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.
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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. For claim 16, it is unclear how there can be a pathway between the passenger seat.
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 10 -14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chou et al (7,739,963). Chou teaches an assembly (Figs. 1-3), comprising: a housing (100) connected to a support structure (floor of vehicle); a tray (220) connected to the housing (via 210) and configured to laterally slide relative to the housing between a stowed tray position (Fig. 1) and a deployed tray position (Fig. 2); and a breakaway hinge (including 210,216,217,219, 230,222) coupling together the housing and the tray, wherein the breakaway hinge is operable to release the tray from the deployed tray position (Fig. 2) to a hanging breakaway tray position (Fig. 3) upon application of an abuse load to the tray such that at least a portion of the tray hangs downwardly relative to the housing. Wherein the tray is movable from the stowed tray position to the deployed tray position along a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis (along 120) and the tray is angled relative to the housing in the hanging breakaway tray position (Fig. 3). Wherein the breakaway hinge is a friction hinge (via 217) configured to hold the tray in the deployed tray position. Wherein the support structure is a vehicle cabin installation, furniture, console, or tabletop. Wherein the tray is located inside the support structure when in the stowed tray position such that an outer surface of the tray is flush with an outer surface of the support structure (Fig. 1).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walkinskaw et al (6,547,326). As best understood, Walkinshaw teaches an assembly (Figs. 1 and 2), comprising: at least one passenger seat (S, front seats inherently found in the vehicle); a support structure (arm rest of V and rear seat S) adjacent to the passenger seat; an egress pathway “between” the passenger seat “and support structure” (V; pathway above floor portion); and at least one breakaway tray assembly (15) connected to the support structure (via 25); the breakaway tray assembly comprising: a tray (with 19) movable from a stowed tray position (Fig. 1) to a deployed tray position (Fig. 2) in which the tray extends into the egress pathway; and a breakaway hinge (25) operable to release the tray from the deployed tray position to a hanging breakaway tray position upon application of an abuse load to the tray (column 4, starting line 66). Wherein, when in the hanging breakaway tray position, the tray hangs downwardly and extends laterally less into the egress pathway relative to the deployed tray position to facilitate a passenger’s egress.
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, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall (2,270,557) in view of Kent (2,619,395). Randall teaches an assembly (Figs. 1-2), comprising: a housing (B) having an opening (within 1,2), the housing configured to attach to a support structure (dash of a vehicle); a tray (C) connected to the housing and configured to slide laterally through the opening between a stowed tray position (within 1,2) and a deployed tray position (Fig. 1). For claim 1, Randall fails to teach a mirror connected to the tray and configured to rotate relative to the tray. Kent teaches a mirror (93) pivoted to a tray (12) and rotatable relative to the tray. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tray of Randall by adding a mirror, such as is taught by Kent, thereon, to provide a means to view oneself or objects facing the mirror from the tray.
For claim 8, although Randall in view of Kent fails to teach that the mirror has a reflective surface facing away from the tray when in the stowed mirror position, it would have been an obvious consideration of mount the mirror on the tray in the opposite manner so as to always have it accessible without pivoting. It also would have been obvious to employ a two sided mirror for dual viewing.
For claim 9, Randall in view Kent further teaches that the
mirror is located outside of the housing when in the deployed tray position.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al (7,739,963) in view of Kent (2,619,395). As stated above, Chou teaches the limitations of claim 10, including a tray extendable relate to a housing. For claim 15, Chou fails to teach a mirror connected to the tray and configured to rotate relative to the housing. Kent teaches a mirror (93) pivoted to a tray (12) and rotatable relative to a housing (11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tray of Chou by adding a mirror, such as is taught by Kent, thereon, to provide a means to view oneself or objects facing the mirror from the tray.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 are 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.
Claims 18-20 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References 20200140091; 20180281967; 8934063; 8826830; 20120049558; 6683837; 20070262854; 20010038220; 5372403; 2623435; 1221643; and 2626194 teach various table assemblies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANET M WILKENS whose telephone number is 571-272-6869. The examiner can normally be reached Mon thru Thurs 7am-5:30pm EST.
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.
Wilkens
May 15, 2026
/JANET M WILKENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights