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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statements filed 3/10/2026 and 5/8/2026 have been considered and are included in the file.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 6, “toward an sidewall” should be changed to --toward a sidewall--.
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 1-19 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 1 recites the limitation "the first open position" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first open position" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-13 and 15-19 are rejected based on dependency of a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abbasi et al. (US 2012/0324793, noted in IDS dated 3/10/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Abbasi et al. discloses a vehicle tailgate apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising: a main frame (18) configured to move between an open position and a closed position through a pair of bottom hinges at a rear end of a luggage compartment of a vehicle body (Figs. 1, 3, and 5, hinged through (42)); a door ((14), (16)) pivotally connected to the main frame (through (26), (28), (30), (32)); and a door check mechanism (paragraph [0055], support (100)) configured to hold the door in the first open position (paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claim 20, Abbasi et al. discloses a vehicle tailgate apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising: a main frame (18) configured to move between an open position and a closed position through a pair of bottom hinges at a rear end of a luggage compartment of a vehicle body (Figs. 1, 3, and 5, hinged through (42)); a pair of doors ((14), (16)) pivotally connected to the main frame (through (26), (28), (30), (32)); and for each of the pair of doors, a door check mechanism (paragraph [0055], support (100)) configured to hold a corresponding door of the pair of doors in a first open position when the corresponding door is in the first open position (paragraph [0055]).
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbasi et al. (US 2012/0324793) in view of Kwon (KR 100208989, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 2, Abbasi et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 1 and discloses a check strip pivotally connected to a side portion of the main frame (Fig. 10, (100)). However, Abbasi et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the door check mechanism comprises: a stopper mounted inside of the door, wherein the stopper is configured to be releasably coupled to the check strip, and wherein the check strip is configured to move between an unfolded position in which the check strip is unfolded toward an outside of the vehicle body and a folded position in which the check strip is folded toward an sidewall of the vehicle body.
Kwon, like Abbasi et al., teaches an apparatus and further teaches wherein the stopper (4) is configured to be releasably coupled to the check strip (2), and wherein the check strip is configured to move between an unfolded position in which the check strip is unfolded toward an outside of the vehicle body and a folded position in which the check strip is folded toward an sidewall of the vehicle body ((2) folds, or is reduced, as the movement from one position to another occurs, reaching the stopper (4)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Abbasi et al. to include a check strip and stopper as taught by Kwon, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a more distinct positioning check mechanism. Further, using a known technique of checking a door motion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, since they would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kwon would yield predictable results for hold the door in place.
Regarding claim 4, Abbasi et al. as modified by Kwon teaches the apparatus of claim 2 and teaches (references to Kwon) wherein the door check mechanism further comprises a check bracket (6) fixed to the main frame, wherein the check strip (2) is pivotally connected to the check bracket through a pivot pin ((5) through (7)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbasi et al. (US 2012/0324793) in view of Kwon (KR 100208989, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nania et al. (US 2022/0001728).
Regarding claim 3, Abbasi et al. as modified by Kwon teaches the apparatus of claim 2. However, Abbasi et al. as modified by Kwon does not explicitly teach the apparatus further comprising a controller configured to: control opening/closing of the main frame between the open position and the closed position; and prevent the main frame from moving to the open position in response to the check strip being in the folded position.
Nania et al., like Abbasi et al., teaches an apparatus and further teaches a controller configured to: control opening/closing of the main frame between the open position and the closed position; and prevent the main frame from moving to the open position in response to the check strip being in the folded position (Fig. 12, paragraphs [0069]-[0071] teach the control and prevention of moving when in the open position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Abbasi et al. modified by Kwon to include a controller as taught by Nania et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to avoid the movement of the vehicle tailgate when not in a proper position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-13 and 15-19 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.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show features similar to those of Applicant’s vehicle tailgate apparatus, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the combined limitations of applicant’s claimed invention according to claims 5-19. Specifically, the configuration of the door check mechanism and the second open position combined with the other limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Trentin et al. (US 2020/0165850), Binder et al. (US 8740281), and Hosken et al. (US 5727287) teach a door check mechanism. Papoulias (US 11725435) and Van Norman et al. (US 2021/0245818) teaches two door vehicle tailgate apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate 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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
