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 § 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.
Claims 1, 11-13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nania et al. (US 2022/0001728).
Nania et al. discloses a tailgate assembly comprising a frame subassembly (30) having a cargo bed access opening (O) disposed between a driver side section (100) and a passenger side section (104), as shown in Figures 3 and 7. The cargo bed access opening (O) extends vertically downward at least as far as the floor of the cargo bed, as shown in Figure 3. A door subassembly (34) is pivotally coupled to the frame subassembly (30) to move back and forth between a door open position, as shown in Figure 3, and a door closed position, as shown in Figure 1. The door subassembly closes the cargo bed access opening (O) when the door subassembly is in the door closed position, as shown in Figure 1. An actuator system can pivot the door subassembly and the frame subassembly together back and forth between a tailgate closed position, as shown in Figure 1, and a tailgate open position, as shown in Figure 2 and disclosed in paragraph [0071]. An actuator system is inherent to the automatic pivoting of the tailgate disclosed in paragraph [0071]. A tube of the frame assembly includes a tube extending along an inboard side of the driver side section, along an inboard side of the passenger section, and along a bottom of the cargo bed access opening, as shown in Figure 7.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 11, the frame subassembly (30) and the door subassembly (34) pivot together about a horizontally extending axis (A1), as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The door subassembly (34) pivots relative to the frame subassembly (30) about a vertically extending axis (A2), as shown in Figure 3. In reference to claim 12, the method is disclosed in paragraphs [0067]-[0072]. In reference to claim 13, the driver side section (100) is connected to a passenger side section (104) of the frame subassembly (30) using a tube (108), as shown in Figure 7 and disclosed in paragraph [0060]. In reference to claim 16, the frame subassembly (30) and the door subassembly pivot together using the actuator system back and forth between the tailgate closed position and the tailgate open position, as shown in Figures 1 and 2 and disclosed in paragraph [0071]. In reference to claim 17, the frame subassembly (30) and the door subassembly (34) pivot together about a horizontally extending axis (A1), as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The door subassembly (34) pivots relative to the frame subassembly about a vertically extending axis (A2), as shown in Figure 3.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nania et al. (US 2022/0001728) in view of McGoff et al. (8,740,279).
Nania et al. does not disclose the torsion rod.
McGoff et al. teaches providing a torsion rod (204) within a tube of a frame subassembly (104), as shown in Figure 7 and disclosed on lines 51-53. The torsion rod is biased to assist a pivoting movement of tailgate assembly from the open position to the closed position, as is standard practice in the art. In reference to claim 4, the bushing (190) acts as an isolator that maintains a spacing between the torsion rod (2040 and the tube (104), as shown in Figure 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a torsion rod within the tube of Nania et al., as taught by McGoff et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to assist in manual closing of the tailgate assembly.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nania et al. (US 2022/0001728) in view of Abbasi et al. (US 2012/0324793).
Nania et al. discloses the frame subassembly (30) comprises a tube (108,132), as shown in Figure 7 and disclosed in paragraph [0060]. A portion of the tube (132) extends along the inboard side of the driver side section, a portion (108) of the tube (108,132) extends along a bottom of the cargo bed access opening (O), and a portion of the tube (108,132) extends along the inboard side of the passenger side section, as shown in Figure 7. However, Nania et al. does not disclose the tube extends continuously from the inboard side of the driver side section, along the bottom, and to the inboard side of the passenger side section.
Abbasi et al. teaches forming providing a U-shaped tube (18) that extends continuously and uninterruptedly from the driver side section, the bottom section, and the passenger side section, as shown in Figure 2 and disclosed in paragraph [0029]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the U-shaped tube of Nania et al. as a continuous and uninterrupted tube, as taught by Abbasi et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to improve the strength of the connection between the door subassembly and the frame subassembly to improve support of the door subassembly when the tailgate is in the open position and used to assist a person during ingress/egress from the truck bed.
Claims 6, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nania et al. (US 2022/0001728) in view of Schachtl et al. (US 2004/0245064).
Nania et al. does not disclose the specifics of the actuator system..
Schachtl et al. teaches providing a motor (2) and clutch (5) such that the clutch (5) has an axis of rotation that is offset from the axis of rotation of the motor (2), as shown in Figure 1. In reference to claims 9 and 18, the clutch (5) and the motor (2) are vertically offset from one another, as shown in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a motor and clutch to Nania et al. such that the motor and clutch are vertically offset, as taught by Schachtl et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide an actuator system with an arrangement that allows both powered and manual movement of the tailgate while providing the additional feature of holding the tailgate in an intermediate position.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nania et al. (US 2022/0001728) and Schachtl (US 2004/0245064), as applied to claims 6 and 18, in view of Heiberger et al. (US 2017/0089116).
Nania et al., as modified, does not disclose the specific location of the actuator system.
Heiberger et al. teaches providing the clutch (36) and the motor (32) within the driver side section, as shown in Figure 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the motor and clutch of Nania et al., as modified, in the driver side section, as taught by Heiberger et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to provide a specific location of actuator system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable the over the combination of Nania et al. (US 2022/0001728) and Schachtl (US 2004/0245064), as applied to claims 9.
Nania et al., as modified, discloses the motor is above the clutch, see Figure 1 of Schachtl et al. (US 2004/0245064). However, Nania et al., as modified, does not disclose the clutch is above the motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the relative positions of the motor and clutch of Nania et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation for success as an obvious reversal of parts that does not alter the operation or function of the actuator system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nania et al. (US 2022/0001728) in view of McGoff et al. (8,740,279).
Nania et al. does not disclose the torsion rod.
McGoff et al. teaches providing a torsion rod (204) within a tube of a frame subassembly (104), as shown in Figure 7 and disclosed on lines 51-53.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a torsion rod within the tube of Nania et al., as taught by McGoff et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to assist in manual closing of the tailgate assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 20-23 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.
Claim 24 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. After further review of the pending application, the inboard side of the passenger side section of the tube does not have to be along the passenger side of the cargo bed access opening. The inboard side of the passenger side section of the tube of this application is located in the same location as the inboard side of the passenger side section of the tube of the reference. The rejection has been changed from 103 to a 102 to reflect this understanding.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/21/2025, with respect to claim 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant has argued the rejection of claim 8, now amended into pending claim 6, by stating the rejection fails to present a prima facie case because the characteristics of Schachtl relating the offset arrangement of the motor and clutch is unrelated to the alleged benefit. Schachtl discloses the motor and clutch being offset in a friction clutch that provides the alleged benefits. Applicant has not shown why the rejection is in error. However, the rejection has been changed by removing the Heiberger et al. (US 2017/0089116) reference. Applicant’s arguments no longer apply to the rejection of these limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 March 11, 2026