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 .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on February 2, 2026. Claims 1-17, 19 and 21-22 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant appears to be arguing that because the table release mechanism 128 is unlocked, to allow the work table 122 to rotate upward, it is not capable of restricting motion of the work table 122 (Applicant Remarks pg. 5). Restricting motion and stopping motion are not the same. Claim 1 does not include a limitation that prohibits motion of a tray table. Llamazares Domper discloses moving a work table 122 from an extended position to a reaction position where the work table 122 serves as a reaction surface (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 53-56). The reaction position is a position where motion of the work table 122 is restricted so that the work table 122 may function as a reaction surface for a deployed airbag. Therefore, the previous rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is maintained.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant appears to be arguing that Llamazares Domper does not disclose a locking mechanism and that a prima facie case of obviousness based on a combination of the teachings of Llamazares Domper with teachings that include a locking mechanism would be based on impermissible hindsight.
However, Llamazares Domper discloses a table release mechanism 128 that can allow or prohibit deployment or rotation of the work table 122 (Llamazares Domper col. 34-36). Thus, the table release mechanism 128 of Llamazares Domper functions as a locking mechanism with regard to the motion of the work table 122. Chuang teaches structural components of a locking mechanism including a wall that prevents a hinge or pivot from rotating. The combination of Llamazares Domper and Chuang teaches a pivot point located about a table release mechanism that includes a locking mechanism where the locking mechanism includes a wall for supporting a working table at a reaction position. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the teachings of Llamazares Domper and Chuang to arrive at the claimed invention using known methods to yield the predictable result of a rotatable table that can be supported at a position by a locking mechanism within the hinge or pivot point.
Further, in response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 16, in response to Applicant’s request for clarification that a table release mechanism can be interpreted as both a stop and latch (Applicant Remarks pg. 6). Llamazares Domper discloses a table release mechanism 128 that can be used to allow (in an unlocked configuration) or prohibit (in a locked position) deployment or rotation of a work table 122 (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 32-36). Additionally, Llamazares Domper discloses sending a command to the table release mechanism 128 to allow movement of the work table 122 between the extended position and the reaction position (Llamazares Domper col. 1 line 66 – col. 2 line 2; claim 3). Llamazares Domper further discloses rotating the work table 122 about a pivot until the work table 122 is both clear of an occupant and situated in the reaction position as shown (Fig. 2) to offer an additional reaction surface for the airbag 232 (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 58-64). Therefore, Llamazares Domper discloses a table release mechanism 128 that functions as a stop that is capable of restricting movement of the work table at the reaction position and a latch that is capable of maintaining its own position at the reaction position.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 16 be found allowable, claim 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-6, 10-17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,590,914 by Llamazares Domper et al. (herein after “Llamazares Domper”).
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application. Text written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, Llamazares Domper discloses an assembly, comprising: a tray table movable from a use position to a support position (Llamazares Domper col. 3 lines 64-67: an airbag is used with novel reaction surfaces including a work table movable between a stowed position, an extended position, and a reaction position);
an airbag inflatable to an inflated position (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 43-45: The airbag system 230 also includes airbag storage 234, for example, airbag packaging and inflation mechanisms; airbag 232 in Fig. 2), the airbag at the inflated position abutting the tray table at the support position (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 43-45: The airbag system 230 also includes airbag storage 234, for example, airbag packaging and inflation mechanisms; Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 50-53: The airbag 232 is shown in a deployed position, having expanded from a stowed position within the airbag storage 234 under the work table 122, abutting or pushing against a bottom surface of the work table 122; airbag 232 in Fig. 2); and
a stop (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 19-23: the table release mechanism 128 can receive signals or information from the controller 116 indicative of prohibiting, allowing, or otherwise controlling movement of the work table 122 along, about, or with respect to the table guide 124) movable to a deployed position (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 19-23: the work table 122 is shown in an extended position outwardly extending from the table guide 124. The work table 122 can also retract into the table guide 124 in a stowed position (not shown) when the occupant is not using the work table 122; Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 32-37: the controller 116 can send a signal to the table release mechanism 128 to allow (e.g., in the unlocked configuration) or prohibit (e.g., in the locked configuration) manual or passive storage, deployment, or rotation of the work table 122 with respect to the table guide 124; Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 53-56: moving the work table 122 from the extended position into a reaction position where the work table 122 serves as a reaction surface for the airbag 232; work table 122 and table release mechanism 128 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2; Examiner interprets the table release mechanism (128) to be deployed when the work table (122) is in the reaction position.), the stop at the deployed position restricting movement of the tray table at the support position (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 53-56: moving the work table 122 from the extended position into a reaction position where the work table 122 serves