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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17th April 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4 lines 1-2, “…a linkage…” should read “…the linkage…” as positively recited in claim 1.
In claim 5 lines 2-3, “…pivot point extending the…” should read “…pivot point defined between the…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 5 line 4, “…is coupled to one end of a cable, another end…” should read “…is coupled to the one end of the cable, the another end…”.
In claim 9 lines 2-3, “…pivot point extending the…” should read “…pivot point defined between the…” for the purpose of clarity.
In claim 9 lines 5-6, “…is coupled to one end of a cable, another end…” should read “…is coupled to the one end of the cable, the another end…”.
In claim 16 lines 2-3, “…includes a linkage coupled to the shaft and a cable, one end of the cable coupled to the linkage and another end…” should read “…includes the linkage coupled to the shaft and the cable, the one end of the cable coupled to the linkage and the another end…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConoughey et al. (US 2021/0261205) in view of Beauregard (FR 3,082,814) and Voigt et al. (US 2014/0265460).
Regarding claim 1, McConoughey et al. ‘205 teaches (figures 1-15B) an operator seat of a work vehicle (100) positioned in a cab (102) (Para 0039-0040), the operator seat comprising:
a stationary seat portion/base frame (142) (Para 0042);
a moveable seat portion/seat frame (140) swivelable relative to the stationary seat portion/base frame (142) around a swivel axis (140a) (Para 0042, 0057);
a holder configured to secure an electronic device/ monitor (116) (Para 0039; console (112) is a part of a seat; components at an end of a console (112) which attaches/mounts the monitor to the console (112) is a holder)
a support/console (112) connected to the holder (Para 0039)
but it is silent about the operator seat comprising:
the holder pivotable relative to the support between a view position and a folded position; and
an actuator coupled to the holder and actuated, in response to a relative motion between the stationary seat portion and the movable seat portion, to pivot the holder between the view position and the folded position.
Beauregard ‘814 teaches (figures 1-4) a seat (1) and a mobile display device/electronic device (18) mounted on a free end portion (24) of the arm/support (22) extending towards the front of the lining element (16) so as to be movable in rotation relative to the arm/support (22) between a portrait position and a landscape position wherein the mobile display device (18) is arranged to automatically pass into the retracted position when a seat (1) pivots around the axis (A) (English Translation Pg. 5 Para 3, Pg. 7 Para 8; mobile display device is pivotably mounted to the arm/support by a holder; actuator links/couples the pivoting motion of seat and the mobile display device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 to incorporate the teachings of Beauregard ‘814 to configure the operator seat comprising:
the holder pivotable relative to the support between a view position and a folded position; and
an actuator coupled to the holder and actuated, in response to a relative motion between the stationary seat portion and the movable seat portion, to pivot the holder between the view position and the folded position.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would prevent passenger from hitting the device (English Translation Pg. 7 Para 8).
Modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 is silent about the operator seat wherein the actuator includes a linkage and a cable, one end of the cable being coupled to the linkage and another end of the cable being coupled to the holder.
Voigt et al. ‘460 teaches (figures 25-40) an ergonomic productive workstation (500) with a tightly coordinated and harmonized synchronous movement of the system seat, seat back, head rest, monitor, and input device comprising a cable drives linking the monitor and input arm (534) wherein a flexible cable loop (620) is routed around pulley/linkage (622) operatively coupled to vertical support post (550), which pivots with respect to the upper horizontal monitor arm (534), and a detent groove (626) in pulley (622) engages a tab on vertical support post (550) resulting in vertical support post (550) normally rotating with pulley (622) (Para 0138, 0152; cable and pulley together actuates the vertical support post relative to the horizontal monitor arm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 to incorporate the teachings of Voigt et al. ‘460 to configure the operator seat wherein the actuator includes a linkage and a cable, one end of the cable being coupled to the linkage and another end of the cable being coupled to the holder.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to connect/couple moveable seat portion and the holder and transfer the motion of the moveable seat portion to the holder.
Claim(s) 3-4, 7, 10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConoughey et al. (US 2021/0261205), Beauregard (FR 3,082,814) and Voigt et al. (US 2014/0265460) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bittner et al. (US 2018/0257521).
Regarding claim 3, modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 teaches (figures 1-15B) the operator seat further comprising:
a first arm (124) pivotably coupled to the moveable seat portion /seat frame (140) around a pivot axis (140b) and extending forward (Para 0040, 0057)
but it is silent about the operator seat wherein the holder is coupled to the first arm.
Bittner et al. ‘521 teaches (figures 1-4) an armchair for an operator comprising a seat (42), the armrest (48) coupled to an instrument panel (106) (armrest and instrument panel together forms a first arm), and a monitor (70) coupled to the instrument panel (106) via. plate/holder (74), first arm (60) and support attachment/post (54) (Para 0017-0018, 0020, 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 to incorporate the teachings of Bittner et al. ‘521 to configure the operator seat wherein the holder is coupled to the first arm.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would put the holder and associated electronic device close to the operator.
Regarding claim 4, modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 teaches (figures 1-15B) the operator seat wherein the actuator includes the linkage coupled between the first arm and the moveable seat portion (linkage couples the moveable seat portion and the holder via the first arm, thus the linkage is coupled between the first arm and the moveable seat portion).
Regarding claim 7, modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 teaches (figures 1-15B) the operator seat further comprising:
a strut (248) connected to the first arm (124) at one end and having a cam (256) at another end (Para 0052);
wherein the stationary seat portion/base frame (142) includes a guide/control arm horizontal track (162) along which the cam (256) is slidably engaged to selectively pivot the first arm (124) inward relative to the moveable seat portion/seat frame (140) or away from the moveable seat portion/seat frame (140), in response to the relative motion between the stationary seat portion/base frame (142) and the moveable seat portion/seat frame (140) (Para 0052, 0061-0064).
Regarding claim 10, modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 teaches (figures 1-15B) the operator seat wherein the swivel axis (140a) defines a swivel center on the stationary seat portion, the guide/control arm horizontal track (162) is eccentric and includes a forward portion and a rearward portion, and a radial distance between the forward portion and the swivel center is longer than a radial distance between the rearward portion and the swivel center (clearly seen in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 teaches (figures 1-15B) the operator seat further comprising:
a post/ support attachment (54) extending from the first arm and included by the support (as modified by Bittner et al. ‘521), and
a display/monitor (72) installed on the post/ support attachment (54) adjacent to the holder (as modified by Bittner et al. ‘521; clearly seen in figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 13, modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 teaches (figures 1-15B) the operator seat wherein the swivel axis (140a) and the pivot axis (140b) are parallel to each other (clearly seen in figure 14A; both axes are onto the page).
Regarding claim 14, modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 teaches (figures 1-15B) the operator seat further comprising:
a first arm (124) coupled to the moveable seat portion/seat frame (140) and extending forward (Para 0040, 0057);
a second arm (126) coupled to the movable seat portion/seat frame (140) and extending forward (Para 0044-0045; second arm is indirectly connected to the moveable seat portion via base frame (142)); and
wherein the second arm is disposed opposite the first arm across the moveable seat portion (clearly seen in figure 5).
but it is silent about the operator seat wherein the holder is coupled to the first arm.
Bittner et al. ‘521 teaches (figures 1-4) an armchair for an operator comprising a seat (42), the armrest (48) coupled to an instrument panel (106) (armrest and instrument panel together forms a first arm), and a monitor (70) coupled to the instrument panel (106) via. plate/holder (74), first arm (60) and support attachment/post (54) (Para 0017-0018, 0020, 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 to incorporate the teachings of Bittner et al. ‘521 to configure the operator seat wherein the holder is coupled to the first arm.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would put the holder and associated electronic device close to the operator.
Regarding claim 15, modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 teaches (figures 1-15B) the operator seat further comprising a strut/coupling strut (278) connected to the second arm (126) at one end and having a cam/an armrest horizontal pivot adjustment cam (280) at another end (Para 0056); and
wherein the stationary seat portion/base frame (142) includes a second guide/armrest horizontal track (174) along which the cam is slidably engaged (Para 0056).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConoughey et al. (US 2021/0261205), Beauregard (FR 3,082,814) and Voigt et al. (US 2014/0265460) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LaCross et al. (US 2023/0211740).
Regarding claim 11, modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 teaches (figures 1-15B) the operator seat of claim 1 but it is silent about the operator seat wherein the support is coupled to the holder via a joint having a torsion spring to provide a breakaway feature between the view position and the folded position.
LaCross et al. ‘740 teaches (figures 1, 27-31) a vehicle (10) comprising a camera monitoring system (12) that includes a camera device (714) with an outer arm portion/holder (722a) that is pivotally attached at an inner arm portion/support (722b) at a pivot element or joint (723) wherein when the camera device is extended, the pivot joint is outboard of the vehicle body portion, such that, if the outer arm portion/holder (722a) is impacted or pushed, the outer arm portion/holder (722a) pivots at the pivot joint relative to the inner arm portion/support (722b) and the vehicle body portion (710a) providing the ability for the camera arm to pivot on impact, upon impact the head of the camera arm rotates in order to absorb the impact without causing damage and after impact, the head return to its extended position because of a spring and detent located at the pivot joint (e.g. a torsional spring urge the camera arm to pivot back toward the non-pivoted state (Para 0074, 000097-0098).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 to incorporate the teachings of LaCross et al. ‘740 to configure the operator seat wherein the support is coupled to the holder via a joint having a torsion spring to provide a breakaway feature between the view position and the folded position.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would prevent damage to a holder upon impact.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConoughey et al. (US 2021/0261205) in view of Beauregard (FR 3,082,814) and Bittner et al. (US 2018/0257521).
Regarding claim 18, McConoughey et al. ‘205 teaches (figures 1-15B) an operator seat of a work vehicle (100) positioned in a cab (102) (Para 0039-0040), the operator seat comprising:
a stationary seat portion/base frame (142) (Para 0042);
a moveable seat portion/seat frame (140) swivelable relative to the stationary seat portion/base frame (142) around a swivel axis (140a) (Para 0042, 0057);
a holder configured to secure an electronic device/ monitor (116) (Para 0039; console (112) is a part of a seat; components at an end of a console (112) which attaches/mounts the monitor to the console (112) is a holder)
a support/console (112) connected to the holder (Para 0039);
a first arm (124) pivotably coupled to the moveable seat portion /seat frame (140) around a pivot axis (140b) and extending forward (Para 0040, 0057)
but it is silent about the operator seat comprising:
the holder pivotable relative to the support between a view position and a folded position; and
an actuator coupled to the holder and actuated, in response to a relative motion between the stationary seat portion and the movable seat portion, to pivot the holder between the view position and the folded position.
Beauregard ‘814 teaches (figures 1-4) a seat (1) and a mobile display device/electronic device (18) mounted on a free end portion (24) of the arm/support (22) extending towards the front of the lining element (16) so as to be movable in rotation relative to the arm/support (22) between a portrait position and a landscape position wherein the mobile display device (18) is arranged to automatically pass into the retracted position when a seat (1) pivots around the axis (A) (English Translation Pg. 5 Para 3, Pg. 7 Para 8; mobile display device is pivotably mounted to the arm/support by a holder; actuator links/couples the pivoting motion of seat and the mobile display device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 to incorporate the teachings of Beauregard ‘814 to configure the operator seat comprising:
the holder pivotable relative to the support between a view position and a folded position; and
an actuator coupled to the holder and actuated, in response to a relative motion between the stationary seat portion and the movable seat portion, to pivot the holder between the view position and the folded position.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would prevent passenger from hitting the device (English Translation Pg. 7 Para 8).
Modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 is silent about the operator seat but it is silent about the operator seat wherein the holder is coupled to the first arm, and
wherein the actuator includes a linkage coupled between the first arm and the moveable seat portion.
Bittner et al. ‘521 teaches (figures 1-4) an armchair for an operator comprising a seat (42), the armrest (48) coupled to an instrument panel (106) (armrest and instrument panel together forms a first arm), and a monitor (70) coupled to the instrument panel (106) via. plate/holder (74), first arm (60) and support attachment/post (54) (Para 0017-0018, 0020, 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McConoughey et al. ‘205 to incorporate the teachings of Bittner et al. ‘521 to configure the operator seat wherein the holder is coupled to the first arm, and
wherein the actuator includes a linkage coupled between the first arm and the moveable seat portion (linkage couples the moveable seat portion and the holder via the first arm, thus the linkage is coupled between the first arm and the moveable seat portion).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would put the holder and associated electronic device close to the operator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
Claims 5-6, 8-9 and 16-17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6th February 2026 have been fully considered, however, the new ground of rejection is made, as explained in the rejection above, based on the newly discovered prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights