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 .
Response to Amendment
The 35 USC 112 rejections of claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 13 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Concerning amended claim 1 limitation of “the extension flap comprising a front edge which longitudinally covers a rear edge of the main flap” Applicant argues the cited references Arroum et al and Buchanan et al do not discloses this limitation. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Arroum reference is looked to, figure 2, displaying ref. 21 above ref. 10. The extension flap, ref. 21, comprising a front edge, not referenced and to the left of the figure, longitudinally covers a rear edge of the main flap, ref. 10, rear edge not referenced and to the right of the figure.
Concerning the limitation of “a gap between a plane in which the main flap extends and a plane in which the extension flap extends being less than 1 cm” Applicant argues “the teaching of Arroum would naturally increase the vertical space between the main table and the auxiliary table to avoid any interference between the object placed on the main table and the auxiliary table at the location of the longitudinally overlap between the tables in order to maximize the storage space”. In response, Arroum is silent as to the measurements of the parts of the device, and different obvious purposes for the measurements can be provided in order to allow that the tray table system is functional for passengers while also being sturdy and compact.
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, 5-6, 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), 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) 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
-the extension flap comprising a front edge which longitudinally covers a rear edge of the main flap (Arroum Fig. 2, rear of ref. 10 covered by front edge of ref. 21, The extension flap, ref. 21, comprising a front edge, not referenced and to the left of the figure, longitudinally covers a rear edge of the main flap, ref. 10, rear edge not referenced and to the right of the figure);
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 less than 1 cm. 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 less than 1 cm in order to cups inserted into the aperture are readily supported by the lower surface, 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 that is translationally fixed 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 comprises a base and a holding device (43) for a portable electronic apparatus movable in translation relative to the base (44).
Buchanan teaches a translating device coupled to a flap/tray (Figs. 8 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 12, Arroum discloses the assembly according to claim 1,wherein the extension flapone 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
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 object. 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 personal 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights