DETAILED ACTION
This action is a first action on the merits. The claims filed on March 18, 2024 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on March 18, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 6-7 and 13 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.
Claim 6: The term “substantially” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this instance it is unclear as to how much out of a common plane the surface s of the first and second panels can be and still be considered to “substantially” lie in a common plane.
Claim 7: The term “substantially” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this instance it is unclear as to what size the surface area can be and still considered to be “substantially” twice the surface area of the work surface in a folded position.
Claim 13: The term “substantially” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In this instance it is unclear as to what range is includes within a range between substantially 800 mm and substantially 900 mm above a ground surface.
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(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pascarella, US 2020/0164781 (hereinafter Pascarella).
Claim 17: Pascarella discloses a method, comprising:
opening (by lowering, see Fig 2) a tailgate (tailgate 15) of a motor vehicle (vehicle 10);
after the opening step (shown in Fig 2), sliding at least one panel (left and right wing panel 43, 44 and center panel 22) of a deployable workstation (extendable workstation 20) rearward (as shown by arrow A in Fig 3) relative to the tailgate (15) without also raising the at least one panel (extension table 20 shown moving translationally away from the truck bed 11 along the path of arrow A, as shown in Fig 3), , wherein the at least one panel is configured to provide a work surface (left and right wing panels and center panel 22 provide work surfaces); and
after the sliding step (see Fig 3), raising (via pivoting as shown by arrow B in Fig 4, par [0052]) the at least one panel (left wing panel or right wing panel 43, 44) relative to the tailgate (15).
Claim 18: Pascarella discloses wherein the at least one panel (left or right wing panel 43, 44, center panel 22) includes a first panel (left or right wing panel 43, 44) and a second panel (center panel 22), and wherein the method further comprises rotating the first panel (left or right wing panel 43, 44) relative to the second panel (22) from a folded position (shown in Fig 3-4) to an unfolded position (shown in Fig 5) to provide a work surface having a surface area substantially twice an upper surface of the tailgate (surface area of extendable table 20 when extended as shown in Fig 5 is substantially twice an upper surface area of the tailgate 15, as seen in Fig 5, par [0053]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascarella, US 2020/0164781 (hereinafter Pascarella) in view of Speis, US 5,575,521 (hereinafter Speis).
Claim 1: Pascarella discloses a motor vehicle (vehicle 10), comprising:
a tailgate (tailgate 15) moveable between a closed position (as shown in Fig 1) and an open position (as shown in Fig 2); and
a deployable workstation (extension table 20) including at least one panel (left wing panel 33, right wing panel 28), wherein an upper surface (top surface of left wing panel 33, top surface of right wing panel 28, top surface center panel 22) of the at least one panel (left wing panel 43, right wing panel 44, top surface center panel 22) provides a work surface (extension table 20), wherein, when the tailgate (15) is in the open position (see Fig 5, par [0053]), the deployable workstation (20) is movable relative to the tailgate (15) between a stowed position (shown in Fig 2, par [0050]) and at least one extended position (see Fig 5) in which the at least one panel (33, 28, 22) is extended relative to the stowed position (table assembly 20 is extended in Fig 5 relative to Fig 2), and wherein the deployable workstation (20) is configured such that the at least one panel (43, 44, 22) is moveable from the stowed position (as shown in Fig 2) by sliding rearward (arrow A in Fig 3, par [0051]).
Pascarella fails to disclose at least one raised position in which the at least one panel is raised relative to the stowed position and is moveable from the stowed position by sliding rearward before being raised.
Speis discloses a deployable workstation (tailgate table 6) for a tailgate (2). The workstation (6) includes at least one raised position (as shown in Figure 1, 5A) in which the at least one panel (6) is raised relative to the stowed position (as shown in Fig 5C) and is positioned at the rear edge of the tailgate (2) in a stowed position (see Fig 5C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the deployable workstation of Pascarella of include a raised position relative to the tailgate as disclosed by Speis as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of raising the workstation would have allowed the deployable workstation to extend off the open tailgate into a raised position thereby providing an extremely stable workstation that can support considerable weight (abstract, Fig 5A). Further, it would have been obvious for the at least one panel to moveable from a stowed position by sliding rearward prior to raising as this would have moved the workstation closer to the edge of the tailgate thereby making it easier to raise.
Claim 2: Pascarella, as modified by Speis, discloses wherein the at least one panel (left wing panel 43, right wing panel 44, top surface center panel 22) includes a first panel and a second panel (Pascarella, extension table 300 includes left wing panel 43 and right wing panel 44 which extend out from center panel 22, see Fig 5, par [0049]).
Claim 3: Pascarella, as modified by Speis, discloses wherein the first panel (Pascarella, left wing panel 43 or ring wing panel 44) is rotatable (Pascarella, arrow B as shown in Fig 4) relative to the second panel (center panel 22) between a folded position (see Fig 3) and an unfolded position (Pascarella, see Fig 5) to vary a surface area of the work surface (Pascarella, full extension capacity in Fig 5 is greater than the folded capacity in Fig 3).
Claim 4: Pascarella, as modified by Speis, discloses wherein in the folded position, the first panel substantially vertically overlaps the second panel (Pascarella, left wing panel 43 and right wing panel 44 are folded over the center panel 22, as shown in Fig 3).
Claim 5: Pascarella, as modified by Speis, discloses wherein the unfolded position (shown in Fig 5), a surface of the first panel (Pascarella, left wing panel 43 or ring wing panel 44) and a surface of the second panel (22) provide the work surface (Pascarella, Fig 5, par [0049]).
Claim 6: Pascarella, as modified by Speis, discloses wherein, in the unfolded position (as shown in Fig 5), the surface of the first pane (top surface 33 of left wing panel or top surface 28 of right wing panel)l and the surface of the second panel (top surface of central panel 22) substantially lie in a common plane (panel surfaces 33, 22, and 28 all lie in the same plane as shown in Fig 5).
Claim 7: Pascarella, as modified by Speis, discloses wherein, in the unfolded position (Pascarella, see Fig 3), the work surface exhibits a surface area substantially twice the surface area of the work surface in the folded position (Pascarella, the extension of left and right wing panels 43, 44, creates a work surface as seen in Fig 5 which is twice the surface area of panels in the folded position as shown in Fig 3).
Claim 8: Pascarella, as modified by Speis, discloses wherein, in the unfolded position (see Fig 5), the work surface (33, 22, 28) exhibits a surface area substantially twice the surface area of an upper surface of the tailgate (surface of tailgate 15) (top surfaces 33, 22, and 28 exhibits a surface area substantially twice the surface of the tailgate 15, see Fig 5).
Claim 9: Pascarella, as modified by Speis, discloses wherein the deployable workstation (20) includes a linkage assembly (Speis, hinged arm 206) configured to facilitate sliding (Speis, panel 204 may slide forward and rearward along a slot 210, see Fig 6, par [0052]) and raising of the at least one panel relative to the tailgate (Speis, panel 204 hingedly pivots between a closed position and an extended open position relative to tailgate 104 from a rear section 102 of the vehicle 100, Figure 1, 5A, par [0047]).
Claim 14: Pascarella, as modified by Speis, discloses wherein the deployable workstation (Pascarella, 20, Speis, 204) includes a support leg (stabilizer bar 212) forward of the linkage assembly (hinged arm 206) (Speis, as shown in Fig 6-8).
Claim 17: Pascarella discloses a method, comprising:
opening (by lowering, see Fig 2) a tailgate (tailgate 15) of a motor vehicle (vehicle 10);
after the opening step (shown in Fig 2), sliding at least one panel (left and right wing panel 43, 44 and center panel 22) of a deployable workstation (extendable workstation 20) rearward (as shown by arrow A in Fig 3) relative to the tailgate (15) without also raising the at least one panel (extension table 20 shown moving translationally away from the truck bed 11 along the path of arrow A, as shown in Fig 3), , wherein the at least one panel is configured to provide a work surface (left and right wing panels and center panel 22 provide work surfaces).
Pascarella is silent as to after the sliding step, raising the at least one panel relative to the tailgate.
Speis discloses a method of deploying a deployable workstation (tailgate table 6). The method includes raising the workstation (6) relative to the tailgate (2) (as shown in Figure in Fig 5A) and is positioned at the rear edge of the tailgate (2) in a stowed position (see Fig 5C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of deploying the workstation of Pascarella of include raising the at least one panel relative to the tailgate as disclosed by Speis as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of raising the workstation would have allowed the deployable workstation to extend off the open tailgate into a raised position thereby providing an extremely stable workstation that can support considerable weight (abstract, Fig 5A).
Claim 18: Pascarella, as modified by Speis, discloses wherein the at least one panel (Pascarella, left or right wing panel 43, 44, center panel 22) includes a first panel (left or right wing panel 43, 44) and a second panel (center panel 22), and wherein the method further comprises rotating the first panel (left or right wing panel 43, 44) relative to the second panel (22) from a folded position (shown in Fig 3-4) to an unfolded position (shown in Fig 5) to provide a work surface having a surface area substantially twice an upper surface of the tailgate (Pascarella, surface area of extendable table 20 when extended as shown in Fig 5 is substantially twice an upper surface area of the tailgate 15, as seen in Fig 5, par [0053]).
Claim 19: Pascarella, as modified by Speis, discloses wherein the raising step includes raising the at least one panel (Speis, as shown in Figure in Fig 5A) such that the work surface is above a ground surface.
Pascarella, as modified by Speis is silent as to raising the at least one panel such that the work surface is within a range of substantially 800 mm and substantially 900 mm above a ground surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to raise the at least one panel such that the work surface is within a range of substantially 800 mm and substantially 900 mm above a ground surface, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pascarella in view of Speis as applied to claim 14 and further in view of Bly, US 5,427,033 (hereinafter Bly).
Claim 15: Pascarella, as modified by Speis fails to disclose wherein the support leg includes first and second vertical portions and a horizontal portion extending between the first and second vertical portions, and wherein, when the support leg is deployed, the horizontal portion is configured to contact a floor of a cargo area of the motor vehicle or the tailgate.
Bly discloses a support leg (auxiliary brace 30 includes first and second vertical portions and a horizontal portion (cross piece 31) extending between the first and second vertical portions (as shown in Fig 1, 4) and wherein, when the support leg (30, 31) is deployed, the horizontal portion (31) is configured to contact a floor of a cargo area of the motor vehicle or the tailgate (cross piece 31 of the auxiliary brace 30 rests against the floor 8 of the trunk 7 when the table 10 is in its unfolded position, see Fig 4, col ln 54-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the support leg of Speis with the support leg as disclosed by Bly as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of a support leg contacting the floor of a cargo area of the motor vehicle or the tailgate would have yield the predictable results of bracing or supporting the deployable workstation with a support that is easy to fold and unfold (Bly, col 3, ln 3- 16).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Speis in view of Pascarella.
Claims 16: Sepsis discloses a motor vehicle (pickup truck 1), comprising: a tailgate (tailgate 2) moveable between a closed position (folded position, abstract) and an open position (unfolded position as shown in Fig 1, abstract); and
a deployable workstation (table 6) including a panel (box 8 with lid 9) wherein, when the tailgate (2) is in the open position (see Fig 1-2), the panel (8/9) is movable relative to the tailgate (2) between a stowed position (shown in Fig 5C) and at least one raised position (shown in Fig 5A) in which the table (6) raised relative to the stowed position (table 6 is raised relative to the tailgate 2 in Fig 5A versus stowed in Fig 5c).
Sepsis fails to disclose the deployable workstation including a first panel and a second panel and wherein the first panel and second panel are configurable relative to one another to provide a work surface exhibiting a surface area substantially twice a surface area of an upper surface of the tailgate.
Pascarella discloses a deployable workstation (extension table 20) including a first panel (left wing panel 43 or right wing panel 44) and a second panel (top surface center panel 22) and wherein the first panel (43 or 44) and second panel (22) are configurable relative to one another to provide a work surface (top surfaces 33, 22, 28) exhibiting a surface area (shown in Fig 5) substantially twice a surface area of an upper surface of the tailgate (surface area of top surfaces 33, 22, and 28 is substantially twice a surface area of an upper surface of tailgate 15, as shown in Fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the deployable workstation of Sepsis with the multiple panels of deployable workstation of Pascarella as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of first and second panels would have allowed for a deployable workstation with an expandable work surface that is both flat and substantially larger than the surface of the tailgate (Pascarella, par [0001]-[0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 10-13, and 20 contain allowable subject matter over the closest prior art as discussed above.
Regarding claim 10, Speis further discloses wherein the linkage assembly (pivot arm 4) includes is connected to a pin adjacent respective first end thereof (as shown in Fig 5A-5C), and the pin (as shown in Fig 2, 5A-5C on support panel 5, col 2, ln 52-60) is received in a slot (at support panel 5) formed in a side of the at table (6)
Pascarella, as modified by Speis does not discloses the linkage assembly includes a first link and second link connected to a pin adjacent respective first ends thereof.
Regarding claim 20, Pascarella discloses wherein the deployable workstation (20) includes a linkage assembly (sliding mechanisms 16a, 16b, and 16c) configured to facilitate sliding (sliding as shown by arrow A in Fig 3).
Sepsis disclose a linkage mechanism (arm 4) for raising of the at least one panel (6) (see Fig 5A-5C) and wherein the method further comprises moving a support leg (leg or legs 7) to a deployed position (shown in Fig 7) to support the at least one panel (6), and wherein the support leg (7) is forward of the linkage assembly (4).
Pascarella, as modified by Speis does not discloses a single linkage that both facilitates sliding (without raising) and raising nor would a combination of Pascarella and Speis disclose these limitations.
Conclusion
Claims 1-9 and 13-19 are rejected. Claims 10-12 and 20 are objected to. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE N BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 pm EST.
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 E 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.
/CAROLINE N BUTCHER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676