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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0048], “overlapped, in the fore-aft—should be –overlapped, in the cross-car--.
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.
Claims 14 and 15 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.
Claim 14 is not clearly understood and is believed to be incorrect because it requires the movable portion of the console to overlap the second row of seats in the fore-aft direction. Figures 6 shows an overlap in the cross-car direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitano et al. (7,015,799).
Kitano et al. discloses a vehicle (100) comprising a passenger compartment including two seats (107a,107b) in a front row, as shown in Figure 1. The two seats (107a,107b) in the front row are spaced apart in a cross-car direction extending between a left side and a right side of the vehicle, as shown in Figure 1. Multiple seats in one or more rows are spaced from the front row in a fore-aft direction extending between a front and a rear of the vehicle, as shown in Figure 1 and disclosed on lines 23-26 of column 10. A second row of seats is formed by seats (108a,108b), as shown in Figure 1. A third row of seats (not shown) are disclosed on lines 23-26 of column 10. A console (1400) is located in the passenger compartment, as shown in Figure 15. The console (1400) can move along rail (110) from a first position received between the two seats (107a,107b) in the front row and a second position in which the console (1400) is spaced in the fore-aft direction from the two seats (107a,107b) in the front row, as shown in Figures 1, 4, 5, and 15. An arm is carried by the console (1400) for movement with the console (1400), as shown in Figure 15. At least a part of the arm moves relative to the console (1400) to permit an end of the arm to be positioned in different locations relative to the console (1400), as shown in Figures 14-16.
PNG
media_image1.png
277
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 3, the arm includes an end effector (1401) that includes a video device, as shown in Figure 15.
In reference to claim 13, the vehicle includes a track (110) located in the passenger compartment and extending in the fore-aft direction, as shown in Figures 1 and 15. The console (1400) is connected to the track (110) and moves in the fore-aft direction along the track, as shown in Figures 1, 4, 5 and 15.
In reference to claim 14, the one or more rows includes a second row of seats (108a,108b) that are spaced apart in the cross-car direction, as shown in Figure 1. The console (1400) moves to a location in which the console (1400) overlaps the seats (108a,108b) in the second row in the cross-car direction, as shown in Figure 4.
In reference to claim 15, one or more third rows includes a third row of seats that has one or more seats spaced in the fore-aft direction from the seats (108a,108b) of the second row. When in the console (1400) is in the second position, the arm is located to be moved within a space between the second row and the third row. The second position is a position of the console between the second and third rows of seats.
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.
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.
Claims 2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano et al. (7,015,799) in view of FR 3085898.
Kitano et al. does not disclose the specifics about the arm.
FR 308598 teaches providing an actuator (49) carried by the console (41) and coupled to the arm (43) to move the arm relative to the console (41), as shown in Figures 1-5.
In reference to claim 6, the arm (43) is defined by multiple segments (44,45,46) with a separate joint connecting each segment of the multiple segments to an adjacent segment of the multiple segments (44,45,46), as shown in Figures 1-6. The joints permit movement of the segments (44,45,46) relative to each other an relative to the console, as shown in Figures 1-6.
In reference to claim 7, the arm (43) includes an end effector (47) that is provided on a free end of an end segment (46) of the multiple segments (44-46), as shown in Figure 4. The end segment (46) is connected to a different segment (45) at a location spaced from the free end, as shown in Figure 4. The end effector (47) is movable relative to the console about three axis since it is connected using a ball joint (47a), as shown in Figure 4.
In reference to claim 8, the arm (43) is connected to the console (41) at a first end of a first segment (44), as shown in Figures 1-6. The arm (43) has a free end at an end of a different segment (46) and an end effector (47) is provided at the free end to permit the end effector (47) to be moved relative to the console, as shown in Figures 1-6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the arm of Kitano et al. with the segmented arm and actuator, as taught by FR 3085898, with a reasonable expectation for success to provide automatic deployment of the arm and improve articulation of the arm to place the video screen in the optimal viewing position.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitano et al. (7,015,799) in view of Ackeret et al. (9,527,456).
In reference to claim 12, Kitano et al. discloses the arm is extendable to move the end effector away from the console and toward a seat that that is not within the front row and which is at least partially offset in the cross-car direction from the console (1400), as shown in Figures 1, 4, and 14. However, Kitano et al. does not disclose the first video device captures and send images to a second video device.
Ackeret et al. teaches forming the first video device as a tablet computer, as disclosed on lines 17-36 of column 1. Tablet computers can take pictures/videos and send them to a second video device, like a smart phone or a tablet computer, used by a passenger in the front row. Ackeret et al. discloses smart phones and/or tablet computers used by front seat passengers and rear seat passengers, as disclosed on lines 17-36 of column 1.
In reference to claim 12, the tablet computer inherently has a camera, as is standard practice in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the video device of Kitano et al. as a tablet computer with a camera that can capture and send images to a second video device used by a passenger in the front row, as a Ackeret et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide the ability to run computer programs/apps so the video device can do more than just show videos.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-11, and 16-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 5 is the control system in communication with the console and arm, which is not found in the prior art of record. The closest prior art has a control system in the console for controlling a video screen, but the arm.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 9 is the arm has a first position in which the arm does not extend outwardly of the periphery of the surface to which it is connected to the console, which is not found in the prior art of record. FR 3085898 is connected to surface (41A) and extends outwardly of the periphery of the surface at all times.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 11 is the control system in communication with the console and actuator, which is not found in the prior art of record. The closest prior art has a control system in the console for controlling a video screen, but the arm.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claims 16 and 17 is the end effector has a gripper that can grab an item off of the console or engaging a vacuum hose, which is not found in the prior art of record. Prior art grippers can hold a phone or table. Vacuum hoses can be provided to consoles.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 18 is the arm is operable to engage and move the at least one seat from the first to second position, which is not found in the prior art. Arms in combination with consoles do not provide this feature. Robotic arms are capable of moving a seat, such as during vehicle assembly. However, there is no reason to combine the two.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter of claim 19 is the arm is moveable into the area between the seat bottom and the floor, which is not found in the prior art of record. FR 3085898 is not dimensioned to meet the limitation and since it is directed to carrying a video screen there isn’t a reason to provide that dimension.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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, 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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights