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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 and its dependent claim(s) on pages 4-6 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. Many pieces of prior art disclose the tailgate of a vehicle being lowered below the horizontal position including: Kaindl (US 20240149774 A1), Williams (US 20220063736 A1), Mooney (US 20210300482 A1), Hemphill (US 10801237 B2), Neighbors (US 9956995 B1), Martins (US 9623803 B1), Zielinsky (US 8070206 B2), and Zielinsky (US 20110181068 A1) from the 892. The rejection is written below to the new limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stratten (US 20080197652 A1) in view of Waskie (US 9174684 B1) and Zielinsky (US 8070206 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Stratten discloses a multipurpose vehicle (vehicle, figs.1-8) comprising: a cargo bed (truck bed, figs.1-8) comprising a floor panel (floor panel of truck bed as seen in figures 1-3) and a rear gate (tailgate 22, figs.3-8) that is supported in such a manner as to be swingable between a closed state (tailgate is in closed state as seen in figure 3), in which the rear gate is at a vertical position (fig.3) with respect to the floor panel, and an open state (open state is when tailgate 22 is not vertical as seen in figures 4-5), in which the rear gate has swung rearward of the floor panel (figs.4-5); and a holding mechanism (cable 54, figs.3-5), and wherein the cargo bed further comprises a restriction mechanism (movement assist mechanism 20 with arm 28 and crank 34, figs.3-8) configured to, while the holding mechanism is in the holding canceled state, keep the rear gate from swinging toward the open state by more than a second angle (second angle is when strut 42 is fully compressed, figs.5-6) that is a swing angle larger than the first angle. Stratten fails to disclose the holding mechanism configured to be manually operable to enter a holding state, in which the holding mechanism holds the rear gate at a first angle that is a predetermined swing angle, and a holding canceled state. Stratten fails to disclose such that at the second angle the rear gate extends rearward and downward beyond the floor panel of the cargo bed.
However, Waskie discloses holding mechanism (cable mechanism 20, figs.1-3) configured to be manually operable to enter a holding state (cable mechanism 20 can hold tailgate 12 in many different holding states at different angles when inner fitting 36 engages holes 37, 38, and 39, as well as removable end piece 28 can attach to anchor points 21, 22, or 23, figs.1-3), in which the holding mechanism holds the rear gate at a first angle (cable mechanism 20 can hold tailgate 12 in many different holding states at different angles when inner fitting 36 engages holes 37, 38, and 39, as well as removable end piece 28 can attach to anchor points 21, 22, or 23, figs.1-3 when inner fitting engages holes 38 or 39 or when removable end piece 28 attaches to anchor points 22, or 23, figs.1-3) that is a predetermined swing angle, and a holding canceled state (inner fitting disengages holes 37, 38, and 39; also removable end piece 28 detaches cable 26 from anchor points 21, 22, or 23 figs.1-3). Zielinsky discloses such that at the second angle the rear gate extends rearward and downward beyond the floor panel of the cargo bed (tailgate support cable 20 have extension link 30 attached to lower tailgate apparatus, figs.2-7).
Stratten and Waskie are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle tailgates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cable of Stratten with the cable mechanism of Waskie with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another obtaining predictable results of allowing the tailgate to be locked at different angle because of the cable mechanism to help hold items in the truck bed such as lumber or other long materials. Having the tailgate be locked at different positions makes the cargo bed more versatile and accommodate different sized or shaped cargo.
Stratten and Zielinsky are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of tailgates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Stratten with the extension link of Zielinsky with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have combined prior art elements yielding predictable results of allowing the tailgate to be lowered below horizontal to allow for easier loading into the cargo bed.
Regarding claim 2, Stratten in combination with Waskie and Zielinsky, Stratten discloses wherein the restriction mechanism comprises: a first abutting portion (lever arm 28, figs.3-9) provided in the rear gate (lever arm 28 is mounted to tailgate 22 on lower end, fig.3); and a second abutting portion (crank 34, figs.3-8) provided in a rear portion of the cargo bed and configured to abut against the first abutting portion when a swing angle of the rear gate is the second angle (lever arm 28 abuts against crank 34 and full compresses strut 42, figs.4-8).
Regarding claim 3, Stratten in combination with Waskie and Zielinsky, Stratten discloses wherein the rear gate swings about a swing shaft (pivot 26, figs.3-8) extending in a left-right direction and provided in a lower rear portion of the cargo bed (figs.2-5).
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stratten (US 20080197652 A1) in view of Waskie (US 9174684 B1), Zielinsky (US 8070206 B2), and in further view of Chalifour (US 20210237802 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Stratten in combination with Waskie and Zielinsky disclose the multipurpose vehicle of claim 3 but fails to disclose further comprising: an exhaust muffler provided under the cargo bed and comprising an exhaust port at a position corresponding to a rear portion of the cargo bed, and wherein the rear gate is behind the exhaust port when a swing angle of the rear gate is the second angle.
However, Chalifour discloses an exhaust muffler (muffler 70 connected to exhaust ports of motor 62, figs.1-5) provided under the cargo bed (cargo bed 100, figs.1-6) and comprising an exhaust port at a position corresponding to a rear portion of the cargo bed, and wherein the rear gate is behind the exhaust port when a swing angle of the rear gate is the second angle (tailgate 108 is behind the exhaust system with muffler 70, figs.1-6).
Stratten in combination with Waskie and Chalifour are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles or tailgates of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the tailgate as disclosed by Stratten in combination with Waskie on the utiltity vehicle of Chalifour with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results of having the tailgate as disclosed by Stratten in combination of Waskie replace the tailgate (108) on the vehicle (10) of Chalifour. Having the tailgate as discloses by Stratten in combination with Waskie on the vehicle of Chalifour would allow the vehicle to lock the tailgate at different angles to better accommodate different sized or shaped loads, making the vehicle more versatile and adaptable.
Regarding claim 5, Stratten in combination with Waskie, Zielinsky, and Chalifour, Chalifour discloses wherein the cargo bed is configured to be swingable in an up-down direction between a horizontal position (cargo bed 100 moveable between a horizontal position as seen in figures 1-2) and an inclined position (cargo bed 100 inclined position as seen in figure 6), and the rear gate is behind the exhaust port when the cargo bed is at the inclined position (tailgate 108 is behind the exhaust system with muffler 70, figs.1-6).
Regarding claim 6, Stratten in combination with Waskie, Zielinsky, and Chalifour, Chalifour discloses further comprising: an engine (motor 62 is internal combustion engine, figs.1-6) under the cargo bed, and wherein the rear gate is behind the engine when a swing angle of the rear gate is the second angle (tailgate 108 is behind the engine 62, figs.1-6).
Regarding claim 7, Stratten in combination with Waskie, Zielinsky, and Chalifour, Chalifour discloses wherein the cargo bed is configured to be swingable in an up-down direction between a horizontal position (cargo bed 100 moveable between a horizontal position as seen in figures 1-2) and an inclined position (cargo bed 100 inclined position as seen in figure 6), and wherein the rear gate is behind the engine when the cargo bed is at the inclined position (tailgate 108 is behind the engine 62, figs.1-6).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 IAN BRYCE SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-6501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303)-297-4337. 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.
/IAN BRYCE SHELTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights