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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed January 6, 2026.
Drawings
The drawing correction of August 13, 2025 and January 6, 2026 have been approved.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it is unclear how a single sensor is capable of sensing a position of the tailgate, contact between the tailgate and the body, tension/torque of the counterweight member, inclination of the vehicle, and objects blocking the tailgate as set forth on lines 1-10 of paragraph 70 as amended October 23, 2025. How is a single sensor able to sense all of these different characteristics of the system 10? Clarification or amendment of the language in question is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
The amendment filed January 6, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “the controller 22 can further determine the tension on the actuator 12 or a torque of the counterweight member 13. In certain embodiments, the controller 22 can be configured to determine a force generated by the tailgate 32 against the body 34 of the vehicle 30 on a periodic or continual basis. In certain embodiments, the force is determined in real time.” See lines 12-18 of paragraph 70 as amended January 6, 2026. What comprises “tension on the actuator”? How does the tailgate generate a force?
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because “at least one sensor configured to sense a position of the closure panel” on lines 1-2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the at least one sensor set forth above or is attempting to set forth another sensor in addition to the one set forth above. Note that the angular position set forth in claim 1 appears to be the same as the position set forth in claim 14.
Claim 34 is objected to because “at least one sensor configured to sense a position of the closure panel” on lines 1-2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the at least one sensor set forth above or is attempting to set forth another sensor in addition to the one set forth above. Note that the angular position set forth in claim 22 appears to be the same as the position set forth in claim 34.
Claim 35 is objected to because “the torque generated by the counterweight member” on line 7 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the counterweight member generates a torque. It appears that the counterweight member releases energy stored therein rather than generating the torque.
Claim 42 is objected to because “a force of an attachment” on line 15 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What comprises a “force of an attachment”? How does an attachment have a force?
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 4-8 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiberger et al. (US 2017/0089116) in view of Schatz et al. (US 2019/0368255) and Holt et al. (US 2018/0328097). Heiberger et al. discloses a system for moving a hinge 20, 22 between an open position and a closed position, the hinge coupling a closure panel 30 to a body 80, comprising:
an actuator 10 for driving the closure panel 30 between an open position and a closed position of the closure panel relative to the body;
a counterweight member 56 (fig. 6A) coupled to the closure panel 30 to generate a torque for reducing a mechanical effort provided by the actuator 10 to drive the closure panel 30;
at least one sensor 46 (fig. 1) configured to sense an angular position of the closure panel 30, and
a controller (not shown, but set forth on lines 2-3 of paragraph 31) configured to control the system (claim 1);
wherein the closure panel 30 comprises an outer panel (not shown, but set forth on line 5 of paragraph 28), an interior panel (not shown, but set forth on line 6 of paragraph 28), and an inner space between the outer panel and the interior panel, the counterweight member 56 being configured for mounting in the inner space (claim 2);
wherein the counterweight member 56 includes a torsion spring (note that element 56 comprises a torsion spring since element 56 is an elastic body that recovers its original shape after a torque is applied thereto) configured to twist along an axis of the torsion spring (claim 4);
wherein the counterweight member 56 includes a torsion rod configured to resist twisting and generate a tendency to untwist (claim 5);
wherein the actuator 10 moves between an extended configuration (when the sector gear 61 (fig. 3) is in the position corresponding to the closure panel being open) and a retracted configuration (when the sector gear 61 is in the position corresponding to the closure panel being closed) along a first axis (labeled below), and wherein the counterweight member 56 rotates about a second axis (labeled below), the second axis being different than the first axis (claim 6);
further comprising at least one latch 48 configured to lock the closure panel 30 in the closed position of the closure panel (claim 7);
wherein the at least one latch 48 is configured to cinch the closure panel 30 towards the closed position of the closure panel (claim 8);
comprising at least one sensor 46 configured to sense a position of the closure panel 30 (claim 14);
wherein the closure panel 30 is a vehicle tailgate (claim 15);
wherein the body 80 is a truck (claim 16).
Heiberger et al. is silent concerning the torque generated by the counterweight member being proportional to an angle through which the counterweight member is twisted upon rotation of the closure panel and the controller being configured to receive, from a sensor, a torque value based specifically on the torque generated by the counterweight member for use by the controller to control the system.
However, Schatz et al. discloses a system for moving a hinge comprising a counterweight member 15, wherein a torque 40 (fig. 21) generated by the counterweight member 15 being proportional to an angle through which the counterweight member 15 is twisted upon rotation of a closure panel 14 (fig. 1A). See figure 21 which shows that the torque 40 available from the counterweight member 15 being linearly proportional to an angular position of the closure panel 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the counterweight member 56 of Heiberger et al. with a torque output which is proportional to an angle through which the counterweight member is twisted upon rotation of the closure panel, as taught by Schatz et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a predictable output of the counterweight member so that the position and velocity of the closure panel can be more easily and accurately controlled.
