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 § 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 1-10 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 1 recites “in particular to allow a passenger sitting in said seat to take a meal”; it is unclear if the phrase that follows “in particular” is to be understood as providing an example or preferred use, or a required function. As such, the claim is indefinite as it is not clear if this phrase is limiting or not. Applicant should clarify or amend the claim to resolve this ambiguity.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plane of the tray" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the sliding flap" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending on the clarity of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the sliding distance between the closed position and the stable open position of said flap”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the sliding flap" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation “its storage housing” in line 3. It is unclear if this is the same storage housing of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “its plane” in line 4. It is unclear if this is the same plane of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the sliding flap" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 recites the limitation “a passenger” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same passenger of claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a seat” in line 1. It is unclear if this is the same seat of claim 1. Claim 9 recites the limitation “characterized in that it comprises a table assembly”. It is unclear which of the “seat unit”, “seat”, and “a console” comprises the table assembly. It is also unclear if the “table assembly” is the same as the table assembly of claim 1. Claim 10 is rejected for depending on the clarity of claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “blends into its shape” in line 2. It is unclear how the table assembly ”blends” into its shape, and what “its shape” is.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon (US-5547247-A) in view of Park (KR-20220102688-A).
Dixon discloses a deployable passenger tray table. Park discloses a vehicle armrest with a deployable folding table.
Claim 1 – Dixon teaches a table assembly, for an aircraft seat (figure 1), comprising a tray (element 10 in figures 1-10) that can be deployed horizontally facing the seat (figure 3), in particular to allow a passenger sitting in said seat to take a meal, and an actuation mechanism (elements 25 and 40 in figure 9), said table assembly being characterized in that it comprises a flap (element 16 in figures 1-7) sliding perpendicularly to the plane of the tray and having a closed position (figures 3-7), wherein the tray is entirely concealed behind said flap in a storage housing, and an open position configured to release the actuation mechanism and automatically eject the tray out of said storage housing (“aisle armrest 16 is hinged and swings open, as shown in FIG. 1, to reveal a seat tray table stowage compartment 17 which holds the tray table 10” in column 3, lines 40-43).
Dixon does not teach the flap being slidable, but rather hinged.
Park teaches the flap being slidable (“the upper cover 300 is disposed on the upper portion of the armrest body 100, and slides along the upper surface of the armrest body 100” in paragraph 8 of the description of embodiments).
Park teaches the flap, element 300, slides along the top surface of the storage housing, element 100, rather than being a hinged door. In an airplane setting, a slidable flap is preferrable to the hinged flap Dixon teaches because the tray table of Dixon is along the aisle of the plane. The hinged flap opens into the aisle in the disclosure of Dixon. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Dixon with the slidable flap of Park.
Claim 2 – Dixon does not teach the flap as being slidable, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that, when modified with the slidable flap of Park, the flap can be partially slid to a stable open position to reveal the tray without it being able to be ejected, similar to Dixon’s teaching in figure 1. Furthermore, it would have been obvious that an additional sliding of the modified flap of Dixon beyond the stable open position, to the fully open position would allow ejection of the tray, as taught in figure 2.
Claim 3 – Dixon does not teach the flap as being slidable, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the modified flap of Dixon can be opened to any “stable position” in which the tray is revealed, including a position greater than halfway open, which would cause the additional sliding of the flap for ejection of the tray to have a sliding distance less than a sliding distance between the closed position and the stable open position of said flap.
Claim 4 – Dixon teaches the ejection of the tray under the effect of the opening of the flap is partial, said tray remaining partially in its storage housing (figure 2).
The flap of Dixon is not slidable, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when modified with the slidable flap of Park, the flap can be partially slid to reveal the tray without it being able to be ejected.
Claim 5 – Dixon teaches the tray is expandable (figure 4) and includes a base (element 21B in figure 4) and an extension (element 21A in figure 4) hinged on said base (elements 23 and 24 in figure 4).
Claim 6 – Dixon teaches the tray is attached to a curved support (element 20 in figure 9), the movement of which between a fully stored position (figure 1) and a fully deployed position (figure 3) of the tray induces a 90-degree rotation of said tray in its plane (figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
643
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1
Claim 7 – Dixon does not teach the flap includes a recess allowing a passenger to manually actuate the sliding of the flap.
Park teaches the flap includes a recess allowing a passenger to manually actuate the sliding of the flap (element A in Image 1 above).
When modifying the disclosure of Dixon with the slidable flap of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the user with a recessed portion to aid in gripping the flap to slide it.
Claim 8 – Dixon teaches the actuation mechanism comprises a locking system (elements 25 and 40 in figure 9) and an ejection spring (element 42 in figure 9), said locking system including a hinged lever (element 25, hinged on element 41, in figure 9) and lock (element 40 in figure 9) that are configured to release the tray when the flap is in the open position and thus allow the ejection spring to eject the tray (.
Claim 9 – Dixon teaches an aircraft passenger unit, comprising a seat (element 11 in figure 1) and a console adjacent to the seat (figures 1-7), characterized in that it comprises a table assembly according to claim 1 (element 10 in figures 1-10).
Claim 10 – Dixon teaches the table assembly is integrated into the console and blends into its shape (figures 1-7).
Conclusion
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