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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2026, with respect to claims 9-10 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamatsu (JP Patent Publication JP 2009208566 A) in view of Deschler (DE Patent Publication DE 102018214880 A1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant did not offer any arguments directed towards any potential deficiencies of the rejection with the combination. The examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed July 27, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerner (DE Patent Publication DE 102017002003) A1 in view of Dry et al (US Patent US 10343644 B2) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Dry et al (DE Patent Publication DE 102018125770 A1) in view of Deschler (DE Patent Publication DE 102018214880 A1).
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dry et al (DE Patent Publication DE 102018125770 A1) in view of Deschler (DE Patent Publication DE 102018214880 A1).
With regards to Claim 1: Dry et al teaches a hinged table system for a vehicle seat (20) comprising a passenger module (32), a holding and adjusting device (78) and a separate storage chamber (48), wherein the passenger module comprises
Dry et al does not teach the passenger module comprises a tabletop including a multimedia panel.
Deschler teaches a hinged table system for a vehicle seat (3) comprising a passenger module (7), a holding and adjusting device (20) and a storage area (via Fig 2), wherein the passenger module comprises
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hinged table system disclosed in Dry et al with the multimedia panel taught in Deschler with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided information or entertainment to the passenger in the seat as taught by Deschler (page 5 para 6).
With regards to Claim 4: The combination of Dry and Deschler et al teaches the hinged table system according to claim 1, wherein the holding and adjusting device (Dry 78) includes a linear rail (Dry 44 and 46) for vertically horizontally guiding the movement.
With regards to Claim 5: The combination of Dry and Deschler et al teaches the hinged table system according to claim 1, wherein the holding and adjusting device (Dry 78) includes a lifting mechanism (electric motor via Dry page 5 para 7) for vertically moving the passenger module (Dry 32).
The combination of Dry and Deschler et al does not teach a spindle drive.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the lifting mechanism of the combination of Dry and Deschler et al include a spindle drive since it would also be effective in lifting the passenger module.
With regards to Claim 6: The combination of Dry and Deschler et al teaches the hinged table system according to claim 1, wherein the holding and adjusting device (Dry 78) includes a rotation unit so that the passenger module (Dry 32) can be pivoted about an axis of rotation (Dry page 5 para 6).
With regards to Claim 7: The combination of Dry and Deschler et al teaches the hinged table system according to claim 1, but does not teach the storage chamber (Dry 48) is formed in the center console.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the storage chamber in a center console to consolidate the movement of the hinged table systems when there are multiple seats to accommodate additional passengers. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
With regards to Claim 8: The combination of Dry and Deschler et al teaches the hinged table system according to claim 1, but does not teach the storage chamber (Dry 48) is disposed between two backrests.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the storage chamber disposed between two backrests to consolidate the movement of the hinged table systems when there are multiple seats to accommodate additional passengers. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
With regards to Claim 17: The combination of Dry and Deschler et al teaches the hinged table system according to claim 1, wherein the hinged table system includes a module holder (Dry 76) arranged on the vehicle seat, wherein the passenger module (Dry 32) is coupled, on one side transversely to the longitudinal extension of the seat, to the holding and adjusting device (Dry 78) and, on the opposite side, is releasably locked on the vehicle side in the operating position.
With regards to Claim 18: The combination of Dry and Deschler et al teaches the hinged table system according to claim 17, wherein the module holder (Dry 76) is designed on an armrest of the vehicle seat (seen in Dry Fig 3).
With regards to Claim 19: The combination of Dry and Deschler et al teaches the hinged table system according to claim 1, wherein the holding and adjusting device (Dry 78) includes a drive for moving the passenger module (Dry 32) fully automatically (Dry page 5 para 7).
With regards to Claim 20: The combination of Dry and Deschler et al teaches the hinged table system according to claim 1, but does not teach the passenger module (Dry 32) is covered at least partly with an LED material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the multimedia panel with an LED material since such material is known to one with ordinary skill in the art to construct multimedia panels. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dry et al (DE Patent Publication DE 102018125770 A1) in view of Deschler (DE Patent Publication DE 102018214880 A1) and in further view of Marechal (US Patent US 5547248 A).
With regards to Claim 2: The combination of Dry and Deschler et al teaches the hinged table system according to claim 1, but does not teach the storage chamber (Dry 48) includes a door which can be opened and closed.
Marechal teaches a hinged table system for a vehicle seat comprising a passenger module (2), a holding and adjusting device (links and related mechanisms near 6 and 7) and a separate storage chamber (3), wherein the passenger module comprises a multimedia panel, and wherein the passenger module is coupled to the holding and adjusting device and can be adjusted between an operating position in front of an associated vehicle occupant sitting in the vehicle seat (via Fig 3) and a storing position in the storage chamber (via Fig 1), and wherein the storage chamber includes a door (31) which can be opened and closed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hinged table system taught in the combination of Dry and Deschler et al with the door which can be opened and closed taught in Marechal with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have prevented any dust or debris from falling into the storage chamber.
Claims 9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamatsu (JP Patent Publication JP 2009208566 A) in view of Deschler (DE Patent Publication DE 102018214880 A1).
With regards to Claim 9: Takamatsu teaches a hinged table system for a vehicle seat (1) comprising a passenger module (2) and a holding and adjusting device (14), wherein the passenger module comprises a tabletop (top surface of 2), an airbag (5), and an inflator (6) wherein the airbag is in fluid communication with the inflator so that the inflator can inflate the airbag, and wherein the passenger module is coupled to the holding and adjusting device and the holding and adjusting device includes a guide rail (11) associated with the vehicle seat to predetermine an adjusting path for the passenger module, wherein the passenger module can be adjusted between an operating position in front of a vehicle occupant (via Fig 1) and a storing position at a backrest of the vehicle seat on the predetermined adjusting path (via Fig 2).
Deschler teaches a hinged table system for a vehicle seat (3) comprising a passenger module (7) and a holding and adjusting device (at 20), wherein the passenger module comprises at least an airbag (16) and a tabletop (top of 7) including a multimedia panel (17 via page 5 para 6), and wherein the passenger module is coupled to the holding and adjusting device, wherein the passenger module can be adjusted between an operating position in front of a vehicle occupant (via Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hinged table system disclosed in Takamatsu with the multimedia panel taught in Deschler with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a control source or entertainment source for the passengers.
With regards to Claim 12: The combination of Takamatsu and Deschler teaches the hinged table system according to claim 9 wherein the holding and adjusting device (Takamatsu 14) includes a joint (Takamatsu 17) for rotationally moving the passenger module (Takamatsu 2).
With regards to Claim 13: The combination of Takamatsu and Deschler teaches the hinged table system according to claim 9 wherein the guide rail (Takamatsu 11) is mounted in a lower portion of a seat base (at Takamatsu 9) of the vehicle seat (Takamatsu 1).
With regards to Claim 14: The combination of Takamatsu and Deschler teaches the hinged table system according to claim 9 wherein the guide rail (Takamatsu 11) extends from one side of the vehicle seat (Takamatsu 1) to the back of the vehicle seat while showing a 90 degree curve (via Takamatsu Fig 7).
Although the drawings are not to scale, Takamatsu appears to shows that the guide rail extends from one side of the vehicle seat to the back of the vehicle seat while showing a 90 degree curve. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to modify the device of the combination of Takamatsu and Deschler such that it utilized the dimensions as claimed so as to allow the device to be optimized to its intended use as a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
With regards to Claim 15: The combination of Takamatsu and Deschler teaches the hinged table system according to claim 9 wherein the passenger module (Takamatsu 2) in the storing position is arranged at the backrest (Takamatsu 8) of the vehicle seat (Takamatsu 1) so that vehicle occupants sitting on a rear bench seat with a viewing direction to the backrest can use the multimedia panel (Deschler 17) as a screen.
With regards to Claim 16: The combination of Takamatsu and Deschler teaches the hinged table system according to claim 9 wherein the passenger module (Takamatsu 2) in the storing position forms a part of the backrest (Takamatsu 8).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamatsu (JP Patent Publication JP 2009208566 A) in view of Deschler (DE Patent Publication DE 102018214880 A1) and in further view of Freisler (DE Patent Publication DE 102017128097 A1).
With regards to Claim 10: The combination of Takamatsu and Deschler teaches the hinged table system according to claim 9, but does not teach the holding and adjusting device (Takamatsu 14) includes a lifting column for vertically moving the passenger module (Takamatsu 2).
Freisler teaches a hinged table system for a vehicle seat (14) comprising a passenger module (4) and a holding and adjusting device (6 and 8), wherein the passenger module comprises at least an airbag (40) and a tabletop (26) including a multimedia panel (24), wherein the holding and adjusting device includes a lifting column (telescopic mechanism per page 8 para 6) for vertically moving the passenger module.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the hinged table system taught in the combination of Takamatsu and Deschler with the lifting column taught in Freisler with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed for a precise position adjustment of the passenger module as taught by Freisler (page 8 para 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Ganci whose telephone number is (571)272-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/MATTHEW JOSEPH GANCI/Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights