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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) since the lines, numbers, and letters are not sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined as to give the drawings satisfactory reproduction characteristics.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because “disposed at” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what spatial relationship the applicant is attempting to set forth. How close to the rear facing end exterior surface does the auxiliary tail lap set have to be in order to be “disposed at” the corresponding rear facing end exterior surface of the pair of sidewalls?
Appropriate correction is required.
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 14-20 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.
Recitations such as “connects between” on line 6 of claim 14 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. Is the applicant attempting to set forth that the cable operatively connects the spindle to the tailgate?
Recitations such as “the closed position” on line 8 of claim 14 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what element of the invention has the closed position to which the applicant is referring. Is the applicant referring to the closed position of the tailgate?
Recitations such as “the open position” on line 8 of claim 14 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear what element of the invention has the open position to which the applicant is referring. Is the applicant referring to the open position of the tailgate?
Recitations such as “the main frame is in the closed position” on line 2 of claim 16 render the claims indefinite because they lack antecedent basis. Note that the applicant has set forth that the tailgate has the closed position rather than the main frame.
Recitations such as “the main frame is in the open position” on line 7 of claim 16 render the claims indefinite because they lack antecedent basis. Note that the applicant has set forth that the tailgate has the open position rather than the main frame.
Double Patenting
Currently there are not double patenting rejections based on the following copending US applications:
18/926945
18/927041
18/926983
18/926904
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seifert (US 5449212). Seifert discloses a vehicle tailgate apparatus, comprising:
a tailgate 44 (fig. 1) configured to move between an open position, as shown in figure 1, and a closed position (not shown) at a rear end of a luggage compartment (not labeled but shown in figure 1) of a vehicle body 46; and
a drive mechanism 12 (fig. 2) configured to move the tailgate 44 between the open position and the closed position, wherein the drive mechanism 12 includes a spindle drive 14, 20 configured to be extended or retracted since the nut 20 extends and retracts along the length of the threaded spindle/screw 14, and a cable 26 that connects between the spindle drive 14, 20 and the tailgate 44.
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 1-4 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. (US 6793264) in view of Weingaertner et al. (US 2014/0165469). Muller et al. discloses a vehicle tailgate apparatus, comprising:
a tailgate 5 (fig. 4) configured to move between an open position as shown in figure 4 and a closed position (not shown) at a rear end of a luggage compartment (labeled below) of a vehicle body 1; and
a drive mechanism 11 (fig. 4) configured to move the tailgate 5 from the open position to the closed position, wherein the drive mechanism 11 includes a drive 19 (fig. 2) configured to be extended or retracted, and a cable 13 (fig. 4) that connects between the drive mechanism 11 and the tailgate 5 (claim 1).
Muller et al. is silent concerning the drive mechanism being configured to move the tailgate between the open position and the closed position and the drive mechanism including a spindle drive configured to be extended or retracted.
However, Weingaertner et al. discloses a drive mechanism 3 (figs. 1 and 2) configured to move a tailgate 2 (fig. 1) between an open position and a closed position and the drive mechanism 3 including a spindle drive 13 configured to be extended or retracted.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Muller et al. with a drive mechanism, as taught by Weingaertner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to enable a user to automatically move the tailgate between open and closed positions.
With respect to claim 2, Muller et al. discloses that the vehicle tailgate apparatus is configured such that the drive mechanism 11 is extended in the closed position, and the drive mechanism 11 is retracted in the open position (claim 2);
With respect to claim 3, Muller et al., as modified above, discloses that the spindle drive 13 includes a first spindle end portion 10 (fig. 2) disposed adjacent to the tailgate 5, and a second spindle end portion 9 (fig. 2) located farther from the tailgate 5 than the first spindle end portion 10, and wherein the vehicle tailgate apparatus is configured such that as the spindle drive 13 is extended, the second spindle end portion 9 of the spindle drive 13 moves toward a front of the vehicle body 1, and as the spindle drive 13 is retracted, the second spindle end portion 9 of the spindle drive moves toward a rear of the vehicle body 1.
With respect to claim 4, Muller et al., as modified above, discloses that a first cable end portion (labeled below) of the cable 13 is connected to the tailgate 5, and wherein a second cable end portion (labeled below) of the cable 13 is connected to the second spindle end portion 9 of the spindle drive 13.
With respect to claim 10, Muller et al., as modified above, discloses that the drive mechanism further 11 includes a guide pulley (labeled below) configured to guide a movement of the cable 13.
With respect to claim 11, Muller et al., as modified above, discloses that the spindle drive 13 (fig. 2) comprises: a housing tube 11b, 19 (fig. 2); a moving tube 11a configured to move with respect to the housing tube 11b, 19; a motor 12 disposed in the housing tube 11b, 19; a spindle 15 configured to be rotated by the motor 12; and a spindle nut 16 meshing with the spindle 15, wherein the moving tube 11a is configured to move between a retracted position adjacent to the housing tube and an extended position away from the housing tube.
With respect to claim 12, Muller et al., as modified above, discloses that the spindle drive further comprises a guide tube (labeled below) configured to guide a movement of the moving tube 11a.
With respect to claim 13, Muller et al., as modified above, discloses that the spindle drive 13 further comprises a spring 1a (fig. 2) configured to bias the moving tube 11a toward the extended position.
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muller et al. in view of Weingaertner et al. as applied to claims 1-4 and 10-13 above, and further in view of Napoli (US 2018/0265140). Napoli discloses drive mechanism 22 (fig. 3) including a guide rail 45 configured to guide a movement of a second end portion (labeled below) of a linear drive 41, 42.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Muller et al., as modified above, with a guide rail, as taught by Napoli, with a reasonable expectation of success to support and guide the movement of the second spindle end portion 9 as the tailgate 5 is opened and closed and to prevent damage to the spindle drive 13.
With respect to claim 6, Muller et al., as modified above, further discloses that the drive mechanism further includes a rail block 46 connected to the second spindle end portion 9 of the spindle drive 13, wherein the rail block 46 is configured to slide along the guide rail 45.
With respect to claim 7, Muller et al., as modified above, further discloses that a second cable end portion (labeled below) of the cable is connected to the rail block 46.
With respect to claim 9, Muller et al., as modified above, discloses that the drive mechanism 11 further includes a stopper 37 (fig. 2) configured to limit a moving range of the rail block 46 as the rail block moves toward the rear of the vehicle body 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
1652
1110
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1664
1124
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1648
1102
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is allowed.
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 the rail block including a slide groove into which the guide rail is slidably inserted, a connection projection to which the second spindle end portion of the spindle drive is connected, and a fixed pin to which the second cable end portion of the cable is connected. See lines 1-4 of claim 8.
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 the combination of drive mechanism, a vehicle, and a tailgate which includes a main frame having a bottom portion, and a pair of side portions extending from both ends of the bottom portion, respectively, wherein at least part of the luggage compartment is defined by interior surfaces of a pair of sidewalls and a bed, wherein the pair of side portions of the main frame are aligned with corresponding outside surfaces of the pair of sidewalls, respectively, and wherein the bottom portion is aligned with the bed. See claim 14, lines 18-22.
Additionally, the prior art of record fails to teach the combination of drive mechanism, a vehicle, and a tailgate, wherein the tailgate includes a main frame having a bottom portion, and a pair of side portions extending from both ends of the bottom portion, respectively, wherein at least part of the luggage compartment is defined by interior surfaces of a pair of sidewalls and a bed, wherein the pair of side portions of the main frame are aligned with corresponding outside surfaces of the pair of sidewalls, respectively, and wherein the bottom portion is aligned with the bed. See claim 19, lines 18-23.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
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
Prosecution Insights