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 02/15/2024.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following:
Figure 6 is recited as a cross sectional view however the figure does not include any cross hatching.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-14 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 “wherein the elongated key is configured to be fixed to a first cup…and configured to be received within a second cup...” The limitations directed to the “first cup” and the “second cup” are not positively recited as structural elements of the claimed hinge assembly. The preamble and transitional phrase (“a hinge assembly comprising”) limits the claimed subject matter to the hinge bracket and elongated hinge key. The “first cup” and “second cup” are introduced only within a wherein clause and are described solely in terms of being “configured to be attached” to respective motorized and non-motorized tailgates.
The claim does not affirmatively recite the first cup or second cup as components of the hinge assembly, nor does it clearly establish whether they are required structural elements of the claim assembly. As recited, it is unclear whether the first cup and second cup form a part of the hinge assembly; whether the assembly includes both cups simultaneously or alternatively; and what structural relationship, if any, is required between the first and second cups independent of the respective tailgates.
Because the first and second cup are relied upon to define the functional relationship of the elongated hinge key and not positively recited as structural elements of the claimed assembly, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14 which recite limitations such as “wherein the first cup…,” “wherein the second cup…,” and “interior surface of the first cup…,” are also indefinite because they depend from an independent claim that fails to positively recite these elements, and are unclear what structure the dependent claims further limit.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claims to positively recite the first and second cups as elements of the hinge assembly or by otherwise clarifying that these elements are part of the claim structure and defining their structural relationship with the elongated hinge key.
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 1-5, 8, and 10-12 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 or a non-motorized tailgate (18 tailgate, Fig. 1-2) 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),
wherein the elongated hinge key is configured to be fixed to a first cup (56 cavity of 46 pivot body, Fig. 3) that is configured to be attached to the motorized tailgate (46 is attached to tailgate, Fig. 2; 18 tailgate may be powered; Col. 7, lines 55-58) and configured to be received within a second cup (52 opening in 18, Fig. 2) that is configured to be attached to the non-motorized tailgate (Fig. 2) such that the second cup can rotate about the elongated hinge key (18 tailgate may rotate relative to 46 pivot body; Col. 4, lines 3-5).
Claim 2. Sukhdeo discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: The hinge assembly of Claim 1, wherein 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).
Claim 3. Sukhdeo discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: The hinge assembly of Claim 2, wherein the first cup has a through-hole (66 opening, Fig. 7) configured to be aligned with the threaded aperture and configured for receipt of the threaded pin (Fig. 7).
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,
wherein the elongated hinge key is configured to be fixed to a first cup that is configured to be attached to the motorized tailgate and configured to be received within a second cup that is configured to be attached to the non-motorized tailgate such that the second cup can rotate about the elongated hinge key (see previously rejected claim 1).
Claim 9. The vehicle of Claim 8, wherein the distal end includes a threaded aperture configured for receipt of a threaded pin that fixes the hinge key to the first cup and prevents the first cup from rotating relative to the hinge key (see previously rejected claim 2).
Claim 10. The vehicle of Claim 9, wherein the first cup has a through-hole configured to be aligned with the threaded aperture and configured for receipt of the threaded pin (see previously rejected claim 3).
Claim 11. 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. 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).
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 6-7, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sukhdeo et al. (US12030557) in view of Fabiano (US20030189354).
Claim 6. Sukhdeo discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: The hinge assembly of Claim 1.
Sukhdeo does not disclose: wherein 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 abutted by the keyed surface of the hinge key, the second cup being configured to rotate relative to the hinge key until keyed surface of the 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) and is configured to be abutted by the keyed surface of the hinge key (74 shaft abuts 85, Fig. 19-20), the second cup being configured to rotate relative to the hinge key until keyed surface of the 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 Sukhdeo 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. Sukhdeo, 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 (Sukhdeo: 18 tailgate in non-motorized, Fig. 1-2) and is configured to rotate about the hinge key as the non-motorized tailgate is moved from a closed position to an open position (Fabinao: Fig. 19-20, [0052-0054]).
Claim 13. Sukhdeo discloses, as best understood by the indefinite language: The vehicle of Claim 8.
Sukhdeo does not disclose: wherein 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 abutted by the keyed surface of the hinge key, the second cup being configured to rotate relative to the hinge key until keyed surface of the hinge key abuts the bumper.
Fabiano further teaches: 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 abutted by the keyed surface of the hinge key, the second cup being configured to rotate relative to the hinge key until keyed surface of the hinge key abuts the bumper (see previously rejected claim 6).
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 Sukhdeo 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. Sukhdeo, as best understood by the indefinite language, in view of Fabiano teaches: The vehicle of Claim 13, 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 (see previously rejected claim 7).
Conclusion
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 7:30 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