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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-14, drawn to a product, classified in 296/50.
II. Claims 15-20, drawn to a method, classified in 264/239.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product made does not require the step of overmolding.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Benjamin Coon on 1/20/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, on line 1, “wherein striker” should be “wherein the striker”.
In claim 7, on line 3, “extending axis the material shield” should have either a comma or semi-colon inserted after “axis” to separate the phrases being recited and for clarity.
In claim 8, on line 3, “extending axis the material shield” should have either a comma or semi-colon inserted after “axis” to separate the phrases being recited and for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bambenek et al. (8128138) in view of Nania (11325451).
For claim 1, Bambenek et al. (8128138) discloses a vehicle assembly, comprising:
a striker (16) of a door assembly;
a door subassembly of the tailgate assembly,
the door subassembly having a latch configured to engage the striker (16) to hold the door subassembly in a door closed position,
the door subassembly having a notched area (FIG.7) that receives the striker when the door subassembly is pivoted from a door open position to a door closed position; and
a material shield (14) extending into the notched area when the door subassembly is in the door closed position.
PNG
media_image1.png
510
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
507
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, the striker is aft (toward the rear of) the material shield (as seen in FIG.7).
For claim 3, the material shield is overmolded to a flange (FIG.3).
For claim 4, the striker is part of a striker bracket (not numbered),
wherein the material shield is mounted to a flange of the striker bracket (FIG.3).
For claim 6, the striker is mounted to a frame subassembly (door pillar) of the assembly.
For claim 7, the door subassembly is hinged to the frame subassembly and configured to pivot relative to the frame subassembly about a vertically extending axis (implicit in vehicle doors);
the material shield (14) extending horizontally from the frame subassembly into the notched area when the door subassembly is in the door closed position.
For claim 9, further comprising:
a frame subassembly of a vehicle,
the door subassembly pivotably connected to the frame subassembly by at least one hinge (implicit, not shown),
the material shield disposed at an interface between the door subassembly and the frame subassembly (pillar).
Bambenek et al. lack the striker and door assembly being “of a tailgate assembly” with a frame subassembly of a tailgate.
Nania et al. (11325451) teach a tailgate with latches hinged on a vertical axis (FIG.3) and corresponding strikers (as seen in FIG.7 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
281
339
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to adapted the vehicle door assembly of Bambenek et al. for use in the tailgate assembly of Nania et al. as an obvious expedient.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bambenek et al., as modified with respect to claim 6 above, and in view of McGoff et al. (8740279).
For claim 8, Bambenek et al., as modified, provide the door subassembly is hinged to the frame subassembly and configured to pivot relative to the frame subassembly about a vertically extending axis (as provided by Bambenek et al. and the prior art references above) but fails to provide the material shield extending upward.
McGoff et al. teach the use of a bottom vertically extending striker (178, FIG.3).
PNG
media_image4.png
429
687
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the material shield of Bambenek et al. upward from a bottom vertically positioned striker in order to accomplish the same for that latch connection, namely in order to reduce dust intrusion into the latch or adjacent components.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bambenek et al., as modified with respect to claim 4 above, and in view of Ronan or Coker et al.
Bambenek et al. fail to provide two strikers as recited.
For claim 5, Ronan (4383709) teaches the use of a striker bracket having two separate apertures (20, 21) for distinct upper and lower latches and alternatively, Coker et al. (3387406) teaches two vertically spaced strikers (42, FIG.4).
PNG
media_image5.png
405
344
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
316
363
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided Bambenek et al. with a striker bracket having a second striker vertically spaced from the first as taught by Ronan and Coker et al. for it is a mere duplication of part since it would be obvious to provide additional securement and redundancy. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nania et al. 451 in view of Bambenek et al. (8128138).
For claim 10, Nania et al. (11325451) disclose a vehicle assembly, comprising:
a frame subassembly including a driver side section and a passenger side section;
a door subassembly (FIGS.1-4, 7, and 10) pivotable relative to the frame subassembly back and forth between a door closed position and a door open position,
the door subassembly disposed between the driver side section and the passenger side section when the door subassembly is in the door closed position such that the door subassembly separates the driver side section from all portions of the passenger side section; and
a latch system configured to secure the door subassembly in the door closed position relative to the frame subassembly.
Nania et al. lack a material shield for use with and secured to the latch system, a feature taught by Bambenek et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the material shield of Bambenek et al. on the latch system of Nania et al. in order to reduce dust intrusion into the latch or adjacent components
For claim 11, Nania et al. disclose the door subassembly and the frame subassembly are pivotable together about a first axis (FIGS.3-4) between a tailgate closed position and a tailgate open position,
wherein the door subassembly is pivotable relative to the frame subassembly about a second axis (FIGS. 2 and 10) between a door closed position and a door open position,
the first axis transverse to the second axis.
For claim 12, the door subassembly in the door open position provides a cargo bed access opening (FIGS.3-4) that extends vertically downward at least as far as a vertically bottommost side of a driver side outer panel of the driver side section and a passenger side outer panel of the passenger side section.
For claims 13-14, the material shield as taught by Bambenek et al. is secured to a striker bracket of the latch system and is overmolded to the striker bracket.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9 above, tailgate assemblies are known having door/door assemblies which can open and close and lock via the used of strikers and latches as recited in the claims. For example, in addition to the Nania et al. (11325451) reference as set forth above, at least Gruber et al. (2007/0296226) provides a tailgate with latch hinged on vertical axis (FIG.7b) and a corresponding striker on a pillar of the vehicle; and at least Kaptur, Jr. et al. (3567274) provides the same having striker (96) (FIG.2).
PNG
media_image7.png
283
407
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
316
466
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614