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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gammon et al. (US 6,502,885).
With respect to claim 18, Gammon et al. disclose a tailgate assembly for a vehicle, the tailgate assembly comprising:
a tailgate body 16 pivotally connectable to the vehicle, the tailgate body:
being pivotable relative to the vehicle about a first axis between a first position and a second position (Gammon et al., col. 3, lines 10-13); and
defining at least one storage area 30 (as shown in Fig. 4 of Gammon et al.);
a tailgate sub-body 32 connected to the tailgate body 16, the tailgate sub-body 32 being a liner covering for one of a side of the tailgate body (the sub-body 32 can be considered a liner since it is the outermost portion of the tailgate that would contact any loads in the cargo area of the vehicle 12), the tailgate sub-body 32 being moveable relative to the tailgate body between a third position (as shown in Fig. 3 of Gammon et al. and a fourth position as shown in Fig. 4 of Gammon et al.);
a link connected to the tailgate body 16 and the tailgate sub-body 32 as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 4 of Gammon et al.:
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (link)]
PNG
media_image1.png
454
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the link being moveable between:
a first link position, in which the tailgate sub-body is in the third position (as can be inferred from Figs. 1 and 4 of Gammon et al.); and
a second link position, in which the tailgate sub-body 32 is in the fourth position (as shown in above);
with the tailgate body 16 in the first position, and the link in the first link position, the tailgate assembly is in a first configuration (not shown–but would be when the tailgate body 16 is closed and latched to the vehicle); and
with the tailgate body 16 in the second position (as shown in Fig. 4 of Gammon et al.), and the link in the second link position, the tailgate assembly is in a second configuration.
With respect to claim 21, Gammon et al. disclose that the tailgate sub-body 32 is pivotable about a second axis (as shown in Figs. 3-4 of Gammon et al.).
With respect to claim 22 Gammon et al. disclose that in the second configuration, the tailgate sub-body could be used as a work surface.
With respect to claim 23, Gammon et al. disclose that in one of the first and second configurations, the tailgate assembly 16 is configured to support a work surface as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 4 of Gammon et al.:
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (work surface)]
PNG
media_image2.png
447
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 25, Gammon et al. disclose that the tailgate body 16 is at least partially hollow and the at least one storage area is an internal storage (as shown above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katterloher et al. (US 2007/0090662) in view of Matlack (US 5,518,158).
With respect to claim 18, Katterloher et al. disclose the claimed tailgate assembly except for the link connected to the tailgate body and the tailgate sub-body, the link being moveable between a first link position and a second link position. Katterloher et al. disclose a tailgate assembly for a vehicle, the tailgate assembly comprising:
a tailgate body 10 pivotally connectable to the vehicle 14, the tailgate body:
being pivotable relative to the vehicle about a first axis between a first position (not shown–when the tailgate 10 is latched in the closed position) and a second position (pivoting about the primary hinges 14,” Katterloher et al., paragraph [0015]; Fig. 1); and
defining at least one storage area 18 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Katterloher et al.);
a tailgate sub-body 30 connected to the tailgate body 10, the tailgate sub-body 30 being a liner covering for one of a side of the tailgate body 10 (the sub-body 30 can be considered a liner since it is the outermost portion of the tailgate that would contact any loads in the cargo area of the vehicle 13), the tailgate sub-body 30 being moveable relative to the tailgate body between a third position (“closed,” Katterloher et al., paragraph [0020]) and a fourth position (“opened,” Katterloher et al., paragraph [0020] Fig. 1).
Matlack teaches a similar tailgate assembly including a tailgate body 16 and a tailgate sub-body 14 wherein a link 24 connected to the tailgate body 16 and the tailgate sub-body 14, the link being moveable between:
a first link position, in which the tailgate sub-body is in the third position (as shown in Fig. 5 of Matlack); and
a second link position, in which the tailgate sub-body is in the fourth position (as shown in Fig. 3 of Matlack);
with the tailgate body 16 in the first position, and the link 24 in the first link position, the tailgate assembly is in a first configuration (as shown in Fig. 5 of Matlack); and
with the tailgate body 16 in the second position, and the link 24 in the second link position, the tailgate assembly is in a second configuration (as shown in Fig. 3 of Matlack).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Matlack with the tailgate assembly disclosed by Katterloher et al. for the advantage of the link 24 being an actuator which assists opening of the tailgate sub-body and maintains the tailgate sub-body in an opened position (Matlack, col. 3, lines 47-63).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gammon et al. (US 6,502,885).
With respect to claim 19, Gammon et al. disclose the claimed tailgate assembly except that they are silent on whether the link is selectively connected to at least one of the tailgate body and the tailgate sub-body. However, it has been held that making something separable is obvious if there is a motivation for separating that structure. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is “press fitted” and therefore not manually removable. The court held that “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”). See MPEP § 21044.04, part V.
In this case, it would be desirable to make the link selectively connected to the tailgate body in the event that the link or the tailgate sub-body was broken or damaged and needed to be replaced.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katterloher et al. (US 2007/0090662) in view of Matlack (US 5,518,158), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Soncag (US 2024/0109471).
With respect to claim 27, Katterloher et al. in view of Matlack disclose the claimed tailgate assembly except for the tailgate body including an extension assembly. However, Soncag teaches a similar tailgate assembly including an extension assembly 210/212/315B/317B (Soncag, paragraph [0039]; Fig. 3).
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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Soncag with the tailgate assembly disclosed by Katterloher et al. in view of Matlack for the advantage of allowing the tailgate body to be used as a workbench including support for long work pieces 632 (Soncag, paragraph [0053]; Fig. 6).
With respect to claim 28, Soncag teaches that the extension assembly includes telescoping members 210/212 (Soncag, paragraph [0039]; Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 18-19, 21-23, 25 and 27-28 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.
New references to Gammon et al. and Katterloher et al. have been applied to separately to claim 18 each of which disclose a tailgate sub-body that is a liner covering for the tailgate body. Matlack is combined with Katterloher et al. in order to provide a teaching of the link that is moveable between a first link position, in which the tailgate sub-body is in the third position; and a second link position, in which the tailgate sub-body is in the fourth position.
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 J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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 J Colilla/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights