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 .
This communication is in response to application No. 18/821,609, filed on 8/30/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 11-16 and 18-20 have been rejected as follows. Claim 17 is objected to. Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because
reference character “340” has been used to designate both the bumper protrusion in Figures 3 & 14 (P1) and the cover stopper in Figures 4-5 & 7-8.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The disclosure is objected to for the same reasons as the drawing objection above.
Appropriate correction 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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hudson (US Patent No. 2,789,861).
Regarding claim 11, Hudson discloses a cockpit module for a vehicle, the cockpit module comprising a crash pad (10, Fig. 1-3) including an assembling hole (see annotated Figure 1 below); a tray (11, Fig. 2-3) including an internal space, the tray assembled in the assembling hole, the internal space in communication with assembling hole; and a cover (12, Fig. 1-3) rotatably connected (hinge 13, Fig. 2-3) to the tray (11, Fig. 2-3), the cover including an extension structure (20, Fig. 2-3; see annotated Figure 1 below), wherein, in a closed position (Fig. 1), the cover (12, Fig. 1) covers an upper portion of the internal space of the tray, and wherein, in a deployed position (Fig. 2-3), the cover rotates to open (12, Fig. 2) the internal space of the tray (11, Fig. 2-3), and the extension structure (20, Fig. 3) extends toward the occupant compartment of the vehicle and is configured for use as a table (column 1, lines 15-17 & column 2, lines 71-71). See annotated Figure 1 below.
Figure 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
524
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hudson further discloses a rotary shaft (11, Fig. 3), wherein the cover (12, Fig. 3) includes a first body (see annotated Figure 2 below) and a second body (see annotated Figure 2 below), wherein the rotary shaft (13, see annotated Figure 2 below) extends through the first body, and wherein the second body extends from the first body.
Figure 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
507
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
274
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Hudson discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 12 above, and further discloses wherein the first body includes a semicircular structure (see annotated Figure 2-3 above; note that hinge 13 and 21’ have analogous structure), and wherein the second body includes a planar structure (see annotated Figure 2-3 above) connected to the first body.
Regarding claim 14, Hudson discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 12 above, and further discloses wherein the cover (12, Fig. 2-3) further comprises a third body (20, Fig. 2-3) configured to extend from the second body (12/15, Fig. 3), wherein the third body is stored (Fig. 2) as a layered structure together with the second body (12/15, Fig. 2), and wherein the third body is configured to be deployed in a direction different (lateral of 12) from an extension direction of the second body (forward of tray 11). See annotated Figure 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Hudson discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 14 above, and further discloses wherein the third body (20, Fig. 2-3) is configured to be deployed externally of the second body (12/15, Fig. 2-3) by at least one of a sliding motion, a rotating motion (about hinge 21, Fig. 3-4), or a combination thereof. See annotated Figure 1 above.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson (US Patent No. 2,789,861) in view of Yamaguchi et al (JP-09086289-A).
Regarding claim 16, Hudson discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 14 above. However, Hudson does not expressly disclose wherein the second body includes a seating groove that is configured to accommodate the third body, the seating groove recessed in an inner surface of the second body.
Yamaguchi et al teaches a pivotable (20, Fig. 2-3) cover (10, Fig. 2) for a dash storage tray (8b, Fig. 2) wherein the second body (10, Fig. 3) includes a seating groove (24, 25, Fig. 3) that is configured to accommodate the third body (26, Fig. 3), the seating groove recessed (25, Fig. 3) in an inner surface of the second body (10, Fig. 3) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of storage compartments for a vehicle cockpit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pivoting body of Hudson by substituting the type of slidable body as taught by Yamaguchi et al. Doing so would provide the benefit of a laterally adjustable cup holder.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson (US Patent No. 2,789,861) in view of Anderson et al (US Patent No. 5,516,016).
Regarding claim 18, Hudson discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 11 above. However, Hudson does not expressly disclose a cover spring provided on the rotary shaft, wherein the cover spring applies a force to return the cover from the deployed position to the closed position.
Anderson et al teaches a vehicle storage compartment cover (14, Fig. 2-4) having a cover spring (78, Fig. 2-4) provided on the rotary shaft (84, Fig. 4), wherein the cover spring applies a force to return the cover from the deployed position to the closed position (column 3, lines 32-38) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of storage compartments for a vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover of Hudson by providing it with the type of cover spring as taught by Anderson et al. Doing so would provide a spring bias to aid in biasing the container holder toward the closed position (column 3, lines 35-38).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson (US Patent No. 2,789,861) in view of Janz et al (US Patent No. 4,223,940).
Regarding claim 19, Hudson discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 11 above and wherein the cover (12, Fig. 2-3) includes a knob (23, Fig. 2-3; column 2, lines 48-52) configured to be locked (at 24, Fig. 2-3) to the tray (11, Fig. 2-3) at the closed position (Fig. 1). However, Hudson does not expressly disclose wherein the knob is connected to a knob spring and configured to be maintained in a locked state by a force applied by the knob spring.
Janz et al teaches a storage cover (1, Fig. 1) wherein the knob (30, Fig. 1 & 7) is connected to a knob spring (20, 22, Fig. 7) and configured to be maintained in a locked state by a force applied by the knob spring in the analogous field of the claimed invention of storage compartments for a vehicle cockpit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lock of Hudson by substituting the type of lock as taught by Janz et al. Doing so would provide a lock with a reliable knob that automatically snaps and stays shut upon closing. This automatic engagement prevents the compartment cover from vibrating open while driving and keeps items secure during sudden stops.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hudson (US Patent No. 2,789,861) in view of Kolodziejczak (US 2025/0222849).
Regarding claim 20, Hudson discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 11 above. However, Hudson does not expressly disclose a cup holder foldably provided on the cover and configured to unfold in the deployed position.
Kolodziejczak teaches a rotatable (6, Fig. 4) foldable table (5, Fig. 4) for a vehicle having a cup holder (8, Fig. 4) foldably provided on a cover table (5, Fig. 4) and configured to unfold in the deployed position in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle foldable table systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foldable table of Hudson by including the type of cup holder as taught by Kolodziejczak. Doing so would provide a sturdy support for holding a drink without taking up space on the tray.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Claim 17 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 1 is the combination of a tray with an internal space opened upward and a cover that rotates toward the inside of the occupant compartment used as a table. These features are defined by the inclusion of “a tray including an internal space opened upward, the tray being assembled to the assembling hole” in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim. The closest prior art of Hudson (US Patent No. 2,789,861), as detailed above, does not disclose the tray including an internal space opened upward. The closest prior art of Stevens (US Patent No. 3,132,892) discloses a crash pad (20) including an assembling hole; a tray (44) including an internal space opened upward (Fig. 3), and a cover (52) rotatably connected to the tray, wherein the cover opens the internal space by being moved upward along the rotary shaft. However, Stevens does not expressly disclose that the cover covers the internal space as a rotary shaft is rotatably connected to a protruding portion directed toward an inside of an occupant compartment of the tray, and in a deployed position the cover includes a structure extending toward the inside of the occupant compartment, wherein the structure is configured to be used as a table. Further, to modify Stevens with a cover that opens toward the inside of the occupant compartment and is used as a table would destroy the base reference of Stevens where the cover rotates upward toward the ceiling of the occupant compartment for use to mount a mirror. The closest prior art of Plavetich et al (US Patent No. 4,902,061) discloses a tray including an internal space opened upward (14, Fig. 2) and a cover (18, Fig. 2; column 1, lines 66-68 to column 2, lines 4) that rotates to open the internal space. However, Plavetich et al does not disclose that the cover includes a structure extending toward the inside of the occupant compartment and is configured to be used as a table at the deployed position. The extension structure (28, Fig. 1) of Plavetich et al is configured to be used as a table; however, the table of Plavetich et al is deployed and stored within an opening of the instrument panel and not extending from the cover (18, Fig. 1-3) itself. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 2-10 contain allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency as they depend from claim 1.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 17 is the inclusion of the limitations of a cover stopper “configured to prevent the cover from rotating beyond the deployed position, wherein the cover stopper is further configured to engage a catching column disposed inside the crash pad when the cover is positioned at the deployed position while rotating together with the rotary shaft.” The closest prior art of Hudson (US Patent No. 2,789,861) has a cover stopper, interpreted as the side walls abutting each other, to prevent the cover from rotating beyond the deployed position; however, Hudson does not expressly disclose the feature of a catching column to limit rotation as defined in claim 17. Applicant’s structure causes the rotations of the cover stoppers 340 and the rotary shaft 301 to be restricted, and the cover 300 to be restrained so as not to be rotated by 180° or more. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schultz (US Patent No. 5,143,265) at 26, 132, 124 in Fig. 1 & 6 and Reeber (US Patent No. 5,197,775) at 52 in Fig. 3 disclose a partition wall configured to divide the internal space of an article holder for a vehicle dashboard into a first region and a second region. Barbot (US 2017/0361775) discloses a pivoting dashboard cover (30) with activity table surface (31) and a storage tray (28, 54) that pivots downward to open (para [0048], lines 10-14). St. Denis (US Patent No. 2,554,685) discloses a cockpit storage compartment (20) having a second body (18) that includes a seating groove (17, Fig. 2-3) that is configured to accommodate a third body (15). Rigner et al (US Patent No. 8,714,093), Howard (US Patent No. 2,382,011) and Collins (GB 2325411 A) disclose cockpit storage compartments that have extension structure features configured to be used as a table. Igari et al (JP H07112643 A) discloses a cup holder (11) foldably provided on a cover (8) and configured to unfold in the deployed position. Fluharty (US Patent No. 4,733,900), Shimizu et al (US Patent No. 4,355,837), Lee (US 2004/0041426) and Huebner et al (US 2017/0267184) disclose upwardly opened vehicle storage compartments. Drach, Jr. (US Patent No. 3,386,765) and Hasselberger (US Patent No. 4,099,814) disclose vehicle storage compartments with covers that are configured to be used as a table. Ahn (US Patent No. 7,959,202) discloses a cover stopper with a selectively engaging rotating member (120, 122, 124). Allison (US Patent No. 6,244,647) at 33 and Oda (US Patent No. 4,239,277) at 30 disclose cover spring members for vehicle storage compartments. Biondo (US Patent No. 2,883,234) discloses a vehicle storage compartment cover (28, Fig. 2) having a cover spring (58, Fig. 2) provided on the rotary shaft (pivot links 48, Fig. 2) to provide a spring bias for holding the storage cover in the closed position and to aid in the lifting of the cover from the opened position to the closed position (column 2, lines 15-18).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights