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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “the first door spaced a distance outboard from the first cargo bed sidewall when the first door is in the first door fully-open position such that the first taillight assembly is not covered by the first door when viewed from a position aft the cargo bed of the vehicle” is recited twice in the last 7 lines of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conkle (US 3785695 A).
Regarding claim 18, Conkle discloses a device that performs the function disclosed in the method claim 18 when used in normal and usual operation. Conkle discloses unlatching (Fig. 2, latch mechanism 38/36 can be unlatched) a first door (20 in Fig. 1) of a tailgate from a latched position (Fig. 2) with a second door (22 in Fig. 1) of the tailgate; and pivoting the first door more than ninety degrees (Fig. 5, door is pivoted more than 90 degrees from Fig. 2 position to Fig. 5 position) from a first door closed position (Fig. 2) to a first door fully-open position (Fig. 5) about a first door axis (Fig. 5, vertical axis of 44), the pivoting relative to a first cargo bed sidewall (16/18 in Fig. 1); and latching the first door to the first cargo bed sidewall to hold the first door in the first door fully-open position (Fig. 5-6, latching mechanism 48 and 50 latches the door to the sidewall through the frame 26/28).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the second paragraph on page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 12/8/2025, with respect to claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 9/18/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the , filed 12/8/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Conkle, see rejection above for details. Conkle discloses tailgate doors pivoting more than 90 degrees, latch for latching the doors to each other, and additional latches for latching the door to the sidewalls.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 11-17 are allowed.
Claims 19-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for the allowance of the claims is the inclusion in the claims of the limitations directed to a first door sidewall latch engageable to hold the first door in the first door fully-open position as claimed in claim 1; when the first door is in the latched position with the second door, pivoting the first door and the second door together about a tailgate axis between a tailgate closed position and a tailgate open position as claimed in claim 19; and a first taillight assembly secured to the first cargo bed sidewall and a second taillight assembly secured to the second cargo bed sidewall, the first door spaced a distance outboard from the first cargo bed sidewall when the first door is in the first door fully-open position such that the first taillight assembly is not covered by the first door when viewed from a position aft the cargo bed of the vehicle as claimed in claim 5. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conkle discloses a latch for latching the tailgate doors to the sidewall, but fails to teach the two tailgate doors pivot together in their closed position about a tailgate axis as claimed in claims 1 and 19. Combining Conkle with Ban or McGoff (both are previously applied references teaching the two different pivoting behaviors required by the claims) is not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such a combination requires significant structural redesign to adopt the support frame of Conkle, and will result in interference with the operation of the tailgate of Ban or McGoff. There is no suggestion in the prior art to make such a combination and doing so would require impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references that are not relied upon all disclose vehicle tailgates with two doors pivoting vertically and horizontally.
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 Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612