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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Titley (2,503,602).
Regarding claim 1, Titley discloses a seatback tray system, comprising: a tray 3 configured to be disposed on a seatback 4 of a first seat, and which is movable along a rail system 22 to a first position in which the tray is arranged as a tray table for an occupant of a second seat located behind the first seat (figure 1, col 1, lines 57-60, col. 2, lines 1-4), and a second position in which the tray is arranged as a footwell cover between the first seat and the second seat (figure 3, col. 2, lines 10-14).
Regarding claim 10, Titley discloses a vehicle, comprising: a first seat 1; a second seat 2 positioned behind the first seat; and a seatback tray system including: a rail system 21 mounted on a back 4 of the first seat; and a tray 3 configured to be disposed on a seatback of the first seat, and which is movable along the rail system to a first position (fig 1) in which the tray is arranged as a tray table for an occupant of the second seat, and a second position (fig 3) in which the tray is arranged as a footwell cover between the first seat and the second seat.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titley in view of Goldman (7,287,817).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Goldman discloses the tray 154 is further configured to fold into a stowed position in which the tray is substantially flush with the seatback of the first seat.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Goldman and use foldable flush mounted table in the seatback of Titley because it is compact and efficient.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titley in view of Duner (2,886,831).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Duner disclose a support leg 51 configured to be secured to a front of the second seat 15 when the tray 10 is in the second position arranged as a footwell cover.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Duner and use a support leg with table in the invention of Titley in order to prevent any damages and injuries with low cost.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titley in view of D’Onofrio et al. (5,931,527).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, D’Onofrio et al. disclose a plurality of rollers 36 configured to facilitate movement of the tray along the rail system 38.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of D’Onofrio et al. and use a roller and rail system in the invention of Titley because it provides accurate adjustment with less effort.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titley in view of Ramarathnam et al. (12,030,415).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Ramarathnam et al. disclose at least one spring-loaded 153 locking pin 149 configured to interact with a plurality of holes 147a along the rail system 141 in order to lock the tray at incrementally spaced positions along the rail system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Ramarathnam et al. and use a spring loaded pi and rail system in the invention of Titley because it provides accurate adjustment with less effort.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titley in view of Line et al. (12,139,047).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Line et al. disclose a support bracket 144 slidably connected to the rail system 46 and pivotally connected to the tray 36; a support arm 112extending from the support bracket to an underside of the tray.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Line et al. and use the support bracket and arm with the table in the invention of Titley in order to prevent any damages with low cost.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titley in view of Line et al. as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Kent (2,619,395).
Regarding claim 9, Kent discloses the support arm 71 has a release lever 85 configured to releasably lock the support arm to an engagement bracket 45 positioned on an underside of the tray.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kent and use the releasable lock with the table in the invention of Titley in order to prevent any damages with low cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 and 12 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Titley fails to disclose the tray has a concavely curved edge configured to mate with a convexly curved front portion of the second seat when the tray is in the second position arranged as a footwell cover.
Regarding claim 5, Titley fails to disclose the support leg is slidable fore and aft with respect to the tray.
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 17, Titley fails to disclose a first tray positionable as a tray table and a footwell cover between the first front seat and the second front seat; a second seatback tray system disposed on a seatback of the second front seat, the second seatback tray system including a second tray positionable as a tray table and a footwell cover between the second front seat and the second rear seat; and a bridging system configured to bridge across a gap between the first tray and the second tray.
No other prior art references in the record whether taken alone or in combination can solve these dissimilarities.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED A ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7768. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-10pm.
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 5712726670. 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.
/SYED A ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights