DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A response to the first office action and amendment were received on 28 November 2025.
Claims 1-20 are still pending; Claims 1, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 have been amended.
Arguments directed to the rejection of the previous claim set have been received and acknowledged below.
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(s) 1-5, 9, 12, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gallagher (US 9,126,630).
Regarding Claim 1, Gallagher discloses a structure for reinforcing a deck of a vehicle, the structure comprising: chassis frames positioned on both side surfaces of a lower end of the deck of the vehicle (discussed but not shown); a wheelhouse assembly positioned on the chassis frame and defining a side surface of the deck (Figs. 1-3); a reinforcement structure 80 (Fig. 7A) positioned at an end of the wheelhouse assembly at a position where a rear gate is positioned at a rear end of the deck (Fig. 5), and chassis mounting parts 64A, 64B (Fig. 8) positioned on the wheelhouse assembly in contact with the chassis frames (64A and 64B are the end pockets of crossmember 64 which mounts the bed sides to the chassis).
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 15, the reinforcement structure comprises a gradation part in which a plurality of rigid ribs 88 are positioned in a height direction (Fig. 7A), and have an equal angle to each other and the side member.
Regarding Claim 3, the reinforcement structure 80 is fastened to a side member positioned at the rear end of the deck (Fig. 9, reinforcement is fastened to the side and rear end of the bed).
Regarding Claim 4, the plurality of rigid ribs 88 are positioned at equal intervals along the height direction based on the side member Fig. 9).
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Gallagher discusses the use of a rigid part 82 at the end of the graduation part, a hinge at the rear pillar to allow the hinged tailgate to fold down (see Background) as well as a striker to engage with a locker on the tailgate (column 2, lines 43-45).
Regarding Claim 12, Gallagher discloses chassis frames positioned on both side surfaces of a lower end of the deck of the vehicle (discussed but not shown); a wheelhouse assembly positioned on the chassis frame and shaped according to a curvature of wheels of the vehicle (Figs. 1-3); a side member 60 positioned at a rear end of the deck; and a reinforcement structure 80 positioned at an end of the wheelhouse assembly at a position where a rear gate is positioned at the rear end of the deck (Fig. 9), wherein the reinforcement structure comprises a gradation part in which a plurality of rigid ribs 88 are positioned at equal intervals in a height direction of the side member (Fig. 7A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are allowed.
Claims 6-8, 10, 11, 14 and 18-20 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:
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, claim 16 has been re-written into independent form with the subject matter which was previously indicated as being allowable.
Claims 6-8, 10, 11, 14 and 18-20 were all previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that both independent claims 1 and 12 have been amended to include the previously allowable subject matter of claims 10 and 18, respectively. The Applicant has included only a portion of what was indicated as an allowable combination form the previous claims 10 and 18, and not the entire combination which was the indicated allowable subject matter. As such, the Examiner finds that the portion of indicated allowable subject matter of claims 10 and 18 is still rendered obvious by the Gallagher reference. As noted in the previous office action, it was entirety of the limitations of claims 10 and 18 which were found allowable, and not just the portion Applicant has chosen to include. The rejections have been updated to reflect that.
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 JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612