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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s claims, filed on 04/16/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-14 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/16/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the drawing have overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action filed 02/24/2026.
Applicant' s argument and amendment to claims 1, 4-5, 8, and 11-12 has been considered and found not persuasive. The prior art rejections made in Non-Final Office Action dated 02/24/26 remain and are repeated below with the amended language. Although the amended claims have been further limited, the amended claims still read on the prior art of record, as each newly added limitation is taught by the applied references as explained in the updated claim rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to remaining prior art rejections have been considered and found persuasive; therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, the amendments raise new issues and a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Sukhdeo does not disclose a dual-mode hinge assembly has been fully considered and found not persuasive. Although applicant characterizes the claimed hinge assembly as being capable of operation in multiple configurations, the claims do not clearly recite the structural features that distinguish the claimed assembly from the hinge assembly disclosed by Sukhdeo. Applicant’s argument is further limiting than the claim language as claim 1 and 8 recites a first cup, a second cup, and an elongated hinge key configured to be attached to either the first cup or second cup. The claims do not positively recite the specific structural arrangement that purportedly provides the asserted dual mode functionality of the hinge assembly. Applicant’s argument relies on an interpretation that the first cup and second cup represent alternative configurations of the hinge assembly and that the assembly may be selectively configured for different modes of operation. However, such functionality and structural relationship enabling the functionality is not expressly recited in the claims. As recited in the claims, the hinge assembly comprises a hinge bracket, an elongated key, a first cup and (emphasis added) a second cup, wherein the elongate hinge key is configured to be attached to either the first cup or the second cup. The structural of the claim has both the first cup and second cup as an element of the same hinge assembly and not as a separate configuration of the hinge assembly. If applicant intends to rely upon a dual-mode configuration, the claims should be amended to explicitly recite the structural features and relationships that provides such functionality wherein the first and second cups are distinct and separate elements of the hinge assembly. Examiner notes that the ambiguity may be overcome by amending the claim to clearly recite the first cup and second cup as alternative structural configurations. For example, the claim could be amended to recite: ”…the hinge assembly comprising: a hinge bracket…, an elongated key…, and a first cup…; or a second cup…wherein the elongated hinge key is configured to be attached to either the first cup or the second cup.” Alternatively, applicant may amend the claim in another manner that clearly establishes where the first cup and second cup are both required components of the claimed assembly or represent alternative configurations thereof. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection maintained.
Regarding applicants’ argument that Sukhdeo does not teach a powered tailgate has been fully considered and found not persuasive. Sukhdeo expressly discloses a powered tailgate (Col. 7, lines 55-58) that is driven by a motor or other actuator between its open and closed position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this disclosure to teach a configuration of a motorized tailgate. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection maintained.
Regarding applicants’ argument that Fabiano fails to remedy the shortcomings of Sukhdeo has been fully considered and found not persuasive. Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the combination of Sukhdeo in view of Fabiano would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Both references are directed to hinge assemblies for tailgates. Modifying the Sukhdeo to include a cup with a flat surface as taught by Fabiano would have represented a predictable use of known elements according to their known functions. As recognized in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), it is proper to combine known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, even if the references do not expressly teach the combination. The result of combining these known elements would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill because each component performs its well-understood function. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 8 recite ”…the hinge assembly comprising: a hinge bracket…, an elongated key…, a first cup…; and (emphasis added) a second cup…wherein the elongated hinge key is configured to be attached to either the first cup or the second cup.” The claim positively recites both the first cup and second cup as structural elements of the claimed hinge assembly through the transitional phrase “the hinge assembly comprising.” However, the subsequent limitation recites that the elongated key is configured to be attached to either the first or second cup, thereby introducing mutually exclusive configurations. Because the first cup and the second cup are positively recited as structural components of the claimed assembly, the scope of the claim is ambiguous with respect to whether both elements are required in every embodiment encompassed by the claim. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined with reasonable certainty and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected for dependent of rejected indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sukhdeo et al. (US12030557)
Claim 1. Sukhdeo discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: A hinge assembly (Fig. 3) configured to couple either a motorized tailgate (18 tailgate, Fig. 1-2; tailgate may be powered; Col. 7, lines 55-58) or a non-motorized tailgate to a side wall of a bed (14 sidewall of 16 bed, Fig. 1-2) of a vehicle (10 vehicle, Fig. 1-2) the hinge assembly comprising:
a hinge bracket (32 mounting bracket, Fig. 2-3) configured to be fixed to the side wall (Col. 3, lines 47-51); and
an elongated hinge key (40 post, Fig. 3) having a proximate end attached to the hinge bracket (Fig. 3) and a distal end including a keyed surface (42 flat surface, Fig. 3); and
a first cup configured to be attached to the motorized tailgate (56 cavity of 46 pivot body, Fig. 3); and
a second cup configured to be attached to the non-motorized tailgate,
wherein, in a first configuration, the elongated key is configured to be fixed to the first cup that is attached to the motorized tailgate (56 cavity of 46 pivot body, Fig. 3), and
wherein, in a second configuration, the elongated hinge key is configured to be received within the second cup that is attached to the non-motorized tailgate in a manner that the second cup is able to rotate about the elongated hinge key.
Claim 4. Sukhdeo discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: The hinge assembly of Claim 1, wherein the keyed surface includes a profile that is configured to mate with an interior surface of the first cup that has a profile that corresponds to the profile of the keyed surface to prevent the first cup from rotating relative to the hinge key (mating flat surfaces of 48 and 46, Fig. 3, 7).
Claim 5. Sukhdeo discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: The hinge assembly of Claim 4, wherein the first cup is fixed to the hinge key such that when the motorized tailgate is moved from a closed position to an open position, the motorized tailgate moves relative to the first cup (18 tailgate may rotate relative to 46 pivot body; Col. 4, lines 3-5; see previously rejected claim 1).
Claim 8. Sukhdeo discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: A vehicle (10 vehicle, Fig. 1) comprising:
a vehicle body (12 cargo area, Fig. 1) having a bed (16 bed, Fig. 1) defined by a pair of side walls (14 sidewalls, Fig. 1);
either a motorized tailgate or a non-motorized tailgate positioned between the pair of sidewalls and pivotably coupled to at least one sidewall of the pair of sidewalls by a hinge assembly, the hinge assembly including:
a hinge bracket configured to be fixed to the one side wall; and
an elongated hinge key having a proximate end attached to the hinge bracket and a distal end including a keyed surface and,
a first cup configured to be attached to the motorized tailgate; and
a second cup configured to be attached to the non-motorized tailgate,
wherein, in a first configuration, the elongated key is configured to be fixed to the first cup that is attached to the motorized tailgate, and
wherein, in a second configuration, the elongated hinge key is configured to be received within the second cup that is attached to the non-motorized tailgate in a manner that the second cup is able to rotate about the elongated hinge key (see previously rejected claim 1).
Claim 11. Sukhdeo discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: The vehicle of Claim 8, wherein the keyed surface includes a profile that is configured to mate with an interior surface of the first cup that has a profile that corresponds to the profile of the keyed surface to prevent the first cup from rotating relative to the hinge key (see previously rejected claim 4).
Claim 12. Sukhdeo discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: The vehicle of Claim 11, wherein the first cup is fixed to the hinge key such that when the motorized tailgate is moved from a closed position to an open position, the motorized tailgate moves relative to the first cup (see previously rejected claim 5).
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jergess et al. (US10,731,395).
Claim 1. Jergess discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: A hinge assembly (100 hinge assembly, Fig. 5a-b) configured to couple either a motorized tailgate or a non-motorized tailgate (52 tailgate, 54 end of tailgate; Fig. 1-3; tailgate can be configured to be automatically lowered or closed; and/or manually lowered or closed; Fig. 7d; Col. 5, lines 24-44) to a side wall of a bed of a vehicle (66 side of motor vehicle body, Fig. 1) the hinge assembly comprising:
a hinge bracket (implicit coupling of 64 hinge pin of 10; carried on or fixed to 66; Col. 3, lines 46-47) configured to be fixed to the side wall (carried on or fixed to 66; Col. 3, lines 46-47); and
an elongated hinge key (64 hinge pin, Fig. 1-2, 5a, 7a-d) having a proximate end attached to the hinge bracket (Fig. 1-2, 5a, 7a-d) and a distal end including a keyed surface (opposing flat surfaces of 64 depicted in Fig. 7a-d that couples to the corresponding flat surfaces of 28 pin socket, Fig. 3a-b);
a first cup (22 rotary drive cup, Fig. 3a-b) configured to be attached to the motorized tailgate (52 is motorized or manually operated); and
a second cup (24 fixed cup, Fig. 3a-b) configured to be attached to the non-motorized tailgate (52 is motorized or manually operated),
wherein the elongated key hinge key is configured to be attached to either the first cup or the second cup (64 is coupled to 22 and 24; Fig. 7a-d),
wherein, in a first configuration, the elongated key is configured to be fixed to the first cup that is attached to the motorized tailgate (when operated automatically or manually, 64 is fixed to 22 by the flat mating surfaces, Fig. 7a-d), and
wherein, in a second configuration, the elongated hinge key is configured to be received within the second cup that is attached to the non-motorized tailgate in a manner that the second cup is able to rotate about the elongated hinge key (when operated automatically or manually, 24 rotates around 64).
Claim 4. Jergess discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: The hinge assembly of Claim 1, wherein the keyed surface includes a profile that is configured to mate with an interior surface of the first cup that has a profile that corresponds to the profile of the keyed surface to prevent the first cup from rotating relative to the hinge key (opposing flat surfaces of 64 depicted in Fig. 7a-d that couples to the corresponding flat surfaces of 28 pin socket of 22, Fig. 3a-b).
Claim 8. Jergess discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: A vehicle comprising:
a vehicle body having a bed defined by a pair of side walls (walls of 66 vehicle body, Fig. 7a);
either a motorized tailgate or a non-motorized tailgate positioned between the pair of sidewalls and pivotably coupled to at least one sidewall of the pair of sidewalls by a hinge assembly (Fig. 7a-d), the hinge assembly including:
a hinge bracket configured to be fixed to the one side wall;
an elongated hinge key having a proximate end attached to the hinge bracket and a distal end including a keyed surface; and
a first cup configured to be attached to the motorized tailgate; and
a second cup configured to be attached to the non-motorized tailgate,
wherein the elongated hinge key configured to be attached to either the first cup or the second cup,
wherein, in a first configuration, the elongated hinge key is configured to be fixed to the first cup that is attached to the motorized tailgate, and
wherein, in a second configuration, the elongated hinge key is configured to be received within the second cup that is attached to the non-motorized tailgate in a manner that the second cup is able to rotate about the elongated hinge key (Jergess: see previously rejected claim 1).
Claim 11. Jergess discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: The vehicle of Claim 8, wherein the keyed surface includes a profile that is configured to mate with an interior surface of the first cup that has a profile that corresponds to the profile of the keyed surface to prevent the first cup from rotating relative to the hinge key (Jergess: see previously rejected claim 4).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jergess et al. (US10,731,395) in view of Sukhdeo et al. (US12,030,557).
Claim 2. Jergess discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: The hinge assembly of Claim 1.
Jergess does not disclose: the distal end includes a threaded aperture (82 thread in 68 opening of 40, Fig. 7) configured for receipt of a threaded pin (64 connector, Fig. 7) that fixes the hinge key to the first cup and prevents the first cup from rotating relative to the hinge key (64 connector couples 40 post to 56 pivot body and prevents rotation along with flat surfaces, Fig. 7).
Sukhdeo discloses a hinge assembly for a removable tailgate for a vehicle.
Sukhdeo teaches: the distal end includes a threaded aperture (82 thread in 68 opening of 40, Fig. 7) configured for receipt of a threaded pin (64 connector, Fig. 7) that fixes the hinge key to the first cup and prevents the first cup from rotating relative to the hinge key (64 connector couples 40 post to 56 pivot body and prevents rotation along with flat surfaces, Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hinge assembly of Jergess by including the threaded connector as taught by Sukhdeo with a reasonable expectation of success in order prevent the prevent rotation between the hinge key and cup as taught by Sukhdeo (Fig. 7).
Claim 3. Jergess, as best understood by the indefinite language, in view of Sukhdeo discloses: The hinge assembly of Claim 2, wherein the first cup has a through-hole (Sukhdeo: 66 opening, Fig. 7) configured to be aligned with the threaded aperture and configured for receipt of the threaded pin (Sukhdeo: Fig. 7).
Claims 6-7, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jergess et al. (US10,731,395) in view of Fabiano (US20030189354).
Claim 6. Jergess discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: The hinge assembly of Claim 1.
Jergess does not disclose: wherein the second cup includes a smooth interior surface that terminates at a bumper that extends radially inward from the interior surface and is configured to be, in the second configuration, abutted by the keyed surface of the elongated hinge key, and wherein the second cup is configured to, in the second configuration, rotate relative to the elongated hinge key until the keyed surface of the elongated hinge key abuts the bumper.
Fabiano discloses a hinge assembly for a tailgate comprising of a cup with radially inward facing flat portions wherein the flat portions interact with a hinge shaft to prevent relative movement between the two components.
Fabiano teaches: second cup (76 cup, Fig. 17) includes a smooth interior surface (71 bore, Fig. 15) that terminates at a bumper that extends radially inward from the interior surface (85 flat surfaces, Fig. 17) wherein the second cup is configured, in the second configuration, to be abutted by the keyed surface of the elongated hinge key (74 shaft abuts 85, Fig. 19-20), and wherein, the second cup is configured to, in the second configuration, rotate relative to the elongated hinge key until keyed surface of the elongated hinge key abuts the bumper (Fig. 19-20; [0052-0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hinge assembly of Jergess by incorporating a cup with flat surfaces to abut against a post as taught by Fabiano with a reasonable expectation of success in order to restrict the rotation between the cup and post as taught by Fabiano ([0052-0054]).
Claim 7. Jergess, as best understood by the indefinite language, in view of Fabiano teaches: The hinge assembly of Claim 6, wherein the second cup is fixed to the non-motorized tailgate and is configured to rotate about the hinge key as the non-motorized tailgate is moved from a closed position to an open position (Jergess: see previously rejected claim 1).
Claim 13. Jergess discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: The hinge assembly of Claim 8.
Jergess does not disclose: wherein the second cup includes a smooth interior surface that terminates at a bumper that extends radially inward from the interior surface and is configured to be, in the second configuration, abutted by the keyed surface of the elongated hinge key, and wherein the second cup is configured to, in the second configuration, rotate relative to the elongated hinge key until the keyed surface of the elongated hinge key abuts the bumper.
Fabiano discloses a hinge assembly for a tailgate comprising of a cup with radially inward facing flat portions wherein the flat portions interact with a hinge shaft to prevent relative movement between the two components.
Fabiano teaches: second cup (76 cup, Fig. 17) includes a smooth interior surface (71 bore, Fig. 15) that terminates at a bumper that extends radially inward from the interior surface (85 flat surfaces, Fig. 17) wherein the second cup is configured, in the second configuration, to be abutted by the keyed surface of the elongated hinge key (74 shaft abuts 85, Fig. 19-20), and wherein, the second cup is configured to, in the second configuration, rotate relative to the elongated hinge key until keyed surface of the elongated hinge key abuts the bumper (Fig. 19-20; [0052-0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the hinge assembly of Jergess by incorporating a cup with flat surfaces to abut against a post as taught by Fabiano with a reasonable expectation of success in order to restrict the rotation between the cup and post as taught by Fabiano ([0052-0054]).
Claim 14. Jergess, as best understood by the indefinite language, in view of Fabiano teaches: The hinge assembly of Claim 6, wherein the second cup is fixed to the non-motorized tailgate and is configured to rotate about the hinge key as the non-motorized tailgate is moved from a closed position to an open position (Jergess: see previously rejected claim 8).
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 Daniel Craig whose telephone number is (571)270-0747. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571)270-7741. 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.
/DANIEL T CRAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights