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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. Claims 2, 5, 10, 11, and 14 remain canceled. Claims 16-20 remain withdrawn. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12-13, and 15-21 are currently pending.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, 12-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leet (U.S. 3,887,092) in view of Diephuis (U.S. 11,975,647) and Chandler (U.S. 2007/0158968).
Regarding claim 1, Leet teaches a vehicle, comprising: a bed (B) for transporting cargo; a tailgate member (34); and an actuation mechanism (66) coupling the tailgate member (34) to the bed (B), the actuation mechanism (66) being operable to: pivot the tailgate member (34) between a closed position (as seen in fig 5) and a horizontal, open position (as seen in fig 1); and adjust a height of the tailgate member (34) relative to the bed (B, as seen in figs 1, 3, and 4), wherein: the bed (B) comprises a deck (also B, see fig 5) on which to place the cargo (as seen in fig 1).
Leet does not teach the tailgate member is in a vertical position when closed, or that the actuation mechanism can be automated in response to an activation signal.
Diephuis teaches a similar height-adjustable tailgate where the tailgate is in a vertical position when closed (as seen in fig 1), and the actuation mechanism adjusts the height of the tailgate automatically (as described in column 6, lines 50-54 “the tailgate may be usable in one or more modes. In automatic use mode, the controller 56 may be able to automatically move the tailgate…”) in response to an activation signal (sensors 58, 60, and 62 column 5, lines 42-45).
Leet and Diephuis are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of height-adjustable tailgates for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leet to incorporate the teachings of Diephuis and provide a tailgate that is vertical when closed. Doing so would conserve space by fully seating the tailgate to the vehicle bed, and also eliminate a pinch point between the tailgate and the bed when in the closed position. It would be been further obvious to automate the actuation mechanism to automatically adjust the height of the tailgate member. Doing so would add convenience to the user by automatically adjusting the height of the tailgate member and eliminating the input from a user. Diephuis teaches several positions the tailgate member can be adjusted to, including position P sub 1 as seen in fig 4, where the tailgate member is level with the deck of the cargo bed. Diephuis further teaches utilizing sensors to level the tailgate relative to a load, column 4, lines 55-59.
Neither Leet nor Diephuis teach an accessory storage compartment positioned on the deck adjacent the tailgate member (34).
Chandler teaches a similar vehicle with a tailgate comprising an accessory storage compartment (14 ) having a top surface (18) forming part of a load-bearing surface of the bed (see fig 1) and an access opening (as seen by drawer pulls 46 in fig 2) facing the tailgate member.
The combination then, of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler, would see the actuation mechanism (66) is operable to adjust the height of the tailgate member (34), while in the horizontal, open position, to be level with a top surface of the storage compartment (tailgate member 34 of Leet can be adjusted to be the height anywhere between the lower limit of gate travel shown in fig 3 and upper level of gate travel shown in fig 4, described in column 4, lines 4-19 of Leet).
Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles with tailgates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Leet and Diephuis to incorporate the teachings of Chandler and provide an accessory storage compartment on the deck of the vehicle, adjacent to the tailgate member. Doing so would provide a designated storage area in the bed of the truck for storing items that would protect the stored items from the weather, as taught by Chandler in [0013]. Figs 3 and 4 of Leet show the tailgate member height can be adjusted at anywhere along the range of travel, and fig 4 of Diephuis shows the actuator can be programmed to adjust the tailgate height to pre-set positions. It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler to automatically adjust the height of the tailgate member to be level with a top surface of the accessory storage compartment in order for the user to store items in the bed of the vehicle on top of the storage compartment.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler teaches the vehicle according to claim 1. Leet further teaches wherein: the bed (B) comprises: two side walls (71) attached to the bed (B); and the actuation mechanism (66) is operable to adjust the height of the tailgate member (34) between a top position, intermediate position or bottom position of the side walls (tailgate member 34 can be adjusted to be the height anywhere between the lower limit of gate travel shown in fig 3 and upper level of gate travel shown in fig 4, described in column 4, lines 4-19).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler teaches the vehicle according to claim 1. Leet and Diephuis further teach wherein, in response to the activation signal (via sensors 58, 60, and 62, column 5, lines 42-45 of Diephuis) received by processing circuitry, the actuation mechanism (66 Leet) automatically adjusts (per the combination above) the height of the tailgate (34 Leet) to a pre-programmed height (controller 56 of Diephuis commands actuator to standard positions, as seen in fig 4, described in column 6, lines 22-30).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler teaches the vehicle according to claim 1. Leet further teaches wherein the actuation mechanism (66) is operable to adjust the height of the tailgate manually (via lever 67).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler teaches the vehicle according to claim 1. Leet is silent as to the type of engine the vehicle utilizes. Diephuis teaches the adjustable height tailgate on a vehicle where the vehicle is an electric vehicle (column 3, lines 33-35 state the vehicle can be an electric vehicle).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Leet and Chandler to incorporate the teachings of Diephuis and utilize the height-adjusting tailgate on an electric vehicle, as electric vehicles are widely known and provide benefits such as lower running cost and reduced environmental impact in comparison to other known vehicle engine types such as gas powered.
Regarding claim 9, Leet teaches a height-adjustable tailgate for vehicles, comprising: a tailgate member (34); an actuation mechanism (66) coupling the tailgate member (34) to a vehicle bed (B) for transporting cargo, the actuation mechanism (66) being operable to: pivot the tailgate member (34) between a closed position (as seen in fig 5) and a horizontal, open position (as seen in fig 1); and adjust a height of the tailgate member (34) relative to the vehicle bed (B, as seen in figs 1, 3, and 4), wherein: the vehicle bed (B) comprises a deck (also B, see fig 5) on which to place the cargo (as seen in fig 1).
Leet does not teach the tailgate member is in a vertical position when closed, or that the actuation mechanism can be automated in response to an activation signal.
Diephuis teaches a similar height-adjustable tailgate where the tailgate is in a vertical position when closed (as seen in fig 1), and the actuation mechanism adjusts the height of the tailgate automatically (as described in column 6, lines 50-54 “the tailgate may be usable in one or more modes. In automatic use mode, the controller 56 may be able to automatically move the tailgate…”) in response to an activation signal (sensors 58, 60, and 62 column 5, lines 42-45).
Leet and Diephuis are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of height-adjustable tailgates for vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leet to incorporate the teachings of Diephuis and provide a tailgate that is vertical when closed. Doing so would conserve space by fully seating the tailgate to the vehicle bed, and also eliminate a pinch point between the tailgate and the bed when in the closed position. It would be been further obvious to automate the actuation mechanism to automatically adjust the height of the tailgate member. Doing so would add convenience to the user by automatically adjusting the height of the tailgate member and eliminating the input from a user. Diephuis teaches several positions the tailgate member can be adjusted to, including position P sub 1 as seen in fig 4, where the tailgate member is level with the deck of the cargo bed. Diephuis further teaches utilizing sensors to level the tailgate relative to a load, column 4, lines 55-59.
Neither Leet nor Diephuis teach an accessory storage compartment positioned on the deck adjacent the tailgate member (34).
Chandler teaches a similar vehicle with a tailgate comprising an accessory storage compartment (14 ) having a top surface (18) forming part of a load-bearing surface of the bed (see fig 1) and an access opening (as seen by drawer pulls 46 in fig 2) facing the tailgate member.
The combination then, of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler, would see the actuation mechanism (66) is operable to adjust the height of the tailgate member (34), while in the horizontal, open position, to be level with a top surface of the storage compartment (tailgate member 34 of Leet can be adjusted to be the height anywhere between the lower limit of gate travel shown in fig 3 and upper level of gate travel shown in fig 4, described in column 4, lines 4-19 of Leet).
Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles with tailgates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Leet and Diephuis to incorporate the teachings of Chandler and provide an accessory storage compartment on the deck of the vehicle, adjacent to the tailgate member. Doing so would provide a designated storage area in the bed of the truck for storing items that would protect the stored items from the weather, as taught by Chandler in [0013]. Figs 3 and 4 of Leet show the tailgate member height can be adjusted at anywhere along the range of travel, and fig 4 of Diephuis shows the actuator can be programmed to adjust the tailgate height to pre-set positions. It would be obvious to combine the teachings of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler to automatically adjust the height of the tailgate member to be level with a top surface of the accessory storage compartment in order for the user to store items in the bed of the vehicle on top of the storage compartment.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler teaches the tailgate according to claim 9. Leet further teaches wherein the actuation mechanism (66) is operable to adjust the height of the tailgate manually (via lever 67).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler teaches the tailgate according to claim 9. Leet further teaches wherein: the vehicle bed (B) comprises: two side walls (71) attached to the bed (B); and the actuation mechanism (66) is operable to adjust the height of the tailgate member (34) between a top position, intermediate position or bottom position of the side walls (tailgate member 34 can be adjusted to be the height anywhere between the lower limit of gate travel shown in fig 3 and upper level of gate travel shown in fig 4, described in column 4, lines 4-19).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler teaches the tailgate according to claim 9. Leet is silent as to the type of engine the vehicle utilizes. Diephuis teaches the adjustable height tailgate on a vehicle where the vehicle is an electric vehicle (column 3, lines 33-35 state the vehicle can be an electric vehicle).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Leet and Chandler to incorporate the teachings of Diephuis and utilize the height-adjusting tailgate on an electric vehicle, as electric vehicles are widely known and provide benefits such as lower running cost and reduced environmental impact in comparison to other known vehicle engine types such as gas powered.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leet (U.S. 3,887,092) in view of Diephuis (U.S. 11,975,647) and Chandler (U.S. 2007/0158968) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Woods (U.S. 12,227,242).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler teaches the vehicle according to claim 1. Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler are silent as to a battery pack positioned on the deck level with the accessory storage compartment (14 Chandler).
Woods teaches a similar vehicle to the claimed invention where a battery pack (202, see fig 4A) is located in the cargo area of the vehicle bed.
Leet, Diephuis, Chandler, and Woods are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles with tailgates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler to incorporate the teachings of Woods and provide a battery pack positioned on the deck where the height is level with the accessory storage compartment. As Woods teaches this battery pack located in one half of a vehicle cargo area, it would be obvious to locate the battery pack of Woods in the other side of the accessory storage compartment of Chandler (within the storage compartment 16, opposite storage compartment 14). Doing so would provide a weather-resistant location for containing the battery in order to protect the battery from weather.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leet (U.S. 3,887,092) in view of Diephuis (U.S. 11,975,647) and Chandler (U.S. 2007/0158968) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Schalyo (U.S. 12,015,263).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler teaches the vehicle according to claim 1. Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler are silent as to a gesture of a user automatically adjusting the tailgate member.
Schalyo teaches a similar vehicle to the claimed invention that performs an adjustment request for the tailgate based on a gesture of a user (column 8, lines 7-11).
Leet, Diephuis, Chandler, and Schalyo are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicles with tailgates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler to incorporate the teachings of Schalyo and provide a method of adjusting the vehicle tailgate position based on a gesture from a user. As Diephuis already teaches automatic tailgate adjustment bases on input from sensors, it would be obvious to further incorporate a user gesture to automate the tailgate adjustment in order to provide a user-input but hands-free way of providing input on the height adjustment of the tailgate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 9 to incorporate additional details of the claimed accessory storage compartment. As a result of the amendments, the examiner performed a further prior art search which discovered the art of Chandler, who teaches an accessory storage compartment having a top surface forming part of a load bearing surface of the cargo bed, with an access opening facing the tailgate member. As such, the combination of Leet, Diephuis, and Chandler teaches the independent claims as amended.
In their arguments, applicant incorrectly categorizes Diephuis as disclosing the automated movement of a tailgate to only preset positions. However, Diephuis, as described in this office actions, utilizes input from sensors 58, 60, and 62 to determine the position to adjust the tailgate height.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach automatic tailgate leveling, however, as noted above, the prior art of Diephuis does teach this feature. However, applicant’s claimed invention does not appear to teach automatic tailgate leveling. The claims and written description offer no teaching as to how the tailgate can be automatically leveled, and instead relates the tailgate height to three pre-determined positions, as shown in fig 4. Applicant’s description [0043-0044] describes these three pre-determined positions.
Applicant argues that the combination of prior art fails to teach the bed-integrated accessory compartment as a tailgate height adjustment reference, however, the prior art of Diephuis teaches sensors for tailgate adjustment and therefore the height of the tailgate could use any reference for which to adjust the tailgate. In contrast, applicant’s claimed invention utilizes pre-set positions to adjust the tailgate and therefore only teaches the bed-integrated accessory compartment as a height adjustment reference if it is programed as such as position #2, as described in [0043] of applicant’s disclosure.
Applicant has further argued that the combination of Leet and Diephuis would render each inoperable for their intended purposes. Applicant argues that the intended purpose for Leet is to provide a lift gate mechanism that is detachable and the intended purpose for Diephuis is to provide a permanent lift assembly. However, the combination of Leet and Diephuis teaches the lift gate mechanism of Leet can be automated, as taught by Diephuis. Elements that create the connection for automation are known to be detachable, and therefore there is no indication that the combination of Leet and Diephuis would be improper due to Leet being intended to be detachable and Diephuis being intended to be permanently attached.
Applicant’s newly added claim 21 adds that a gesture by a user can be used as in input to automatically adjust the tailgate position. This new claim prompted a prior art search which discovered the art of Schalyo, who teaches that a tailgate adjustment request can be a gesture by a user, as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan M Heschel whose telephone number is (571)272-6621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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 Troy can be reached at (571)270-3742. 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.
/SUSAN M. HESCHEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631