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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemaire et al. (US 20240123889 A1) in view of Miller et al. (US 20130025954 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lemaire et al. teaches “A hinge structure (100; Fig 5A) for a vehicle (10; Fig 5A) having a vehicular frame (12; Fig 5A) and a utility bed (40; Fig 5A), the hinge structure is configured to pivotably couple the utility bed to the vehicular frame (¶0112, Lines 3-6), the hinge structure, comprising: a frame portion (120; Fig 5B) adapted to be removably coupled to the vehicular frame (¶0113, Lines 9-13) and including a base adapted to contact the vehicular frame (120 rear face; Fig 5B) and defining a hole (130; Fig 3B) to receive a fastener (132; Fig 3B) to enable the removably coupling of the frame portion with the vehicular frame(¶0117, Lines 1-7) …”
Lemaire et al. fails to disclose a barrel portion supported by a removably attached frame member.
However, Miller et al. discloses a similar removably attached hinge with a barrel portion, as seen as component 66 in Fig 3.
Therefore, it 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 to
combine the teachings of Lemaire et al. and Miller et al. with reasonable expectation of success for a stronger hinge with less stress risers, fit for the heavy capacity of a dump bed. Despite Miller et al. being for a truck hood assembly, the application is still automotive and would easily be incorporated into the design of Lemaire et al.
With respect to claim 2, Miller et al. discloses “The hinge structure of claim 1 (as taught by the combination of Lemaire et al. and Miller et al.), wherein the frame portion (16; Fig 3) includes an inverted U-shaped (¶018 , lines 5-9) structure extending vertically (24; Fig 3) from the base (20; Fig 3) and defining a first end opening to provide an access of an inside of the frame portion to a user to facilitate a coupling (27; Fig 3) and decoupling of the frame portion with the vehicular frame via the fastener (28; Fig 3).”
In reference to claim 3, Miller et al. discloses “The hinge structure of claim 2, wherein the inverted U-shaped structure includes a pair of sidewalls (24 &26; Fig 3) arranged spaced apart and parallel to each other, the pair of sidewalls extends perpendicularly to the base (20; Fig 3), and a roof plate (60; Fig 3) arranged opposite to and facing the base and supported on the pair of sidewalls, wherein the barrel portion (66; Fig 3) is fixedly attached (38; Fig 3) to and supported on the roof plate.”
Regarding claim 4, Lemaire et al. discloses the utility bed, as component 40, in Fig 5A.
Lemaire et al. fails to discloses a stopper structure attached to the frame of the hinge.
Miller et al. teaches “The hinge structure of claim 2 further including a stopper structure (54; Fig 3 and 4) coupled to the frame portion (16; Fig 3) and disposed opposite to and facing the first end opening...”
Therefore, it 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 to
combine the teachings of Lemaire et al. and Miller et al. with reasonable expectation of success for a stronger hinge with less stress risers, fit for the heavy capacity of a dump bed. Despite Miller et al. being for a truck hood assembly, the application is still automotive and would easily be incorporated into the design of Lemaire et al.
Regarding claim 9, Lemaire et al. teaches “A vehicle (10; Fig 5A), comprising: a vehicular frame (12; Fig 5A) defining an opening; a utility bed (40; Fig 5A) pivotally coupled to the vehicular frame (¶0112, Lines 3-6) and pivotable between a hauling position and a dumping position (¶003); a hinge structure (100; Fig 5A) pivotally coupling the utility bed to the vehicular frame, the hinge structure including a frame portion (120; Fig 5B) removably coupled to the vehicular frame (¶0113, Lines 9-13) and including a base arranged contacting the vehicular frame (120 rear face; Fig 5A) and defining a hole (136; Fig 5A) arranged aligned with the opening…” Furthermore, Lemaire et al. also teaches a utility bed.
Lemaire et al. fails to teach a barrel portion of a removably attached hinge body portion.
However, Miller et al. teaches “...a barrel portion (66; Fig 3) supported on the frame portion (16; Fig 3) and pivotally coupled with the utility bed, wherein the utility bed (as taught by Lemaire et al.) pivots about a central axis of the barrel portion; and a fastener (28; Fig 3) extending through the aligned hole and the opening and removably coupling the hinge structure to the vehicular frame.”
Therefore, it 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 to
combine the teachings of Lemaire et al. and Miller et al. with reasonable expectation of success for a stronger hinge with less stress risers, fit for the heavy capacity of a dump bed. Despite Miller et al. being for a truck hood assembly, the application is still automotive and would easily be incorporated into the design of Lemaire et al.
With respect to claim 10, Miller et al. discloses “The vehicle of claim 9 (as taught by the combination of Lemaire et al. and Miller et al.), wherein the frame portion (16; Fig 3) includes an inverted U-shaped structure (¶018, lines 5-9) extending vertically (24; Fig 3) from the base (20; Fig 3) and defining a first end opening to provide an access of an inside of the frame portion to a user to facilitate a coupling and decoupling (27; Fig 3) of the frame portion with the vehicular frame via the fastener (28; Fig 3).”
In reference to claim 11, Miller et al. teaches “The vehicle of claim 10, wherein the inverted U-shaped structure includes a pair of sidewalls (24 &26; Fig 3) arranged spaced apart and parallel to each other, the pair of sidewalls extends perpendicularly to the base (20; Fig 3), and a roof plate (60; Fig 3) arranged opposite to and facing the base and supported on the pair of sidewalls, wherein the barrel portion (66; Fig 3) is fixedly attached (38; Fig 3) to and supported on the roof plate.”
Regarding claim 12, Lemaire et al. discloses a utility bed.
Lemaire et al. does not disclose a stopper on the hinge body.
However, Miller et al. teaches “The vehicle of claim 10, wherein the hinge structure includes a stopper structure (54; Fig 3) coupled (¶031, lines 1-7) to the frame portion (16; Fig 3) and disposed opposite to and facing the first end opening…” Moreover, the stopper abutting the bed is taught by Miller et al.’s hinge stopper abutting the hood. The hood is then replaced by the bed in the combination of Lemaire et al. and Miller et al.
Therefore, it 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 to
combine the teachings of Lemaire et al. and Miller et al. with reasonable expectation of success for a stronger hinge with less stress risers, fit for the heavy capacity of a dump bed. Despite Miller et al. being for a truck hood assembly, the application is still automotive and would easily be incorporated into the design of Lemaire et al.
With respect to claim 17, Lemaire et al. teaches “A vehicle (10; Fig 5A), comprising: a vehicular frame (12; Fig 5A) defining an opening; a utility bed (40; Fig 5A) pivotally coupled to the vehicular frame (¶0112, Lines 3-6) and pivotable between a hauling position and a dumping position(¶003); a hinge structure (100; Fig 5A) pivotally coupling the utility bed to the vehicular frame, the hinge structure including a frame portion (120; Fig 5B) removably coupled to the vehicular frame (¶0112, Lines 3-6) and including a base arranged contacting the vehicular frame (120 rear face; Fig 5A) and defining a hole (130; Fig 3B) arranged aligned with the opening…” Furthermore, Lemaire et al. also teaches a utility bed.
Lemaire et al. fails to teach a barrel portion of a removably attached hinge body portion.
However, Miller et al. teaches “…a barrel portion (66; Fig 3) supported on the frame portion (16; Fig 3) and integrally attached to the frame portion (38; Fig 3), wherein the utility bed (as taught by Lemaire et al.) is pivotally coupled to the barrel portion and pivots about a central axis of the barrel portion, and a stopper structure (54; Fig 3) integrally attached (¶031, lines 1-7) to the frame portion and configured to abut the utility bed in the dumping position; and a fastener (28; Fig 3) extending through the aligned hole (27; Fig 3) and the opening and removably coupling the hinge structure to the vehicular frame.”
Therefore, it 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 to
combine the teachings of Lemaire et al. and Miller et al. with reasonable expectation of success for a stronger hinge with less stress risers, fit for the heavy capacity of a dump bed. Despite Miller et al. being for a truck hood assembly, the application is still automotive and would easily be incorporated into the design of Lemaire et al.
Regarding claim 18, Miller et al. teaches “The vehicle of claim 17 (as taught by the combination of Lemaire et al. and Miller et al.), wherein the frame portion (16; Fig 3) includes an inverted U-shaped structure (¶018 , lines 5-9) extending vertically (24; Fig 3) from the base (20; Fig 3) and defining a first end opening to provide access of an inside of the frame portion to a user to facilitate a coupling (27; Fig 3) and decoupling of the fastener (28; Fig 3) to the frame portion and the vehicular frame.”
With respect to claim 19, Miller et al. teaches “The vehicle of claim 18, wherein the inverted U-shaped structure includes a pair of sidewalls (24 &26; Fig 3) arranged spaced apart and parallel to each other, the pair of sidewalls extends perpendicularly to the base (20; Fig 3), and a roof plate (60; Fig 3) arranged opposite to and facing the base and supported on the pair of sidewalls, wherein the barrel portion (66; Fig 3) is fixedly attached (38; Fig 3) to and supported on the roof plate.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 13-16, 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.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Lemaire et al. and Miller et al. fails to teach “The hinge structure of claim 4, wherein the stopper structure includes a wall extending obliquely and outwardly from the roof plate in a vertically downward direction, and a stopper attached to the wall and extending substantially perpendicularly to the wall, wherein the stopper is configured to abut the utility bed.”
While the combination of references does disclose a stopper structure, it does not extend from the roof plate of the hinge assembly.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of prior art does not teach “The hinge structure of claim 5, wherein the wall is integrally attached to the frame portion.” The combination of prior art does not teach claim 5, from which this claim depends. Therefore, it is allowable subject matter.” The combination of prior art does not teach claim 5, from which this claim depends.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Lemaire et al. and Miller et al. fails to teach “The hinge structure of claim 5, wherein the stopper is removably engaged with the wall.” While the stopper structure in Miller et al. is removable, the combination of prior art does not teach claim 5, from which this claim depends.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lemaire et al. and Miller et al. fails to teach “The hinge structure of claim 7, wherein the wall defines a cavity and the stopper includes a protrusion extending through the cavity to enable the removable engagement of the stopper to the wall.” The combination of prior art does not teach claim 5, from which this claim depends.
In reference to claim 13, the combination of prior art fails to teach “The vehicle of claim 12, wherein the stopper structure includes a wall extending obliquely and outwardly from the roof plate in a vertically downward direction, and a stopper attached to the wall and extending substantially perpendicularly to the wall, wherein the stopper abuts the utility bed in the dumping position.”
While the combination of references does disclose a stopper structure, it does not extend from the roof plate of the hinge assembly.
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Lemaire et al. and Miller et al. fails to disclose “The vehicle of claim 13, wherein the wall is integrally attached to the frame portion.” The combination of prior art does not teach claim 12, from which this claim depends.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of prior art fails to teach “The vehicle of claim 13, wherein the stopper is removably engaged with the wall.” While the stopper structure in Miller et al. is removable, the combination of prior art does not teach claim 13, from which this claim depends.
With respect to claim 16, the combination of references does not disclose “The vehicle of claim 15, wherein the wall defines a cavity and the stopper includes a protrusion extending through the cavity to enable the removable engagement of the stopper to the wall.” The combination of prior art does not teach claim 12, from which this claim depends.
In reference to claim 20, the combination of prior art fails to teach “The vehicle of claim 19, wherein the stopper structure includes a wall extending obliquely and outwardly from the roof plate in a vertically downward direction, and a stopper attached to the wall and extending substantially perpendicularly to the wall, wherein the stopper abuts the utility bed in the dumping position.”
While the combination of references does disclose a stopper structure, it does not extend from the roof plate of the hinge assembly.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ROBERT DIGIOVANNANTONIO whose telephone number is (571)272-4526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/D.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612