DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 & 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In Claim 1, use of the recitation “independent of and separate from vehicle seats” is deemed to constitute new matter since the specification as originally filed does not appear to support such language. Applicant points to a paragraph, i.e., the first paragraph on page 5; but after review and consideration, the position is taken that such description does not explicitly establish the table system as being independent of and separate from the vehicle seats. The description just notes that the table system is positioned between seats of a row of seats and may replace a center seat of the row. As such, the description is not definitive as to the claimed scope now of record and therefore constitutes impermissible new matter. Consequently, remaining Claims 3-12 are rejected since they are dependent upon rejected Claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In Claim 12, the phrase “a detent arrangement” is now deemed unclear and confusing as presently set forth, since one cannot tell whether this limitation is a new and distinct feature, or if it is a reference back to the previously established “detent arrangement” as set forth in intervening Claims 11 & 9 for instance. Furthermore, the supporting scope of the arrangement configured to hold the table… within the angular range” would appear to be redundant since such claimed scope is already provided for within intervening Claim 9. Appropriate correction / clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8 & 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 3,011,781. FR`781 teaches of a vehicle center console table system (fig. 2), the vehicle center console table system can be viewed as being independent of and separate from a vehicle seat (AS) for instance (fig. 1), the system comprising: a table (D); and a slider arrangement (figs. 3-5) configured to enable horizontal sliding of the table from a first position (shown in fig. 3) to a second position (shown in either figs. 4-5) horizontally offset from the first position; wherein the slider arrangement is configured to prevent horizontal rotation of the table when the table is not in the second position (in the first position, the table is described as being in a “constrained manner” and “without rotation”) and configured to permit horizontal rotation of the table when the table is in the second position (shown in figs. 4 or 5 for instance); and wherein the slider arrangement comprises: a longitudinal guide (PR1 of R) arranged on a longitudinal axis of the vehicle center console table system and comprising a first longitudinal guide end (distal end to the left of groove as shown in fig. 3) and a second longitudinal guide end (end to the right of groove at the intersection as shown in fig. 3); and a transverse guide (viewed as the combined PR2 & PR3 of R) arranged transverse to the longitudinal axis and comprising a first transverse guide end (shown as the bottom right distal end – fig. 3) to a first side of the longitudinal guide and a second transverse guide end (shown as the top right distal end – fig. 3) to a second side of the longitudinal guide, wherein the transverse guide enables the horizontal rotation of the table between the first transverse guide end and the second transverse guide end while the table is at the second position (clearly shown in figs. 4-5). As to Claim 3, the slider arrangement comprises an intersection between the longitudinal guide and the transverse guide at the second longitudinal guide end of the longitudinal guide (similar to applicant’s depiction). As to Claim 4, the transverse guide comprises a curve to enable the horizontal rotation of the table (a “V” shaped curve for instance). As to Claim 5, the system further comprises a first guide member (PD) configured to interface with the longitudinal guide and the transverse guide, wherein the first guide member and the longitudinal guide are slidable relative to each other, and wherein the first guide member is able to transition to the transverse guide when the table reaches the second position so that the first guide member and the transverse guide are slidable relative to each other to enable the horizontal rotation of the table (note figs. 3-5). As to Claim 7, rotation of the table around the vertical axis is constrained within an angular range based on the first transverse guide end and the second transverse guide end (shown). As to Claim 8, the angular range is a value selected from a range between (+/-) 30° - as shown in figs. 4-5 for instance. Regarding Claim 13, again, FR`781 teaches of a vehicle center console ((DS) – such as when deployed to a use position as shown in fig. 2) along with a vehicle center console table system (viewed as the components housed within (DS) as shown in fig. 4), the vehicle center console table system comprising: a table (D); and a slider arrangement (figs. 3-5) configured to enable horizontal sliding of the table from a first position (shown in fig. 3) to a second position (shown in either figs. 4-5) horizontally offset from the first position; wherein the slider arrangement is configured to prevent horizontal rotation of the table when the table is not in the second position (in the first position, the table is described as being in a “constrained manner” and “without rotation”) and configured to permit horizontal rotation of the table when the table is in the second position (shown in figs. 4 or 5 for instance); and wherein the slider arrangement comprises: a longitudinal guide (PR1 of R) arranged on a longitudinal axis of the vehicle center console table system and comprising a first longitudinal guide end (distal end to the left of groove as shown in fig. 3) and a second longitudinal guide end (end to the right of groove at the intersection as shown in fig. 3); and a transverse guide (viewed as the combined PR2 & PR3 of R) arranged transverse to the longitudinal axis and comprising a first transverse guide end (shown as the bottom right distal end – fig. 3) to a first side of the longitudinal guide and a second transverse guide end (shown as the top right distal end – fig. 3) to a second side of the longitudinal guide, wherein the transverse guide enables the horizontal rotation of the table between the first transverse guide end and the second transverse guide end while the table is at the second position (clearly shown in figs. 4-5). As to Claim 14, the system in combination with a vehicle (vehicle).
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 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 3011781 in view of Jaramillo [US 6,439,133]. FR`781 teaches applicant’s basic inventive claimed system as outlined {mapped} above, but does not show a detent arrangement configured to hold the table in at least one orientation within the angular range. As to this feature, Jaramillo is cited as an evidence reference for the known aspect of employing a detent arrangement (note figs. 3-6) in order to hold a table (31) in at least one removably locked position (col. 4, lines 33-50). Accordingly, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of FR`781 so as to include a detent arrangement in view of Jaramillo’s teaching, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this arrangement would enhance the versatility of the prior art’s device by providing a means by which the rotating table could be removably locked in certain orientations along the travel path as dependent upon the needs and/or preferences of an end user, i.e., the table could be held at an angular orientation without easily being moved due to incidental bumping in order to retain the table in its desired location. Regarding Claim 10, as modified, the detent arrangement comprises a plurality of detent positions ((34) – note fig. 6 of Jaramillo) thereby allowing for multiple removably locked positions. Regarding Claim 11, as modified, the detent arrangement comprises a ball (49), a bias (48) and a socket (shown in fig. 5 of Jaramillo), wherein the bias provides a force to locate the ball within the socket (shown). As to Claim 12, the position is taken that the similarly claimed features have adequately been mapped within the rejections and therefore a redundant mapping of the features is superfluous.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & 112(b) as set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims and accompanying arguments, filed December 15, 2025, with respect to the outstanding 112(b), 102(a)(1) & 103 rejections have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Upon review, the position is taken that the amendments to Claim 3 obviate the 112(b) rejection; however, after further consideration the 112(b) rejection of Claim 12 is maintained, while a re-mapping of the rejections is sufficient in order to maintain the applied prior art regarding Claims 1, 3-5 & 7-14. Note the body of the rejections above for added context to the basis of rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES O HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6866. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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.
JOH
January 13, 2026
/James O Hansen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637