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.
Claim 1-14 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 claims will be examined as best understood.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The phrase is recited in lines 1 and 15.
Claim 1 recites “between a close position and a distant position”. Not clear from which position a support would be close to, or distant from; an object or position? What are the positions in reference to?
The term “small” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the phrase “the extension flap comprises at least one portion fixed in translation relative to the support”. Not clear. Does this mean the portion is fixed to the piece that is translating/moving?”
Claim 7 recites “a through window (53) opposite the holding device (43) for the portable electronic apparatus." Not clear from the claim or the specification what comprises the window. Is the window an aperture/opening that holds or stores a sliding flap or holding device of claim 6? Reference 53, the through window, in the drawings point to what appears as a slot.
Claim 10 recites “the holding device for a portable electronic apparatus is movable with an angle of 180 degrees”. Not clear. Does this mean the holding device moves through 180 degrees of rotation?
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 1-3, 5-7, 12-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arroum et al (US 20210347486) in view of Buchanan et al (US 20190308538).
In regards to claim 1, Arroum discloses a flap assembly (as seen at least in Fig. 1), in particular for an airplane seat, comprising:
- a main flap (Fig. 1 ref. 10),
while Arroum discloses the main flap to be movable in translation ([0030]), Arroum does not expressly disclose: a translation mechanism allowing the main flap to be movable in translation.
Buchanan teaches translation mechanisms for aircraft seat tray tables (Fig. 5 ref. 106).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Arroum with Buchanan by providing a mechanism which allows the main flap to move in translation in order to allow the main flap to be positioned closer to the passengers.
Therefore, Arroum as combined discloses:
the translation mechanism allowing the main flap to be movable in translation, in a translational movement direction (Arroum [0030] discloses movement in direction of passenger), relative to a support (Arroum Fig. 1 ref. 16), between a close position and a distant position (Arroum close position, close to ref. 16 support, distance position, further away from ref. 16 and close to passenger).
- at least one arm (Arroum Fig. 1 ref. 13) comprising a first end to be fixed to a structural element (Arroum as seen in Fig. 5a for ref. 16) of a seat (Arroum Fig. 5a ref. 11) and a second end rotatably mounted relative to one end of the support (Arroum as seen in Fig. 1 for ref. 13 coupled to ref. 16),
- an extension flap (Arroum Fig. 2 ref. 21) having at least one position in which, when the main flap is in the distant position (Arroum as seen at least in Fig. 2), the extension flap extends in a plane parallel to the extension plane of the main flap (Arroum as seen in Fig. 2 both refs. 10 and 21 extending in same direction) and has at least one portion longitudinally offset relative to the main flap in the translational movement direction (D1) so as to cover the translation mechanism (Arroum as seen in Fig. 2); and
Arroum does not expressly disclose: a gap between a plane in which the main flap extends and a plane in which the extension flap extends being small, less than 1cm, in particular less than 5mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Arroum, with the reasonable expectation of success to provide a gap between a plane in which the main flap extends and a plane in which the extension flap extends being small, less than 1cm, in particular less than 5mm, in order to prevent interference with objects below the flap, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 2, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the extension flap comprises at least one portion fixed in translation relative to the support (Arroum Fig. 1 ref. 21 comprises cup holder ref. 26).
In regards to claim 3, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the extension flap is movable in rotation relative to the support around an axis of rotation between a low position and a raised position (Arroum as seen in Figs. 1 and 2, ref. 21 rotating in to position 90 degrees offset).
In regards to claim 5, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the extension flap
Buchanan teaches a translating device coupled to a flap/tray (Figs. 6 and 7, ref. 108 translating out of ref. 102).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, Arroum with Buchanan by providing the extension flap comprises a base and a holding device for a portable electronic apparatus movable in translation relative to the base in order to allow the passengers greater area to arrange objects/belongings.
In regards to claim 6, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 5, wherein the holding device for a portable electronic apparatus is movable in translation in a translational movement direction between a stored position in which said device is arranged inside a housing in the base and a deployed position in which said device extends outside the housing in the base (Buchanana as seen in Figs. 7 and 8, ref. 108 extends/translates towards and away from base ref. 102).
In regards to claim 7, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 5, wherein the base comprises a through window opposite the holding device for the portable electronic apparatus (Buchanan ref. 108 seen in Figs. 7 and 8, translating into ref. 102, thus comprising a window/opening).
In regards to claim 12, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 1,wherein the extension flap
In regards to claim 13, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the extension flap has a recess for placing personal objects such as glasses, pens, keys, or cutlery. However, Arroum teaches a recess on the main flap/tray, as suggested in Fig. 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, to modify Arroum by providing the extension flap has a recess to hold objects such as keys, to keep objects at the ready for passengers.
In regards to claim 14, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the extension flap.
Claim 4, 11, 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arroum as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pajic (US 8826830).
In regards to claim 4, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the extension flap comprises a fixed holding device for an electronic apparatus.
Pajic teaches a holding device for an electronic apparatus on an aircraft seat tray table (Fig. 2b tray, ref. 120, with holding device ref. 124).
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, to modify Arroum with Pajic by providing the extension flap comprises a fixed holding device for an electronic apparatus for increased passenger convenience.
In regards to claim 11, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 4, wherein the holding device for a portable electronic apparatus comprises a support plate (Pajic Fig. 2B ref. 228, 124) for an electronic apparatus allowing the electronic apparatus to be held in a position inclined backwards relative to a vertical direction (Pajic reclined position of support seen in Fig. 2B).
In regards to claim 8, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose: wherein the extension flap comprises a base and a holding device for a portable electronic apparatus mobile in rotation relative to the base.
Pajic teaches a holding device for an electronic apparatus on an aircraft seat flap/tray table which rotates relative to a base in order to be positioned for passenger use (as seen in Figs. 1C and 1D for ref. 124 holding device).
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify, with the reasonable expectation of success, to modify Arroum with Pajic by providing the extension flap comprises a base and a holding device for a portable electronic apparatus mobile in rotation relative to the base for increased passenger convenience to view PDA devices.
In regards to claim 9, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 8, wherein the holding device for a portable electronic apparatus is rotatable about a horizontal axis of rotation (Pajic as seen in Figs. 1C and 1D rotation of ref. 124 holding device) between a stored position in which said device cooperates with a corresponding hollow shape made in a thickness of the base (Pajic as seen in Figs. 2A hollow area ref. 112) and a deployed position in which said device projects at least partly from a front edge of the base (Pajic as seen in Figs. 1C and 1D).
In regards to claim 10, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 8, wherein the holding device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892. The cited references display aircraft seats with flap/tray arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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, JOSHUA HUSON can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MEDHAT BADAWI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642