as a reaction surface for the airbag 232; work table 122 at reaction position in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Llamazares Domper discloses further comprising a bulkhead, the tray table supported by the bulkhead (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 47-49: The interior surface 236 can be a side wall, a front wall, a foot rest, a door panel, or any other interior surface of the vehicle cabin 100; interior surface 236 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Llamazares Domper discloses wherein the stop is supported by the bulkhead (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 47-49: The interior surface 236 can be a side wall, a front wall, a foot rest, a door panel, or any other interior surface of the vehicle cabin 100; interior surface 236 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Llamazares Domper discloses wherein the airbag is supported by the bulkhead (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 47-49: The interior surface 236 can be a side wall, a front wall, a foot rest, a door panel, or any other interior surface of the vehicle cabin 100; interior surface 236 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Llamazares Domper discloses wherein the airbag is inflatable from an uninflated position to the inflated position, and the airbag at the uninflated position is below the tray table at the use position (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 43-45: The airbag system 230 also includes airbag storage 234, for example, airbag packaging and inflation mechanisms; Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 50-53: The airbag 232 is shown in a deployed position, having expanded from a stowed position within the airbag storage 234 under the work table 122, abutting or pushing against a bottom surface of the work table 122; airbag 232 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Llamazares Domper discloses wherein the stop is movable from an undeployed position to the deployed position (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 19-23: the work table 122 is shown in an extended position outwardly extending from the table guide 124. The work table 122 can also retract into the table guide 124 in a stowed position (not shown) when the occupant is not using the work table 122; Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 32-37: the controller 116 can send a signal to the table release mechanism 128 to allow (e.g., in the unlocked configuration) or prohibit (e.g., in the locked configuration) manual or passive storage, deployment, or rotation of the work table 122 with respect to the table guide 124; Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 53-56: moving the work table 122 from the extended position into a reaction position where the work table 122 serves as a reaction surface for the airbag 232; work table 122 and table release mechanism 128 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2; The Examiner interprets the table release mechanism (128) to be deployed when the work table (122) is in the reaction position and undeployed when the work table (122) is in the stowed position.), the stop in the undeployed position not restricting movement of the tray table at the support position (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 53-56: moving the work table 122 from the extended position into a reaction position where the work table 122 serves as a reaction surface for the airbag 232; work table 122 at reaction position in Fig. 2; Examiner interprets the table release mechanism (128) to only move the work table (122) into a reaction position when the work table (122) is in the extended position and the table release mechanism (128) is deployed. When the work table (122) is in the stowed position, the table release mechanism (128) does not restrict movement of the tray table at the reaction position).
Regarding claim 10, Llamazares Domper discloses wherein the tray table is movable from the use position to a stowed position (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 19-23: In the example of FIG. 1, the work table 122 is shown in an extended position outwardly extending from the table guide 124. The work table 122 can also retract into the table guide 124 in a stowed position (not shown) when the occupant is not using the work table 122).
Regarding claim 11, Llamazares Domper discloses wherein the tray table at the support position is between the use position and the stowed position (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 19-23: In the example of FIG. 1, the work table 122 is shown in an extended position outwardly extending from the table guide 124. The work table 122 can also retract into the table guide 124 in a stowed position (not shown) when the occupant is not using the work table 122; Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 53-56: moving the work table 122 from the extended position into a reaction position where the work table 122 serves as a reaction surface for the airbag 232; work table 122 at use position in Fig. 1 and work table 122 at reaction position in Fig. 2). Examiner interprets the work table (122) at the reaction position, shown in Fig. 2, to be radially between the use position and stowed position where the radial center is located at a point proximate to the table release mechanism (128) in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 12, Llamazares Domper discloses wherein the tray table is rotatable from the stowed position to the use position and rotatable from use position to the stowed position (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 19-23: In the example of FIG. 1, the work table 122 is shown in an extended position outwardly extending from the table guide 124. The work table 122 can also retract into the table guide 124 in a stowed position (not shown) when the occupant is not using the work table 122; Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 53-56: moving the work table 122 from the extended position into a reaction position where the work table 122 serves as a reaction surface for the airbag 232; work table 122 at use position in Fig. 1 and work table 122 at reaction position in Fig. 2). Examiner interprets a use position to be any position about the pivot from the extended position to the reaction position. In order to move the work table (122) from a stowed position to a position where the work table (122) is radially between the extended position and reaction position would require a rotation about the pivot proximate to the table release mechanism. Similarly, in order to move the work table (122) from a position where the work table (122) is radially between the extended position and reaction position to a stowed position would also require a rotation about the pivot.
Regarding claim 13, Llamazares Domper discloses further comprising an actuator operatively coupled to the stop to move the stop to the deployed position (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 28-37: To effect repositioning, the controller 116 can send a signal to the table motion-control device 126 to deploy the work table 122 to extend from the table guide 124 or to stow the work table 122 within the table guide 124. In another example, the controller 116 can send a signal to the table release mechanism 128 to allow (e.g., in the unlocked configuration) or prohibit (e.g., in the locked configuration) manual or passive storage, deployment, or rotation of the work table 122 with respect to the table guide 124; Llamazares Domper col. 7 lines 7-10: Rotation of the work table 122 can be controlled by expansion of the airbag 232, or, for example, implemented using the table motion-control device 126).
Regarding claim 14, Llamazares Domper discloses further comprising a computer in communication with the actuator, the computer programmed to command the actuator to move the stop to the deployed position in response to detecting a certain vehicle impact (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 28-37: To effect repositioning, the controller 116 can send a signal to the table motion-control device 126 to deploy the work table 122 to extend from the table guide 124 or to stow the work table 122 within the table guide 124. In another example, the controller 116 can send a signal to the table release mechanism 128 to allow (e.g., in the unlocked configuration) or prohibit (e.g., in the locked configuration) manual or passive storage, deployment, or rotation of the work table 122 with respect to the table guide 124; Llamazares Domper col.6 line 67 - col. 7 line 10: the controller 116 can send a signal to the table release mechanism 128 to change from a locked configuration to an unlocked configuration in order to allow the work table 122 to rotate upward with respect to the table guide 124 in response to information indicative of a vehicle event such as an imminent collision to prepare the work table 122 to serve as a reaction surface for the airbag 232. Rotation of the work table 122 can be controlled by expansion of the airbag 232, or, for example, implemented using the table motion-control device 126).
Regarding claim 15, Llamazares Domper discloses further comprising a seat (Llamazares Domper col. 4 lines 15-16: The vehicle cabin 100 includes a seat system 102; seat system 102 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), the tray table at the use position usable by an occupant of the seat (Llamazares Domper col. 4 lines 60-61: The table system 120 includes a work table 122 for use by an occupant within the vehicle cabin 100).
Regarding claims 16, Llamazares Domper discloses further comprising a latch operable to maintain the stop at the deployed position (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 10-18: The table release mechanism 128 can have a locked configuration prohibiting motion of the work table 122 and an unlocked configuration allowing motion of the work table 122. Both the table motion-control device 126 and the table release mechanism 128 can receive signals or information from the controller 116 indicative of prohibiting, allowing, or otherwise controlling movement of the work table 122 along, about, or with respect to the table guide 124; Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 58-64: rotating the work table 122 up and about a pivot (proximate to a location of the table release mechanism 128, but not shown) with respect to the table guide 124, until the work table 122 is both clear of an occupant (as the occupant may be moving forward) and situated in the reaction position as shown to offer an additional reaction surface for the airbag 232).
Regarding claim 17, Llamazares Domper discloses wherein the tray table is upright at the support position (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 53-56: moving the work table 122 from the extended position into a reaction position where the work table 122 serves as a reaction surface for the airbag 232; work table 122 in Fig. 2).
Claim 22 recites identical limitations to claim 16, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
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 7-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,590,914 by Llamazares Domper et al. (herein after “Llamazares Domper”), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0405710 by Chuang et al. (herein after "Chuang").
Regarding claim 7, Llamazares Domper discloses a pivot (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 56-60: This motion is indicated with dotted-line arrow C, with the airbag 232 expanding from below the work table 122 and rotating the work table 122 up and about a pivot (proximate to a location of the table release mechanism 128, but not shown)) but fails to particularly disclose wherein the stop includes a wall, and the wall at the deployed position supports the tray table at the support position.
However, Chuang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the stop includes a wall (Chuang ¶ [0037]: As shown in FIG. 7, the second locking mechanism 55 does not fully engage the first locking mechanism 50, which allows the hinge 45 to rotate), and the wall at the deployed position supports the tray table at the support position (Chuang ¶ [0038]: In FIG. 8, as the second locking mechanism 55 moves toward the first locking mechanism 50, the hinge 45 is retained in position thereby preventing the hinge 45 from rotating). The Examiner interprets the second locking mechanism (55) to be a wall that retains a hinge or pivot in a position when the second locking mechanism (55) has been moved toward the first locking mechanism (50). The hinge or pivot would also support any connected surface at a position.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety system with a tray table pivot of Llamazares Domper to include the hinge with locking mechanisms of Chuang. The safety system with a tray table pivot and hinge with locking mechanisms in combination would each perform the same function as they do separately. The safety system with a tray table and pivot would perform the function of providing a surface to be utilized by a user that could be rotated to facilitate airbag deployment. The hinge with locking mechanisms would perform the function of allowing a connected surface to rotate about a pivot and support the connected surface at a position. A person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the hinge with locking mechanisms of Chuang with the safety system including a pivot and table release mechanism of Llamazares Domper according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a rotatable tray table that could be supported at a position by an electronically actuated locking mechanism within the hinge.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Llamazares Domper and Chuang discloses further comprising a bulkhead (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 47-49: The interior surface 236 can be a side wall, a front wall, a foot rest, a door panel, or any other interior surface of the vehicle cabin 100; interior surface 236 in Fig. 2), the wall movable from an undeployed position internal of the bulkhead to the deployed position external of the bulkhead (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 19-23: the work table 122 is shown in an extended position outwardly extending from the table guide 124. The work table 122 can also retract into the table guide 124 in a stowed position (not shown) when the occupant is not using the work table 122; Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 32-37: the controller 116 can send a signal to the table release mechanism 128 to allow (e.g., in the unlocked configuration) or prohibit (e.g., in the locked configuration) manual or passive storage, deployment, or rotation of the work table 122 with respect to the table guide 124; Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 53-56: moving the work table 122 from the extended position into a reaction position where the work table 122 serves as a reaction surface for the airbag 232; work table 122 and table release mechanism 128 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2). The Examiner interprets the table release mechanism (128) including a pivot to be deployed when the work table (122) is in the reaction position and undeployed when the work table (122) is in the stowed position. As shown in Fig. 2, table release mechanism (128) is in a position external of the interior surface when the working table (122) is in the reaction position and would be in a position internal of the interior surface when the table is in the stowed position.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Llamazares Domper and Chuang discloses further comprising a bulkhead (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 47-49: The interior surface 236 can be a side wall, a front wall, a foot rest, a door panel, or any other interior surface of the vehicle cabin 100; interior surface 236 in Fig. 2), the wall at the deployed position extending upward from the bulkhead (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 53-56: moving the work table 122 from the extended position into a reaction position where the work table 122 serves as a reaction surface for the airbag 232; work table 122 and table release mechanism 128 in Fig. 2). The Examiner interprets the table release mechanism (128) and pivot to be extending upward from the bulkhead when the working table (122) is in the reaction position as shown in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 19, Llamazares Domper discloses further comprising a (Llamazares Domper col. 3 lines 64-67: an airbag is used with novel reaction surfaces including a work table movable between a stowed position, an extended position, and a reaction position), the stop (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 19-23: the table release mechanism 128 can receive signals or information from the controller 116 indicative of prohibiting, allowing, or otherwise controlling movement of the work table 122 along, about, or with respect to the table guide 124) to restrict movement of the (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 53-56: moving the work table 122 from the extended position into a reaction position where the work table 122 serves as a reaction surface for the airbag 232; work table 122 at reaction position in Fig. 2).
It is noted Llamazares Domper fails to particularly disclose a second tray table. However, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety system of Llamazares Domper to include multiple work tables with a shared pivot and stop as a matter of duplication of parts. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (B). The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced.
It is further noted that Llamazares Domper discloses a pivot (Llamazares Domper col. 5 lines 56-60: This motion is indicated with dotted-line arrow C, with the airbag 232 expanding from below the work table 122 and rotating the work table 122 up and about a pivot (proximate to a location of the table release mechanism 128, but not shown)) but fails to particularly disclose the stop including a wall extending from the tray table to the second tray table at the deployed position to restrict movement of the second tray table at the support position.
However, Chuang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the stop including a wall (Chuang ¶ [0037]: As shown in FIG. 7, the second locking mechanism 55 does not fully engage the first locking mechanism 50, which allows the hinge 45 to rotate) at the deployed position restricts movement of the (Chuang ¶ [0038]: In FIG. 8, as the second locking mechanism 55 moves toward the first locking mechanism 50, the hinge 45 is retained in position thereby preventing the hinge 45 from rotating). The Examiner interprets the second locking mechanism (55) to be a wall that retains a hinge or pivot in a position when the second locking mechanism (55) has been moved toward the first locking mechanism (50). The hinge or pivot would also support any connected surface at a position.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety system with a tray table pivot of Llamazares Domper to include the hinge with locking mechanisms of Chuang. The safety system with a tray table pivot and hinge with locking mechanisms in combination would each perform the same function as they do separately. The safety system with a tray table and pivot would perform the function of providing a surface to be utilized by a user that could be rotated to facilitate airbag deployment. The hinge with locking mechanisms would perform the function of allowing a connected surface to rotate about a pivot and support the connected surface at a position. A person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the hinge with locking mechanisms of Chuang with the safety system including a pivot and table release mechanism of Llamazares Domper according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a rotatable tray table that could be supported at a position by an electronically actuated locking mechanism within the hinge.
Finally, it is noted that the combination of Llamazares Domper and Chuang fails to particularly disclose a wall extending from the tray table to the second tray table at the deployed position to restrict movement of the second tray table at the support position.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the safety system of Llamazares Domper modified by the hinge with locking mechanisms of Chuang to further include a shared hinge with locking mechanisms extending between multiple work tables to restrict movement of work tables at a position as a matter of duplication of parts. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (B). The mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new or unexpected result is produced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is pending and allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
There is no prior art alone or in combination that teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 21, including, and in combination with other recited limitations:
the wall translating upwardly from the undeployed position to the deployed position and extending upward from the bulkhead at the deployed position;
the wall being spaced from the tray table at the undeployed position; and
the wall abutting the tray table at the support position to restrict rotation of the tray table at the support position (claim 21).
The closest prior art of record includes the following:
Llamazares Domper discloses an airbag safety system that includes a bulkhead and deployable work table that is rotated about a pivot point and supported at a reaction position by a table release mechanism when an airbag deploys. Chuang teaches a second locking mechanism, or wall, that engages a first locking mechanism to support a surface at a position. However, the combination of Llamazares Domper and Chuang fails to particularly disclose a wall that translates upward from an undeployed position to a deployed position. Further, the combination of Llamazares Domper and Chuang fails to particularly disclose the wall is spaced from the tray table at an undeployed position and that the wall abuts the tray table when restricting motion at a support position or reaction position.
Regarding a deployable wall that restricts motion at a position, Sass (U.S. Patent No. 4,040,692) teaches a convertible multipurpose table that includes a support means (Sass: 30 in Fig. 2) that supports a table surface at an inclined position (Sass col. 3 lines 21-26) but fails to disclose how the support means is stowed or deployed.
Thus, there is no prior art alone, or in combination which discloses or renders obvious:
the wall translating upwardly from the undeployed position to the deployed position and extending upward from the bulkhead at the deployed position;
the wall being spaced from the tray table at the undeployed position; and
the wall abutting the tray table at the support position to restrict rotation of the tray table at the support position (claim 21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
DE 19823141 by Kansteiner discloses a dashboard that includes a table (5) with an airbag (4) that deploys below the table rotating the table to an intermediate position (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
US 2020/0023801 by Takemura discloses an occupant protection device that includes an airbag below a table. When the airbag deploys, the table is rotated to an upright position (Fig. 2A-2C).
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 NICHOLAS P LANGHORNE whose telephone number is (571)272-5670. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/N.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666