DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l). The drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
Figs. 1-3, 4A, and 7-8 do not have satisfactory reproduction characteristics. The actual figures and element number leader lines of the drawings appear to be multi-generation copies (while the element numbers are dark, clear, and crisp as required). The lines appear digitized and thus are not all solid. Further, some of the smaller/finer elements are not clear due to the overall lightness and small size of the elements.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, it appears that “button unit is rotate” should be “button unit is rotated”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malecha (US 11008103).
Regarding claim 1: Malecha discloses a console table apparatus for a vehicle (Figs. 1-5B; col. 2; lines 20-21). Malecha discloses a first link module 124 configured to selectively slide along a table when the table is drawn out from a console of the vehicle and positioned in an in use state and when the table is switched to a stored state (Figs. 1-5B; col. 6; lines 46-64). Malecha discloses a second link module 124 configured to support the first link module in the in use state and to selectively release a looking state as the table is switched to the stored state (Figs. 1-5B; col. 6; lines 46-64). Malecha 140discloses that the second link module is stored inside the console together with the first link module (Figs. 4A, 5A; col. 9, lines 31-44).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 10709235).
Regarding claim 1: Brown discloses a console table apparatus for a vehicle (Figs. 1-2, 8; col. 2, lines 58-65; col. 6, lines 48-56). Brown discloses a first link module 120, 122 configured to selectively slide along a table when the table is drawn out from a console of the vehicle and positioned in an in use state and when the table is switched to a stored state (Figs. 1-3, 8; col. 4, lines 6-11). Brown discloses a second link module 136, 140 configured to support the first link module in the in use state and to selectively release a looking state as the table is switched to the stored state (Figs. 1-3, 8; col. 4, line 35-col. 5, line 22). Brown discloses that the second link module is stored inside the console together with the first link module (Figs. 2, 4, 8-10).
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 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 of this title, 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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 10709235) in view of Yen et al. (US 20190320791).
Brown discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 9: Brown does not explicitly disclose that the first link module includes a rail guide coupled to the table to form a slide movement, a rail link unit connected to the second link module and configured to slide along the rail guide as the table is switched to the stored state, and a button unit disposed collinearly with the rail link unit to maintain a contact state and configured to block part of the slide movement path of the rail link unit to fix the table in the in use state. Yen discloses that a first link module can include a rail guide 12 coupled to the table to form a slide movement path (Figs. 2, 3; [0027]). Yen discloses a rail link unit connected to the second link module and configured to slide along the rail guide as the table is switched to the stored state (Figs. 2, 3; [0027], [0030]). Yen discloses a button unit 30 disposed collinearly with the rail link unit to maintain a contact state and configured to block part of the slide movement path of the rail link unit to fix the table in the in use state (Figs. 2, 3; [0031]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured the system of Brown so that the first link module includes a rail guide coupled to the table to form a slide movement, a rail link unit connected to the second link module and configured to slide along the rail guide as the table is switched to the stored state, and a button unit disposed collinearly with the rail link unit to maintain a contact state and configured to block part of the slide movement path of the rail link unit to fix the table in the in use state as taught by Yen. As Brown and Yen are both directed to a structure supporting a table configured to be moved from a stored state to a use state and back to a stored state, as various structures are known to facilitate moving a table between a stored and use position, and as Yen explicitly discloses a structure have rails upon which the links slide to facilitate the movement of the table, it would have been within routine skill to have selected a specific support structure for positioning a table between a folded stored position to an unfolded use position, from a finite selection of specific support structures (i.e. choosing slide rails or supports with rotatable connections). Such a simple substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10: Brown, as modified by Yen, discloses that the button unit (Brown – 134; Yen – 30) is rotatably mounted on the table and is configured to release the contact state allowing the table to be switched to the stored state upon rotating by pressing the button unit to extend the slide movement path (Brown – col. 5, line 66-col. 6, line 21; Yen – [0031] – it is noted that the broadly recited claim does not address how the button is pushed; both Brown and Yen disclose the pushing is via other structure).
Regarding claim 11: Brown, as modified by Yen, discloses that the button unit is coupled to the table together with an elastic member so that an elastic restoring force acts to return the button unit to an initial position of the contact state (Brown and Yen disclose that the table can be folded/unfolded many times; thus the button unit returns to an initial position).
Regarding claim 12: Brown, as modified by Yen, discloses that the extended slide movement path extends along a space formed between the button unit and the table when the button unit is rotate by pressing (Yen – Figs. 2, 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Vehicle comfort accessories such as foldable tables and their support structures are very well known in the art. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Malecha (US 11008103), Brown et al. (US 10709235), Yen et al. (US 20190320791), Jachim (US 8763976), Lee et al. (US 20190315259), Woerz et al. (US 20220194284), Nomoto et al. (US 20240424992), Diephuis et al. (US 11712989), Franks (US 2843436), Williams (US 960213), and Bo (US 9414670). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a console table for a vehicle, first and second link modules, ability to position the table in a use state and a storage state, a locking state that can be select9ively released, and that the second link is stored in the console with the first link. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically combined structure and steps regarding the positional and operational relationships between the table and various link structures and positional and operational relationships between the various links. It could be argued that as various links and supports are 2generally known and thus, could just be combined and re-configured to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites specific structure and operational relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known systems/structure/operations. Further, the claimed systems, structures, and operational relationships are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning system as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Coy can be reached on 571-272-5405. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
2/13/2026