Additionally, Holt et al. discloses a system for moving a hinge comprising a controller 22 being configured to receive, from a sensor 27, a torque value based specifically on a torque applied to a closure panel (not shown, but see “door” on line 8 of paragraph 42) for use by the controller 22 to control the system. Note that the sensor 27 is configured to sense a torque generated by a counterweight member (see lines 5-7 of paragraph 12 and claim 1 which sets forth a system that utilizes a torque sensor to measure the torque applied to the door which would include the torque from the counter weight member of Heiberger et al.). Since the system of Holt et al. measures the torque applied to the door, it would include a torque applied by a counterweight member and hence sense the torque generated by the counterweight member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Heiberger et al. with a sensor, as taught by Holt et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a user with a constant resistive torque feel while operating the door in a manual mode.
It should be noted that Holt et al. further discloses that the sensor 27 can be integrated with the power drive module 18 (see lines 3-4 of paragraph 49) which includes the position sensor 40. Thus, the torque sensor and the position sensor would comprise the applicant’s claimed sensor.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiberger et al. in view of Schatz et al. and Holt et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Ozog et al. (US 2022/0297771). Ozog et al. discloses a system for moving a hinge comprising an actuator 122 wherein the actuator is a linear actuator (claim 18); further comprising a crank arm 307, the crank arm 307 operatively linking a closure panel 118 to the actuator 122 (claim 19); wherein the actuator 122 comprises one or more sockets 352, and wherein a body 104 and the crank arm 307 each comprise a ball, each ball configured to be disposed in a respective one of the one or more sockets 352 (claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the actuator of Heiberger et al., as modified above, with a linear actuator, as taught by Ozog et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the size and the cost of manufacturing the actuator by reducing the weight of the closure panel.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiberger et al. in view of Schatz et al. and Holt et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 14-16 above, and further in view of Sproule et al. (US 2020/0340282).
Sproule et al. discloses a system for moving a hinge comprising a closure panel 50 and a body (labeled below), wherein the body comprises an outer panel (labeled below), an interior panel (labeled below), and an inner space (labeled below) between the outer panel and the interior panel, the actuator 20 being mounted in the inner space (claim 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to mount the system for moving a hinge of Heiberger et al., as modified above, within the body, as taught by Sproule et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the weight of the door and attendant size and power of the actuator.
Claims 1-3, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Tyagi et al. (US 10569812) in view of Schatz et al. (US 2019/0368255) and Holt et al. (US 2018/0328097). Tyagi et al. discloses a system for moving a hinge 752 between an open position and a closed position, the hinge coupling a closure panel 112, 114 to a body 102, comprising:
an actuator 761 (fig. 9) for driving the closure panel 112 between an open position and a closed position of the closure panel relative to the body;
a counterweight member 750 (fig. 9) coupled to the closure to generate a torque for reducing a mechanical effort provided by the actuator to drive the closure panel;
at least one sensor 2104 (fig. 21 and lines 7-9 of column 20) configured to sense an angular position of the closure panel 112; and
a controller (not shown, but set forth on line 21 of column 4) configured to control the system (claim 1);
wherein the closure panel 112, 114 comprises an outer panel (not numbered, but shown in figure 2), an interior panel (not numbered, but shown in figure 1), and an inner space between the outer panel and the interior panel as shown in figure 7, the counterweight member 750 being configured for mounting in the inner space as shown in figure 7 (claim 2);
wherein the actuator 761 (fig. 9) is configured to be disposed outside the inner space of the closure panel 112 when only the closure panel 112 is rotated (claim 3);
further comprising a switch (not shown, but comprising the switch on the key fob set forth on lines 22-24 of column 14) configured to trigger the controller (claim 10);
wherein the switch is disposed on a wireless key fob as set forth on lines 22-24 of column 14 (claim 11).
Tyagi et al. is silent concerning the torque generated by the counterweight member being proportional to an angle through which the counterweight member is twisted upon rotation of the closure panel and the controller being configured to receive, from at least one sensor, a torque value based specifically on the torque generated by the counterweight member for use by the controller to control the system.
However, Schatz et al. discloses a system for moving a hinge comprising a counterweight member 15, wherein a torque 40 (fig. 21) generated by the counterweight member 15 being proportional to an angle through which the counterweight member 15 is twisted upon rotation of a closure panel 14 (fig. 1A). See figure 21 which shows that the torque 40 available from the counterweight member 15 being linearly proportional to an angular position of the closure panel 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the counterweight member 750 of Heiberger et al. with a torque output which is proportional to an angle through which the counterweight member is twisted upon rotation of the closure panel, as taught by Schatz et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a predictable output of the counterweight member so that the position and velocity of the closure panel can be more easily and accurately controlled.
Additionally, Holt et al. discloses a system for moving a hinge comprising a controller 22 being configured to receive, from a sensor 27, a torque value based specifically on a torque applied to a closure panel (not shown, but see “door” on line 8 of paragraph 42) for use by the controller 22 to control the system. Note that the sensor 27 is configured to sense a torque generated by a counterweight member (see lines 5-7 of paragraph 12 and claim 1 which sets forth a system that utilizes a torque sensor to measure the torque applied to the door which would include the torque from the counter weight member of Tyagi et al.). Since the system of Holt et al. measures the torque applied to the door, it would include a torque applied by a counterweight member and hence sense the torque generated by the counterweight member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Tyagi et al. with a sensor, as taught by Holt et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a user with a constant resistive torque feel while operating the door in a manual mode.
It should be noted that Holt et al. further discloses that the sensor 27 can be integrated with the power drive module 18 (see lines 3-4 of paragraph 49) which includes the position sensor 40. Thus, the torque sensor and the position sensor would comprise the applicant’s claimed sensor.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi et al. in view of Schatz et al. and Holt et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Ekman et al. (US 2022/0070635). Ekman et al. discloses a switch for controlling a tailgate which is accessed via a GUI on a smart phone as set forth on lines 1-16 of paragraph 34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Tyagi et al., as modified above, with GUI on a smart phone, as taught by Ekman et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to easily and remotely control the tailgate via a smart phone.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi et al. in view of Schatz et al. and Holt et al. as applied to claims 1-3, 10 and 11 above, and further in view of Sproule et al. (US 2020/0340282). Sproule et al. discloses a switch 132 disposed on the body as set forth on lines 7-10 of paragraph 42.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Tyagi et al., as modified above, with a control switch disposed on the body, as taught by Sproule et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to operate the tailgate while positioned within the vehicle.
Claims 35-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiberger et al. (US 2017/0089116) in view of Ozog et al. (US 2022/0297771) and Holt et al. (US 2018/0328097). Heiberger et al. discloses a method of closing a tailgate 30 (fig. 1) of a vehicle 80 (fig. 7A), comprising:
actuating an actuator 10 (fig. 1) so as to rotate the tailgate 30 towards a closed position;
releasing mechanical energy stored in a counterweight member 56 (fig. 6A) to assist the actuator 10 rotating the tailgate 30 towards the closed position (claim 35).
Heiberger et al. is silent concerning a linear actuator sensing a torque generated by the counterweight member, and feedbacking to a controller a signal comprising a torque value based specifically on the torque generated by the counterweight member for use by the controller to control a system.
However, Ozog et al. discloses a method of closing a tailgate 118 of a vehicle 100 comprising extending a spindle 204 (fig. 2A) of a linear actuator 122 so as to rotate the tailgate 118 towards a closed position as shown in figure 1B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the actuator of Heiberger et al. with linear actuator, as taught by Ozog et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the size and cost of manufacturing the actuator by reducing the weight of the closure panel.
Additionally, Holt et al. discloses a method of closing a gate (not shown, but see “door” on line 8 of paragraph 42) comprising sensing a torque applied to the gate as set forth on lines 5-7 of paragraph 12; and feedbacking to a controller 22 a signal comprising a torque value based specifically on the torque applied to the gate for use by the controller 22 to control a system as set forth in paragraphs 49 and 55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the system of Heiberger et al. with a control method, as taught by Holt et al., with a with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a user with a constant resistive torque feel while operating the door in a manual mode.
It should be noted that the control method disclosed by Holt et al. senses the torque applied to the gate and therefore senses the torque generated by the counterweight member since the torque generated by the counterweight member is applied to the gate. Additionally, the sensor 27 of Holt et al. feedbacks to the controller 22 a torque value based specifically on the torque generated by the counterweight member since the sensor 27 measures the total torque applied to the gate which would include the torque generated by the counterweight member.
With respect to claim 36, Heiberger et al. further discloses cinching the tailgate 30 into the closed position via the cinch latches 48 as set forth on lines 7-8 of paragraph 42.
With respect to claim 37, Heiberger et al. disclose that the counterweight member 56 includes a torsion spring since the element 56 is an elastic body that recovers its original shape after a torque is applied thereto.
With respect to claim 38, Heiberger et al. discloses that the counterweight member 56 includes a torsion rod.
With respect to claim 39, Heiberger et al. further discloses sensing a position of the tailgate 30 via the position encoder 46 as set forth in paragraph 36.
With respect to claim 40, Heiberger et al. discloses that the sensed position includes an open position.
With respect to claim 41, Heiberger et al., as modified above, discloses that extending the spindle 204 is based at least in part on the sensed position since the controller needs to at least know that the tailgate 30 is in the opened position before starting a closing operation.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heiberger et al. (US 2017/0089116) in view of Schatz et al. (US 2019/0368255) and Holt et al. (US 2018/0328097). Heiberger et al. discloses a system for moving a hinge 20, 22 between an open position and a closed position, the hinge coupling a closure panel 30 to a body 80, comprising:
an actuator 10 for driving the closure panel 30 between an open position and a closed position of the closure panel 30 relative to the body 80;
a counterweight member 56 (fig. 6A) coupled to the closure panel to generate a torque for reducing a mechanical effort provided by the actuator 10 to drive the closure panel 30;
at least one sensor configured to sense an angular position of the closure panel; and
a controller (not shown, but set forth on lines 2-3 of paragraph 31) configured to control the system.
Heiberger et al. is silent concerning the torque generated by the counterweight member being proportional to an angle through which the counterweight member is twisted upon rotation of the closure panel and the controller being configured to receive, from at least one sensor, a torque value based specifically on the torque generated by the counterweight member for use by the controller to control the system.
However, Schatz et al. discloses a system for moving a hinge comprising a counterweight member 15, wherein a torque 40 (fig. 21) generated by the counterweight member 15 being proportional to an angle through which the counterweight member 15 is twisted upon rotation of a closure panel 14 (fig. 1A). See figure 21 which shows that the torque 40 available from the counterweight member 15 being linearly proportional to an angular position of the closure panel 14.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the counterweight member 56 of Heiberger et al. with a torque output which is proportional to an angle through which the counterweight member is twisted upon rotation of the closure panel, as taught by Schatz et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a predictable output of the counterweight member so that the position and velocity of the closure panel can be more easily and accurately controlled.
Additionally, Holt et al. discloses a system for moving a hinge comprising a controller 22 being configured to receive, from a sensor 27, a torque value based specifically on a torque applied to a closure panel (not shown, but see “door” on line 8 of paragraph 42) for use by the controller 22 to control the system. Note that the sensor 27 is configured to sense a torque generated by a counterweight member (see lines 5-7 of paragraph 12 and claim 1 which sets forth a system that utilizes a torque sensor to measure the torque applied to the door which would include the torque from the counter weight member of Heiberger et al.). Since the system of Holt et al. measures the torque applied to the door, it would include a torque applied by a counterweight member and hence sense the torque generated by the counterweight member. Holt et al. additionally discloses that the controller is configured to determine a force of an attachment between the closure panel and the body in real time since the sensor senses the torque applied to the closure panel. Thus, when the closure panel is in or almost in the closed position, the amount of torque applied to the system will increase in response to the “force of an attachment between the closure panel and the body” in real time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Heiberger et al. with a sensor, as taught by Holt et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a user with a constant resistive torque feel while operating the door in a manual mode.
It should be noted that Holt et al. further discloses that the sensor 27 can be integrated with the power drive module 18 (see lines 3-4 of paragraph 49) which includes the position sensor 40. Thus, the torque sensor and the position sensor would comprise the applicant’s claimed sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-26, 28, 29 and 31-33 allowed and claim 34 is objected to.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record, absent applicant’s own disclosure, fails to teach the entire combination of elements set forth in the claimed invention. Specifically, the prior art of record fails to teach a system for moving a tailgate of a vehicle between an open position and a closed position, the system comprising a linear actuator comprising a spindle and an outer tube, the spindle being movable between an extended position and a retracted position relative to the outer tube, the linear actuator being configured to drive the tailgate from the open position towards the closed position when the spindle moves from the retracted position to the extended position, a counterweight member disposed in the tailgate and configured to generate a torque to reduce a mechanical effort provided by the linear actuator to drive the tailgate to the closed position and a sensor configured to sense an angular position of the tailgate and send a torque value, based specifically on the torque generated by the counterweight member, to the controller. See claim 22.
PNG
media_image1.png
1630
1098
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1616
1108
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1660
1116
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are either moot in view of the new grounds of rejection or moot in view of the indication of allowable subject matter.
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 GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634