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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 82 (as mentioned in paragraph [0054] of the specification).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, line 1-2, “the door subassembly that is pivotably coupled to the frame subassembly” has no antecedent basis in the claims. It is noted that claim 16 never recites that a door subassembly is pivotably coupled of the frame subassembly. Claim 16, recites a state of the tailgate assembly “prior to [emphasis added] pivotably coupling a door subassembly to the frame subassembly.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 17-18 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.
In claim 16, lines 4-6, Applicant recites, “the plurality of panel support brackets secured to the connection member in a preset position to preset the frame subassembly, prior to [emphasis added] pivotably coupling a door assembly. This preset position is interpreted as the support bracket preset position (as disclosed in paragraph [0053] and [0058]-[0059] of Applicant’s specification). This preset positioning of the bracket 76 and the driver side assembly only exists “prior to pivotably coupling a door assembly” as recited in claim 16. Thus, claim 16 is interpreted as not including the door subassembly which allows the support bracket 76 and the driver side panel assembly 42 to be in a titled position.
However, claim 17 recites “further comprising the door subassembly that is pivotably coupled to the frame subassembly. Paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification disclose that “The weight of the door subassembly 38 can draw the driver side panel assembly 42 and the passenger side panel assembly 46 inward,” and that “This positions the door subassembly 38 in a preset door subassembly position and leads to the gap between the door subassembly 38 and the passenger side panel assembly 46 widening moving downward.” Thus, it appears that Applicant is now stating that the door subassembly is now attached which would change the state of the preset tailgate assembly recited in claim 16 to an intermediate preset state as mentioned above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In claim 17, Applicant recites that the tailgate assembly includes “the door subassembly that is pivotably coupled to the frame subassembly.” However, claim 16 has previously recited a state of the tailgate assembly “prior to pivotably coupling a door subassembly.” Since claim 16 positively recites that there is no door subassembly and claim 17 recites there is a door assembly, claim 17 fails to include all the limitations of claim 16.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Due to the above 112 problems with claims 17-18, a determination of allowability of these claims could not be made at this time. Once the 112 problems with the claims have been overcome, any relevant allowability determinations will be made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Humphrey et al. (US 2003/0122396).
With respect to claim 1, Humphrey et al. disclose a tailgate subassembly alignment method, comprising:
positioning at least one panel support bracket 290 relative to a connection member 950 of a frame subassembly (as shown in Fig.2B of Humphrey et al., see above 112(b) rejection for claim interpretation);
securing the at least one panel support bracket 290 to the connection member 950 when the at least one panel support bracket 290 is in a preset position (as shown in Fig. 2B of Humphrey et al.); and
after securing the at least one panel support bracket 290, securing a tailgate panel assembly 350, of the frame subassembly to the at least one panel support bracket 290 (at latch 930–for example when closing panel 350 from the position shown in Fig. 3 of Humphrey et al.).
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bator et al. (US 2010//0289289).
With respect to claim 1, Bator et al. disclose a tailgate subassembly alignment method, comprising:
positioning at least one panel support bracket 390 relative to a connection member 112 of a frame subassembly (as shown in Fig. 3 of Bator et al., see above 112(b) rejection for claim interpretation);
securing the at least one panel support bracket 390 to the connection member 112 when the at least one panel support bracket 390 is in a preset position (as shown in Fig. 3 of Bator et al.); and
after securing the at least one panel support bracket 390, securing a tailgate panel assembly to the at least one panel support bracket 390 (“cladding (not shown),” Bator et al., end of paragraph [0045]).
With respect to claim 15, Bator et al. disclose securing the fame subassembly to a vehicle cargo bed 44 (“The tailgate 40 is mounted to the vehicle V,” Bator et al., paragraph [0029]).
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Micheli (US 2011/023954).
With respect to claim 1, Micheli discloses the claimed tailgate subassembly alignment method except that he is silent on whether the securing a tailgate panel assembly to the at least one panel support bracket happens after securing the at least one panel support bracket to the connection member. Micheli discloses a tailgate subassembly alignment method, comprising:
positioning at least one panel support bracket 26 relative to a connection member 40/100 of a frame subassembly 202/206/40/100 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Micheli, see above 112(b) rejection for claim interpretation);
securing the at least one panel support bracket 26 to the connection member 40/100 when the at least one panel support bracket 26 is in a preset position (located on flat surface 18); and
securing a tailgate panel assembly 202 to the at least one panel support bracket 26.
While Micheli does not specify an order of how the at least one panel support bracket and tailgate panel assembly are assembled, it 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to assemble the tailgate panel assembly 202 to the at least one panel support bracket 26 (via the connection member 40/100) after securing the at least one panel support bracket 26 to the connection member 40/100 because assembling the apparatus by first securing the at least one panel support bracket 26 to the connection member 40/100 and then securing a tailgate panel assembly 202 to the at least one panel support bracket 26 (via the connection member 40/100) is a logical order to attach the pieces because this method allows a user to assemble the apparatus one piece at a time thereby making it the easiest (in terms of heavy load) to assemble. That, is a user would only have to lift one piece of the apparatus at a time when assembling.
With respect to claim 2, Micheli discloses that the tailgate panel assembly 202 is a driver side panel assembly (as can be determined from Fig. 1 of Micheli) and the at least one panel support bracket 26 is at least one driver side panel support bracket, wherein the frame subassembly includes a cargo bed access opening between the driver side panel assembly 202 and a passenger side panel assembly 206 (when step portion 204 is in the lowered position and step portions 202 and 206 are in the raised position), wherein a door subassembly 204 is pivotably secured to the frame subassembly (Micheli, paragraph [0044]), the door subassembly 204 pivotable back-and-forth between a door open position and a door closed position, the door subassembly closing the cargo bed access opening when the door subassembly is in the door closed position (as can be determined from Fig. 1 and paragraph [0044] of Micheli), the door subassembly 204 and the frame subassembly 202/206/40/100 together providing a tailgate assembly (as shown in Figs. 11-12 of Micheli).
With respect to claim 3, placing the door subassembly 204 on the connection member 40/100 of the tailgate assembly relative to the frame subassembly of the tailgate assembly (as shown in Fig. 4 of Micheli) can be interpreted as “presetting the door subassembly.”
With respect to claim 7, Micheli disclose the claimed tailgate subassembly alignment method except that he is silent on whether the securing a passenger side panel assembly to the at least one passenger side panel support bracket happens after securing the at least one passenger side panel support bracket to the connection member. Micheli disclose positioning at least one passenger side panel support bracket 20 relative to the connection member 40/100 (as shown in Figs. 3-4 of Micheli);
securing the at least one passenger side panel support bracket 20 to the connection member 40/100 in a preset position; and securing the passenger side panel assembly 206 to the at least one passenger side panel support bracket 20 (via the connection member 25040/100).
While Micheli does not specify an order of how the at least one passenger side panel support bracket and the passenger side panel assembly are assembled, it 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to assemble the passenger side panel assembly 202 to the at least one passenger side panel support bracket 20 (via the connection member 40/100) after securing the at least one panel support bracket 20 to the connection member 40/100 because assembling the apparatus by first securing the at least one panel support bracket 20 to the connection member 40/100 and then securing a tailgate panel assembly 202 to the at least one panel support bracket 20 (via the connection member 40/100) is a logical order to attach the pieces because this method allows a user to assemble the apparatus one piece at a time thereby making it the easiest (in terms of heavy load) to assemble. That, is a user would only have to lift one piece of the apparatus at a time when assembling.
With respect to claim 10, Micheli discloses securing the door subassembly 204 (via securing member 218 to projection 108 and “bolts or other type of fasteners,” Micheli, paragraph [0044]; Figs. 8 and 10) to the frame subassembly after presetting the door subassembly.
With respect to claim 11, Micheli discloses that the tailgate assembly is pivotable relative to a vehicle structure (flat surface 18) about a horizontal axis back-and-for the between a tailgate closed position (shown in solid lines in Fig. 1 of Micheli) and a tailgate open positions (shown in dashed lines in Fig. 1 of Micheli).
With respect to claim 12, Micheli discloses a panel support bracket that is capable of offsetting the frame subassembly from a design position for the frame subassembly.
With respect to claim 13, Micheli discloses that the connection member 40/100 has a u-shaped cross section (section 40), the at least one panel support bracket 26 including a panel support bracket 26 that slips relative to the connection member 40/100 (the u-section 40 is capable of slipping along the bracket 26 before bolts 90-96 are secured, as shown in Fig. 3 of Micheli).
With respect to claim 15, Micheli discloses securing the frame subassembly to a vehicle cargo bed 12
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphrey et al. (US 2003/0122396), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi (KR 20230012226).
With respect to claim 14, Humphrey et al. disclose the claimed tailgate assembly except that they are silent on how the at least one panel support bracket is secured to the connection member. However, Choi teaches a similar tailgate sub assembly including a rod 210 welded to a tailgate panel 100 (see top of pg. 4 of the machine translation of Choi).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Choi with the tailgate subassembly alignment method disclosed by Humphrey et al. for the advantage of the strong and permanent connection afforded by a weld that cannot come loose.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 16, and 19 are allowed.
Claims 4-6 and 8 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejection.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection, the rejection of claim 12 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments. However, it is noted that claim 12 does not structurally further limit the tailgate subassembly since the phrase “offsets the frame subassembly from a design position” only recites the preset position relative to a non-claimed and non-defined design position. The design position is simply an abstract idea of how Applicant intends the tailgate assembly to be arranged in a later stage of assembly.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, Applicant’s representative argues that Humphrey does not teach “securing the at least one panel support bracket to the connection member when the at least one panel support bracket is in a preset position.” However, the examiner notes that the at least one panel support bracket 290 of Humphrey is attached to the connection member 950 when the at least one panel support bracket 290 is in a specific position on the connection member 950 (“Second end 954 is attached to side 296 of side member 290 adjacent bottom portion 298,” Humphrey, paragraph [0040]. This position is interpreted as a preset position because this is how the tailgate assembly was designed to be assembled.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 over Bator, Bator also teaches a securing the at least one panel support bracket 390 to the connection member 112 when the at least one panel support bracket 390 is in a preset position (as shown in Fig. 3 of Bator et al.). The design of the tailgate assembly requires the panel support bracket 390 to be at the preset position as shown in Fig. 3 in order to be properly attached to the connection member 112. Applicant’s representative states that the examiner is conflating the installed position with the preset position. However, Applicant has not provided any special definition of the term “preset position.” Therefore, “preset position” may be broadly interpreted. It is reasonable to call the design position the same as the preset position since the design sets the position of all the elements ahead of manufacturing and assembly of the tailgate assembly.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 over Micheli, Applicant’s representative argues that Micheli in no way teaches the tailgate assembly as claimed. However, Applicant provides no evidence to support this argument. The examiner disagrees and outlines in the above rejection how Micheli teaches the same tailgate assembly, with an obvious modification, as recited in claim 1.
Additionally, Applicant’s representative argues that Micheli does not teach “securing the at least one panel support bracket to the connection member when the at least one panel support bracket is in a preset position. As mentioned above with respect to the Bator reference, it is a reasonable interpretation to equate the designed position with the preset position. Bator discloses securing the at least one panel support bracket 26 to the connection member 40/100 when the at least one panel support bracket 26 is in a preset position (as shown in the exploded view of Fig. 3 of Micheli–the preset position being the position after the components are assembled).
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 DANIEL J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612