DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 –
4. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Kobrehel et al. ( USP 2008/0217949).
As Per Claim 1, Kobrehel et al. ( Kobrehel) teaches, a tailgate lift assist hinge assembly,(via assembly Figs. 2 and 3) ( via tailgate 14 being hinged at its lower edge to the vehicle 10 through hinge assembly and pivots about the vehicle body about axis 16. Tailgate 14 moveable part and 11 fixed part of the vehicle body , Fig.1) comprising: a stationary hinge component; (lower hinge plate 20, being fastened to vehicle body 11, Fig. 9, also see Figs. 1, 2 and 3;[0037-0038]) a movable hinge component ( via upper hinge plates 18, being fastened to tailgate 14, Fig.9, also see Figs. 1, 2 and 3;[0037-0038]) a pivot rod ((hinge pin 26 of tube 19) Fig.3, 13)) that pivotably connects the movable hinge component to the stationary hinge component; ( Fig. 3,13, [0038]);[0044] and a first spring assembly (32) including a first carrier received onto a first outboard section of the pivot rod ((hinge pin 26 of tube 19) Fig.3, 13)) and a first spring (32) carried by the first carrier. (Figs. 2, 3, 9, 13 and 13, [0037]-0038], [0044]).
As per Claim 2, Kobrehel teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Kobrehel further teaches, comprising a second spring assembly including a second carrier received onto a second outboard section of the pivot rod and a second spring carried by the second carrier.( Fig. 13, [0044]) .
As per Claim 3, Kobrehel teaches the limitation of Claim 2. However, Kobrehel further teaches, wherein the first outboard section of the pivot rod (hinge pin 26 of tube 19) extends outboard of both the movable hinge component and the stationary hinge component, and the second outboard section of the pivot rod extends outboard of both the movable hinge component and the stationary hinge component.
( See Figs. 2, 3, 9 and 13, [0037]-0038], [0044]).
As per Claim 5, Kobrehel teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Kobrehel further teaches, wherein the first outboard section of the pivot rod ((hinge pin 26 of tube 19) Fig.3, 13)) extends outboard of both the movable hinge component and the stationary hinge component. ( See Figs. 2, 3, 9 and 13).
As per Claim 7, Kobrehel teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Kobrehel further teaches, wherein the first spring includes a first end, a second end, and a plurality of coils arranged between the first end and the second end. ( via spring 32 having two ends, horizontal end ( first end), vertical end ( second end) , plurality of coils ,See Figs. 9. 3 and 13).
As per Claim 8, Kobrehel teaches the limitation of Claim 7. However, Kobrehel further teaches, wherein the first end is received through a hole formed through the stationary hinge component ( See Fig.13).
As per Claim 10, Kobrehel teaches the limitation of Claim 7. However, Kobrehel further teaches, wherein the plurality of coils includes at least two coils wrapped around the first carrier. ( See Spring 32 having at least two coils , See Figs. 3, 9 and 13).
As per Claim 11, Kobrehel teaches the limitation of Claim 7. However, Kobrehel further teaches, wherein the plurality of coils includes at least three coils wrapped around the first carrier. ( Via Spring 32 having three coils ,See Figs. 3, 9 and 13).
As per Claim 12, Kobrehel teaches the limitation of Claim 7. However, Kobrehel further teaches, wherein the plurality of coils includes at least four coils wrapped around the first carrier ( Via Spring 32 having four coils ,See Figs. 3, 9 and 13).
As Per Claim 13, Kobrehel et al. ( Kobrehel) teaches, a motor vehicle ( 10, Fig.1), comprising: a vehicle body( 11,Fig.1); a tailgate (14, Fig.1)); and a first hinge assembly ( via Figs. 9 and 1) configured to provide a lift assistive force when moving the tailgate (14) from a tailgate open position to a tailgate closed position relative to the vehicle body,( [0006], [0007], Figs. 1, 2, 3, 9 and 13) wherein the first hinge assembly includes a body-side hinge (20) component mounted to the vehicle body (11) Figs. 2, 9) , a tailgate-side hinge (18) component mounted to the tailgate (14) , a pivot rod (hinge pin 26 of tube 19) Fig.3, 13) that pivotably connects the tailgate-side hinge component to the body-side hinge component, ( Figs. 3, 13) and a spring (32) connected to both the body-side hinge component and the tailgate-side hinge component. (Figs. 2, 3, 9, 13 and 13, [0037]-0038], [0044]).
As per Claim 15, Kobrehel teaches the limitation of Claim 13. However, Kobrehel further teaches, wherein the tailgate-side hinge (18) component is mounted to a bottom wall of the tailgate. ( See Fig. 9, [0037]-0038], [0044]).
As per Claim 16, Kobrehel teaches the limitation of Claim 13. However, Kobrehel further teaches, comprising a carrier mounted to the pivot rod. ( via hinge pin 26 of tubular rod 19, See Figs. 1, 9, 13 and 3), [0037]-0038], [0044]).
As per Claim 19, Kobrehel teaches the limitation of Claim 16. However, Kobrehel further teaches, wherein the spring is at least partially wrapped around the carrier. (Figs. 3, 9 and 13, [0037]-0038], [0044]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobrehel et al. (USP 2008/0217949) in view of Hauster et al. ( USP 8,348,325 B2).
As per Claim 14, Kobrehel teaches the limitation of Claim 13. However, Kobrehel further teaches, the body-side hinge component (20) is mounted to a rear end wall (11) of the cargo ( Figs.1, 9) [0037]-0038], [0044]).
Further , Kobrehel teaches , wherein the vehicle body ( via 10 is a delivery vehicle. (“This invention relates to doors for vehicles, and in particular to a tailgate of a vehicle such as a trailer, motor home or delivery vehicle that when opened serves as a ramp from the ground into the vehicle”, [0003]).
However Kobrehel does not explicitly teach , wherein the vehicle body includes a cargo bed.
In a related field of art, Hauster et al. ( Hauster) teaches, a pickup truck 10, having a cargo bed 12 and equipped with a tailgate assembly 20, (See Col. 2, lines 61-67, Figs. 1, 1A, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Korehel and Hauster before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Kobrehel to include the teachings ( Cargo bed) of Hauster and configure with the system of Kobrehel to incorporate the cargo bed inside the delivery vehicle to facilitate transportation of goods. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, ease of transportation of delivery items (i.e., space utilization).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4, 6, 9, 17-18 and 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C