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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen et al (5996954) in view of Sizelove (20170286037). The reference to Rosen et al teaches structure substantially as claimed including a lap bar (10 for mounting proximate to a seat of a work machine, the lap bar comprising: a first portion operable to be mounted along a first axis that is oblique to a horizontal plane; a second portion pivotable about the first axis; a display mounted on the second portion, wherein the display is configured to display operational data of the work machine; and one or more control elements mounted on said second portion and configured to receive control inputs, the second portion shifts between a raised position and a lowered position (see figs 16-18 below), wherein the second portion extends along a second axis that is parallel to the horizontal plane when the second portion is in the lowered position (the pivot axis can pivot between two extremes which include a horizontal and vertical axis and therefor meets, claims 3, 7. Further, the end points that engage the arm at the extremes provide a stop as claimed in claim 8), the only difference being that the dis[lay is not specifically configured to provide automated information of a work machine including receiving inputs from electronics and sensors, cpu, user interface. However, the reference to Sizelove (fig 2, at least paragraph 37) teaches the use of providing electronic inputs and outputs including the use of sensors and touchscreens to provide information to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Rosen et al with a reasonable expectation of success, to include electronic inputs and outputs including the use of sensors and touchscreens to detect presence, temperature, movement, etc, as taught by Sizelove since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed. The particular inputs and outputs/interface including climate control, are matters of desirability and design parameters and would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result of such and computer programing a code. It is further noted that the structure of both Rosen et al and Sizelove include the knowledge of being used with seating systems. In response to applicant's remarks regarding the positioning of the instant invention to an armrest, note the following. Rosen recognizes the mounting of the adjustment structure at different locations adjacent to a seat that allow ergonomics (see at least paragraph 3 and there is no structure to prevent such). To provide the mounting at locations near a seat, which would encompass armrest structure near a seat, would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art and a reasonably predictable result. With respect to the amendments to the claims, note at least paragraph 34 which states “It should be understood that by varying the length of track 210 and the size of tooth 212, it is possible to enlarge or shorted the range to which the display unit may be rotated about the longitudinal axis of support arm 14. It is preferable that the display unit cannot spin, or rotate, entirely about support arm 14.”
PNG
media_image1.png
513
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosen et al (5996954) in view of Sizelove (20170286037) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Hernandez (20090218860). The reference to Rosen et al in view of Sizelove teaches structure substantially as claimed as discussed above including a system for a seating system the only difference being that there is not joystick structure to provide input. However, the reference to Hernandez teaches the use of providing joysticks to provide inputs and control to be old. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure of Rosen et al in view of Sizelove with a reasonable expectation of success, to include joystick structure, as taught by Hernandez since such are conventional alternative structures used in the same intended purpose and environment and would have been a reasonably predictable result, thereby providing structure as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 JUN 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See remarks above in the rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE V CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6865. The examiner can normally be reached m-f, m-w 5:30-3:00, th5:30-2:00.
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.
/JOSE V CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights