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 .
This is the Final Office action from the examiner in charge of this application in response to the Amendment filed on 12/16/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, and 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, line 9, “the movement rotational movement” should be “the rotational movement”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the decorative surface" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2004/005069 to Lehmkuhl et al (hereinafter Lehmkuhl) in view of USP 6347590 to D'Annunzio et al (hereinafter D'Annunzio) and DE 102017209812 to Weigl.
Lehmkuhl discloses (Claim 1). A console table for a vehicle interior, comprising: a pair of deployable tables 6 (such as shown in Fig. 3) each pivotally mounted to an exterior of a housing 46 of the console table, the pair of deployable tables 6 being capable of moving from a stowed position wherein the pair of deployable tables are adjacent to the exterior of the housing of the console table to a deployed position wherein the pair of deployable tables are deployed for use, each of the pair of deployable tables have one portion pivotally or rotationally mounted to the housing in order to allow for rotational movement about a first axis in a first direction and a direction opposite to the first direction and another portion that allows for the rotational movement about a second axis in a second direction and a direction opposite to the second direction, and the first axis extends through the housing of the console table and the second axis does not extend through the housing of the console table but extends parallel to a sided surface of the housing of the console table, wherein the pair of deployable tables have a decorative surface that comprises a portion of the exterior of the console table when the pair of deployable tables 6 are in the stowed position; (Claim 4). The console table as in claim 1, wherein the decorative surface of each of the pair of deployable tables 6 matches a decorative surface of a top door 50 of the console table; (Claim 5). The console table as in claim 4, wherein the top door 50 provides access to an interior compartment of the housing 46 of the console table.
The differences being that Lehmkuhl fails to clearly disclose the limitations in claim 1 of each of the pair of deployable tables have a foam cushioning that comprises a portion of the exterior of the console table when the pair of deployable tables are in the stowed position and wherein the foam cushioning faces downwardly toward a seat of the vehicle interior when the pair of the deployable tables are in the deployed position.
D'Annunzio discloses a console table 10 for a vehicle interior, comprising: a deployable table 14 pivotally mounted to an exterior of a housing of the console table 10, the deployable table being capable of moving from a stowed position wherein the deployable table is adjacent to the exterior of the housing of the console table to a deployed position wherein the deployable table is deployed for use, the deployable table has one portion 16 pivotally or rotationally mounted to the housing 10 in order to allow for rotational movement about a first axis in a first direction and a direction opposite to the first direction and another portion 14 that allows for the rotational movement about a second axis (via hinge 18) in a second direction and a direction opposite to the second direction, and the first axis extends through the housing of the console table and the second axis does not extend through the housing of the console table but extends parallel to a side surface of the housing of the console table and the deployable table has a decorative surface that comprises a portion of the exterior of the console table when the deployable table is in the stowed position and wherein the decorative surface faces downwardly toward a seat 28 of the vehicle interior when the deployable table is in the deployed position (Fig. 1).
Meanwhile, Weigl discloses providing a table top of a console table for a vehicle interior with at least one pad/cushion to reduce the effect of an accidental impact.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of D'Annunzio and Weigl, to modify Lehmkuhl to include the limitations in Claim 1 of each of the pair of deployable tables have a foam cushioning that comprises a portion of the exterior of the console table when the pair of deployable tables are in the stowed position and wherein the foam cushioning faces downwardly toward a seat of the vehicle interior when the pair of the deployable tables are in the deployed position with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the overall versatility and comfort of the console table.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HANH VAN TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6868. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
HVT
January 16, 2026
/HANH V TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637