Regarding claim 5, Strasdat et al., in view of Fouet et al. and Botta et al., disclose the console device for a vehicle of claim 2, wherein a partition with the table and display folded within. Strasdat et al., in view of Fouet et al. and Botta et al., do not disclose that a pocket portion depressed from the partition with the table and the display are on the pocket portion when being folded.
However, Gou et al. disclose a pocket portion (Gou et al. 1f) depressed from the partition (Gou et al. 3) with the table (Gou et al. 2) on the pocket portion when folded (Gou et al. Fig. 1; Gou et al. paragraph 0039).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the console device of Strasdat et al., in view of Fouet et al. and Botta et al., with the pocket portion as taught by Gou et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of making the console structure more compact and retractable when the table and display are not in use (Gou et al. paragraph 0039).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strasdat et al. US 20160152163 A1, Fouet et al. EP 4292879 A1, and Botta et al. US 20250010782 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wang et al. CN 206174842 U.
Regarding claim 8, Strasdat et al., in view of Fouet et al. and Botta et al., disclose the console device for a vehicle of claim 1, wherein the door is rotatable with respect to the module box (Botta et al. 16; Botta et al. paragraph 0056) and the door extends in a front-rear direction (Botta et al. 28; Botta et al. Fig. 6), but do not disclose a rotation shaft of the door.
Regarding claim 9, Strasdat et al., in view of Fouet et al. and Botta et al., do not disclose that the rotation shaft of the door is elastically supported in a direction of closing the opening.
However, Wang et al. disclose an elastic hinge that includes a rotation shaft that supports a door in the direction of closing (Wang et al. 4/5; Wang et al. paragraph 0009).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the door of Strasdat et al., in view of Fouet et al., and further in view of Botta et al., with the elastic hinge as taught by Wang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage of providing a more controlled swing mechanism without the need for manual pushing, as the door can close automatically (see annotated Wang et al. Fig. 6; Wang et al. paragraph 0009).
PNG
media_image7.png
553
411
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a passenger can use the main body (110) as an armrest, a cup holder, etc., regardless of whether the doors (137) are open or closed… the pair of doors… provides remarkable effects of safely storing the convenient module (130) within the module box (131) from the outside, improving utilization of the indoor space without requiring any additional member at the center of the module box (131), and lowering manufacturing cost and improving productivity through a simple structure.” (Applicant’s Remarks pages 12 and 14)) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (Applicant’s Remarks page 15). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, the combined references of Strasdat et al., in view of Fouet et al. and Botta et al., meet the aforementioned limitations regarding amended claim 1, and the examiner respectfully finds the arguments set forth by the applicant as not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Anayansi Santiago whose telephone number is (571) 272-3138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571) 270-5500. 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.
/Anayansi Santiago/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights