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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-2, 8-9, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schweizer (US-7201439-B2).
Schweizer discloses a deployable tabletop for an aircraft passenger seat.
Claim 1 – Schweizer teaches a meal table assembly (figure 1), comprising:
a frame assembly defining an interior space (figure 5);
a meal table (elements 9 and 13 in figure 2) movably mounted to the frame assembly (figures 2 and 7), the meal table comprising a first portion (element 9 in figure 2) and a second portion angled relative to the first portion (element 13 in figure 2); and
a lift mechanism coupled to the frame assembly and the meal table (figures 3, 6, and 8), the lift mechanism configured to move the meal table between a stowed position in which the first portion of the meal table is positioned in the interior space (figures 2 and 3), and a deployed position in which the meal table is positioned outside of the interior space (figures 7 and 8);
wherein, when the meal table is in the stowed position, the second portion remains exposed and forms part of a console in which the meal table assembly is mounted (figure 2), the second portion closing an opening to the interior space and forming at least a portion of a top surface of the console (figure 2).
Claims 2, 9, and 17 – Schweizer teaches the meal table and the frame assembly are coupled via a cam assembly configured to coordinate vertical motion (figures 3 and 6) and rotation of the meal table relative to the frame assembly (figure 7).
Claim 8 – Schweizer teaches a console assembly, comprising:
a console (figure 1) having a top (elements 13 and 16 in figure 1), an inboard side (the inner side of the frame sides, elements 3 and 5 in figure 1), and an interior space (“the console has an interior compartment”, abstract);
a frame assembly positioned in the interior space (figure 5);
a meal table (elements 9 and 13 in figure 2) movably mounted to the frame assembly, the meal table comprising a first portion (element 9 in figure 2) and a second portion angled relative to the first portion (element 13 in figure 2); and
a lift mechanism coupled to the frame assembly and the meal table (figures 3, 6, and 8), the lift mechanism configured to move the meal table between a stowed position in which the first portion of the meal table is positioned in the interior space (figures 2 and 3), and a deployed position in which the meal table is positioned outside of the interior space (figures 7 and 8);
wherein, when the meal table is in the stowed position, the second portion closes an opening to the interior space and forms part of the console such that the second portion forms at least a portion of the top of the console (figure 1).
Claim 16 – Schweizer teaches a seating configuration, comprising:
a passenger seat (“a passenger seat”, abstract);
a console positioned to one side of the passenger seat (“at least on console component delimiting the seat component on the side”, abstract), the console including a top (elements 13 and 15 in figure 1), an inboard side (the inner side of the frame sides, elements 3 and 5 in figure 1), and an interior space (“the console has an interior compartment”, abstract); and
a meal table assembly (figure 1) associated with the console, the meal table assembly comprising:
a frame assembly positioned in the interior space (figure 5);
a meal table (elements 9 and 13 in figure 2) movably mounted to the frame assembly, the meal table comprising a first portion (element 9 in figure 2) and a second portion angled relative to the first portion (element 13 in figure 2); and
a lift mechanism coupled to the frame assembly and the meal table (figures 3, 6, and 8), the lift mechanism configured to move the meal table between a stowed position in which the first portion of the meal table is positioned in the interior space (figures 2 and 3), and a deployed position in which the meal table is positioned outside of the interior space and over the passenger seat (figures 7 and 8);
wherein, when the meal table is in the stowed position, the second portion remains exposed and forms part of the console (figure 1), closes an opening to the interior space (figure 1), and forms at least a portion of the top of the console (figure 1).
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 3-5, 10-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweizer (US-7201439-B2) in view of Hoggarth (US-20190232844-A1).
Hoggarth discloses a stowable table assembly for a vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1
Claims 3, 10, and 18 – Schweizer teaches the frame assembly comprises:
upright frame members forming lateral sides of the frame assembly (elements 3 and 5 in figure 1).
While Schweizer teaches a transverse frame member (element 7 in figure 1) connected between the corners of each upright frame member (elements 3 and 5 in figure 1), Schweizer does not teach at least one transverse frame member connected to each of the upright frame members.
Hoggarth teaches at least one transverse frame member (element A in Image 1 above) connected to each of the upright frame members (element 36 in figures 2a-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Schweizer with the transverse frame member of Hoggarth to provide the disclosure of Schweizer with greater structural rigidity.
Claims 4, 11, and 19 – Schweizer teaches the cam assembly comprises:
a pair of guide tracks formed on an inboard side of each of the upright frame members (elements 25 and 27 in figures 6 and 8); and
cam followers attached to the bottom end of the meal table (elements 19 and 21 in figures 3, 6, and 8), each cam follower engaged to travel along the pair of guide tracks formed on the inboard side of one of the upright frame members (figures 3 and 6);
wherein the pair of guide tracks are configured to impart meal table rotation as the meal table approaches the deployed position (figures 5 and 7).
Claims 5 and 12 – Schweizer teaches the pair of guide tracks comprises:
a first guide track that is linear and elongated (element 27 in figure 6); and Schweizer teaches a second guide track (element 25 in figure 6) that curves toward an upper end of the first guide track such that the cam follower raises and reaches the upper end of the first guide track, which causes the cam follower to rotate the attached meal table toward horizontal (figures 7 and 8).
Schweizer does not teach the second guide track has a first portion that is linear, elongated, and parallel to the first guide track.
Hoggarth teaches the pair of guide tracks comprises:
a first guide track that is linear and elongated (element 38a in figures 2a-3); and
a second guide track having a first portion that is linear, elongated, and parallel to the first guide track (element 38b in figures 2a-3), and a second portion that curves toward an upper end of the first guide track such that as the cam follower raises and reaches the upper end of the first guide track, the second portion of the second guide track causes the cam follower to rotate the attached meal table toward horizontal (figures 2a-3).
While Schweizer teaches a straight first guide track and a curved second guide track to provide vertical, then horizontal, movement of the tray table, Hoggarth’s first and second guide tracks provide more stability than the guide tracks of Schweizer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Schweizer with the guide tracks of Hoggarth.
Claims 6, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schweizer (US-7201439-B2) in view of Lee (US-20170369173-A1).
Lee discloses a table deployed from the armrest of a vehicle.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 – Schweizer teaches a lift mechanism (figures 3, 6, and 8) but does not teach the lift mechanism structure as claimed.
Lee teaches the lift mechanism comprises:
a thread screw coupled to the frame assembly (element 52 in figures 5, 6, 8, and 11);
a motor configured to rotate the thread screw (element 51 in figures 5, 6, and 8);
a driven nut threadably mounted on the thread screw (element 53 in figure 12, described in paragraph [0058] as being “mounted around and screwed with the threaded rod 52”); and
a carriage (figure 12) attached to the driven nut and to a bottom end of the meal table (attached to a bottom end of element 40 in figure 6);
wherein, in use, rotating the thread screw in a first direction causes the driven nut and the carriage to raise relative to the frame assembly thereby moving the meal table toward the deployed position, and rotating the thread screw in a second direction opposite the first direction causes the driven nut and the carriage to lower relative to the frame assembly thereby moving the meal table toward the stowed position (figures 2 and 3).
A motorized lead screw with a nut traveling along the threads to linearly actuate is old and well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to automate the lift mechanism of Schweizer with the linear actuator of Lee.
Claim 15 – Schweizer does not teach a switch positioned in one of the top and the inboard side of the console operable for activating the motor.
Lee teaches a switch positioned in one of the top and the inboard side of the console operable for activating the motor (element 70 in figure 1 is a control panel on the top of the console with a switch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when modifying the disclosure of Schweizer with a linear actuator to facilitate the movement of the table, to provide a switch to control the actuation in a similar manner that Lee discloses, on top of the console to be accessible to the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TROY A LIBBY whose telephone number is (571)272-6676. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 7:30 AM - 2:30 PM 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, DAVID DUNN can be reached at (571) 272-6670. 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.
/T.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3636
/DAVID R DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights