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 .
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.
Claims 1-21 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 3 & 20, the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-21 are indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
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 1-7, 17-18, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tattko (DE102019006076) in view of Wiepen (20200131813).
Regarding claim 1, Tattko teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a folding table arrangement (1) for a vehicle, in particular a motor vehicle, comprising: a base carrier (2); a support arm assembly (4.2) coupled to the base carrier (2) and including a support arm (4.2) which is pivotally mounted about a first pivot axis (at 9) and is pivotable between a retracted (dashed lines in Fig. 1) and an extended position (solid lines in Fig. 1); and a table top assembly (3, 4.1) coupled to the support arm, the table top assembly being pivotally arranged relative to the support arm about a second pivot axis (at 7) different from the first pivot axis (Fig. 1), wherein the table top assembly is pivotable between a folded position (solid lines in Fig. 1) and an unfolded position (dashed lines in Fig. 1); the table top assembly comprising a holding arm (4.1) hinged (at 7) to the support arm and a table top (3) rotatably mounted on the holding arm about a rotational axis (at 8) different from the first pivot axis and the second pivot axis (par. 19 & Figs. 1-3). Tattko fail(s) to teach first & second drive devices. However, Wiepen teaches a drive device (140) which includes a motor device (142, 144, 158) for driving and controlling the pivotal movement of a first component (114) about a pivot axis relative to a second component (112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a drive device, as taught by Wiepen, to each of the support arm assembly & the table top assembly of Tattko, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow automated folding & unfolding of the table above the first & second pivot axes, thereby reducing the amount of manual effort required to complete that task. Hence, Tattko as modified would teach a support arm assembly (4 of Tattko) being assigned a first drive device (140 of Wiepen) which includes a first motor device (142, 144, 158 of Wiepen) for driving and controlling the pivotal movement of the support arm (4.2 of Tattko) about the first pivot axis (9 of Tattko) relative to the base carrier (2 of Tattko); and a table top assembly comprising a second drive device (140 of Wiepen) including a second motor device (142 of Wiepen) for driving and controlling the pivotal movement of the table top assembly about the second pivot axis (7 of Tattko) relative to the support arm.
PNG
media_image1.png
310
445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Tattko as modified teaches a base carrier (2 of Tattko) that comprises two parallel carrying legs (A of Tattko in Fig. 3 Annotated) which are connected to one another via a cross member (B of Tattko), the cross member having a receiving space (as in 176 in Fig. 14 Wiepen) for accommodating the first motor device (142, 144, 158 of Wiepen).
Regarding claim 3, Wiepen teaches a first motor device (142, 144, 158) designed as a worm gear motor with a first motor (142) and a non-self-locking (par. 18) worm gear (144).
Regarding claim 4, Tattko as modified teaches a first drive device (140 of Wiepen) includes a drive shaft (C of Wiepen in Fig. 15 Annotated) having one end (at 144 of Wiepen) drivingly connected to the worm gear motor (142 of Wiepen) and an other end (at 158 of Wiepen) of which is drivingly connected to the support arm assembly (4 of Tattko) via a further worm gear (158 of Wiepen) in order to rotate the support arm (4.2 of Tattko) about the first pivot axis (9 of Tattko) relative to the base carrier (2 of Tattko) when the worm gear motor is actuated (as in Figs. 15 & 17 of Wiepen).
PNG
media_image2.png
498
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Wiepen teaches a further worm gear (158) designed as a self-locking gear (par. 122) and comprises a worm (158) on which means (D) are arranged that may be gripped from the outside with a tool in order to operate the further worm gear manually (see Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 6, Tattko as modified teaches a support arm assembly (4.2 of Tattko) that comprises a main axis (9 of Tattko) and at least one driver element (152 of Wiepen) rotatably mounted on the main axis (as in Figs. 15 & 17 of Wiepen), which is driven in rotation by the first drive device and is non-rotatably connected to the support arm (as in Figs. 15 & 17 of Wiepen).
Regarding claim 7, Tattko as modified teaches stop means (as in par. 84 of Wiepen) are provided which limit a pivoting range of the support arm (4.2 of Tattko) about the first pivot axis (at 9 of Tattko).
Regarding claim 17, as noted above, Wiepen teaches a drive device (140) which includes a motor device (142, 144, 158) for driving and controlling the pivotal movement of a first component (114) about a pivot axis relative to a second component (112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a drive device, as taught by Wiepen, to the table top assembly of Tattko as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow automated folding & unfolding of the table about the third pivot axis, thereby reducing the amount of manual effort required to complete that task. Hence, Tattko as modified would teach a table top assembly (3, 4.1 of Tattko) that includes a third drive device (140 of Wiepen) comprising a third motor device (142, 144, 158 of Wiepen) for driving and controlling rotational movement of the table top (3 of Tattko) about the rotational axis (at 8 of Tattko) relative to the holding arm (4.1 of Tattko).
Regarding claim 18, Wiepen teaches a third drive device (140) that includes a third motor (142, 144, 158) with a self-locking (par. 122) third worm gear (158).
Regarding claim 21, Wiepen teaches a third drive device (140) that comprises at least one end position switch (par. 84).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tattko (DE102019006076) & Wiepen (20200131813) in view of Dueker (20220227277).
Regarding claims 8-9, Tattko as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including support arm (4.2); but fail(s) to teach spring means. However, Dueker teaches spring means (10) is arranged and configured to support a motor-driven pivoting of a support arm (2) in the sense of an extending movement at least in a certain range (implied by Fig. 4), wherein the spring means comprises a coil spring (10) which is suspended at one end in a main axis (7) and an other end of which is configured to bear against a recess (Fig. 5) in a support arm (2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add spring means, as taught by Dueker, to the structure of Tattko as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce noise generation (as suggested by par. 38 of Dueker).
Regarding claim 10, mere duplication & reversal of parts has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a further spring means, as taught by Dueker, to the structure of Tattko as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce noise generation (as suggested by par. 38 of Dueker). Hence, Tattko as modified would teach further spring means (10 of Dueker) is arranged and configured to support a motor-driven pivoting of the support arm (4.2 of Tattko) in the sense of a retracting movement at least in a certain range.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tattko (DE102019006076) & Wiepen (20200131813) in view of Asendorf (DE102011117003). Tattko as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a table top assembly (3, 4.1); but fail(s) to teach a switch. However, Asendorf teaches control means (22) comprising a switch (28) is arranged and configured to be actuated when a table top assembly (12) is in an unfolded position, wherein the switch is attached to a support arm (14) and the support arm further supports a movably arranged push rod (26) which is arranged and configured to engage the table top assembly (Fig. 4) at one end and thereupon to actuate the switch with its other end (as in Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add control means, as taught by Asendorf, to the structure of Tattko as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent damage to the table (as suggested by par. 27 of Asendorf).
Claims 1-7 & 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tattko (DE102019006076) in view of Wiepen (20200131813) & Nageshkar (20220363176).
Regarding claims 1-7, Tattko teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a folding table arrangement (1). Tattko fail(s) to teach first & second drive devices. However, Wiepen teaches a drive device (140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a drive device, as taught by Wiepen, to the support arm assembly of Tattko, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow automated folding & unfolding of the table above the first pivot axis, thereby reducing the amount of manual effort required to complete that task. Additionally, Nageshkar teaches a drive device (144, 196, 208 & motor - see par. 51) which includes a motor device (208 & motor) for driving and controlling the pivotal movement of a first component (26) about a pivot axis relative to a second component (22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a drive device, as taught by Nageshkar, to table top assembly of Tattko with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow automated folding & unfolding of the table above the first pivot axis, thereby reducing the amount of manual effort required to complete that task.
Regarding claim 12, Tattko as modified teaches a second motor device (208 & motor of Nageshkar) comprises a threaded spindle (208 of Nageshkar) driven in rotation by a motor (par. 51 of Nageshkar), the threaded spindle interacting with a spindle nut (196 of Nageshkar) coupled to the holding arm (4.1 of Tattko) of the table top assembly (3, 4.1 of Tattko) to convert a rotational movement of the threaded spindle into a linear movement of the spindle nut (as in Figs. 4a & 5 of Nageshkar).
Regarding claim 13, Tattko as modified teaches a second drive device (144, 196, 208 & motor of Nageshkar) comprises a supporting beam (144 of Nageshkar) which is hinged (as in Fig. 4a of Nageshkar) at one end to the support arm (4.2) and is relatively pivotally and slidably connected at its other end to the holding arm (4.1 of Tattko) of the table top assembly (3, 4.1 of Tattko) via a joint (172 of Nageshkar), wherein the supporting beam is further drivingly connected to the spindle nut (196 of Nageshkar) via the joint (172 of Nageshkar) so as to be displaced by the spindle nut along the holding arm (as in Figs. 4a & 5 of Nageshkar).
Regarding claim 14, the examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is well-known in the art to switch off a motor if the motor’s predetermined maximum current limit is reached upon reaching an end position. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the motor of the second motor device to switch off if predetermined maximum current limits for the motor are exceeded upon reaching end positions, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent damage to the motor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 & 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637