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 .
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 1-13 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.
The term “actuable” in claim 1 is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Appropriate Correction is required.
Claims 2-13 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 0132624 (“Kim”).
Regarding Claims 1-3 and 5, Kim discloses CLAIM 1- an expanding pull-out table capable of being used an aircraft galley, comprising: a primary table (93); and a secondary table (200) actuable relative to the primary table (93); wherein the expanding pull-out table is reconfigurable, by translation of the primary table (93), between a first configuration in which the secondary table (200) is stowed, and a second configuration in which the secondary table (200) is deployed from the primary table (93); CLAIM 2- wherein the expanding pull-out table is translatable along a first axis and comprises a deployment mechanism (100, 200) configured to translate the secondary table (200) in the direction of a second axis proportional to translation of the primary table (93) along the first axis. CLAIM 3- wherein the deployment mechanism (100, 200) is configured to translate the secondary table (200) in the direction of the second axis responsive to the primary table (93) translating a predetermined distance along the first axis; CLAIM 5- wherein the deployment mechanism (100, 200) is configured to retract the secondary table (200) to reconfigure the expanding pull-out table from the second configuration to the first configuration
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FR 2982807( “APPASAMY et al.”)
Regarding Claims 1-5, APPASAMY et al. discloses CLAIM 1- an expanding pull-out table capable of being used in an aircraft galley, comprising: a primary table (5); and a secondary table (7) actuable relative to the primary table (5); wherein the expanding pull-out table is reconfigurable, by translation of the primary table (5), between a first configuration in which the secondary table (7) is stowed, and a second configuration in which the secondary table (7) is deployed from the primary table (5); CLAIM 2-wherein the expanding pull-out table is translatable along a first axis and comprises a deployment mechanism (29, 31) configured to translate the secondary table (7) in the direction of a second axis proportional to translation of the primary table (5) along the first axis; CLAIM 3wherein the deployment mechanism (29, 31) is configured to translate the secondary table (7) in the direction of the second axis responsive to the primary table (5) translating a predetermined distance along the first axis; Claim 5-wherein the deployment mechanism (29, 31) is configured to retract the secondary table (7) to reconfigure the expanding pull-out table from the second configuration to the first configuration proportional to translation of the primary table (5) along the first axis.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APPASAMY et al. as applied to claim 2 above, in view of US 1887114 (“BENSON”
Regarding Claim 4, APPASAMY et al. discloses a deployment mechanism but does not a rack and pinion deployment mechanism.
Regarding Claim 4, LIU et al. demonstrates it is known in the art to move an extendable table with a deployment mechanism comprises a rack and pinion assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized a rack and gear arrangement to deploy the secondary table, for the benefit of a smooth frictionless gliding and improved stability, as is well known in the art. As modified, the deployment mechanism comprises a rack and pinion assembly arranged to deploy the secondary table by an amount proportional to translation of the primary table.
Claim(s) 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APPASAMY et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of CN 113545610 (“WANG et al.”).
Regarding Claims 6-9, APPASAMY et al. discloses the claimed invention but does not expressly disclose a damper wheel.
Regarding Claims 6-9, LIU et al. discloses sliding support or rack with CLAIM 6-a plurity of damper wheels (330) configured to dampen the movement of the sliding support; CLAIM 7-wherein the damper wheel (330) is housed within the support portions of the damper wheel protrude through openings in upper and lower surfaces of the support; CLAIM 8-wherein the damper wheel (330) is at least partially formed of a rubber material; CLAIM 9-wherein the damper wheel (330) comprises a through hole spaced from the rotational axis for dampening.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the primary table could be improved with damper wheels that provide a damping effect, and also to provide smooth, stable and noiseless operation of the primary table.
Claim 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APPASAMY et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of WO 2012040564 (“Hacker et al.”)
Regarding Claims 10-13, APPASAMY et al. discloses the claimed invention but does not expressly disclose the pull-out table mounted in a recess of an aircraft galley.
Regarding Claims 10-13, Hacker discloses CLAIM 10- an aircraft galley comprising the expanding pull-out table (48, best seen in Fig. 10); CLAIM 11- a workstation having a recess (50) , wherein the expanding pull-out table (48) is installed in the recess (50) such that in a first configuration the expanding pull-out table is housed within the recess and in a second configuration the expanding pull-out table protrudes from the recess; CLAIM 12-wherein the recess is a first recess (50) and the expanding pull-out table is a first expanding pull- out table; the workstation comprises a second recess (50); the aircraft galley comprises a second expanding pull-out table in the second recess (48),CLAIM 13-an aircraft comprising the expanding pull-out table.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the expanding pull-out table taught by APPASAMY et al. could be installed with an aircraft having a single recess or duplicate recess , similar to the aircraft galley taught by Hacker to provide the air craft with an improved pull-out able having additional space. As modified, the recess is a first recess and the expanding pull-out table is a first expanding pull- out table; the workstation comprises a second recess ; the aircraft galley comprises a second expanding pull-out table in the second recess , and the first and second expanding pull-out tables are arranged such that the respective secondary tables extend in opposite directions.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2982807( “APPASAMY et al.”), alone.
Regarding Claims 14-15, APPASAMY et al. discloses CLAIM 14-an expanding pull-out table capable of being used in an aircraft galley, comprising: expanding the pull-out table by translating a primary table (5) from a first position, in which a secondary table (7) is stowed, to a second position in which the secondary table (7) is deployed from the primary table (5); CLAIM 15- collapsing the pull-out table by translating the primary table (5) from the second position, in which the secondary table (7) is deployed from the primary table (5), to the first position in which the secondary table (7) is stowed.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that of the invention to have utilized the expanding pull out table according to method steps set forth above, since APPASAMY et al. discloses he invention of claims 14-15 such method steps would occur during the ordinary course using the expanding pull-out able , see MPEP 2112.02
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLEY S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:30-5:30.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at 5712703742. 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.
/KIMBERLEY S WRIGHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights