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 .
Election/Restriction
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 3, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informality: wording in the preamble of each claim. Replacing “The apparatus” with “The vehicle tailgate apparatus” in each occurrence is suggested.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 4. Replacing “by a pivot of the key member” with “by pivoting the key member” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 1-4, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Trumble et al. (US 20250332999 A1) (hereinafter “Trumble”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Trumble teaches a vehicle tailgate apparatus, comprising: a tailgate 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 [Trumble Fig. 13; Abstract: A tailgate step may include an actuation handle configured to be pivotably coupled to a vehicle tailgate.”]; and a step mechanism configured to move between a stowed position in which the step mechanism is stowed in the tailgate and a deployed position in which the step mechanism is deployed from the tailgate [Trumble Figs. 3, 4, and 13].
Regarding Claim 2, Trumble teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the step mechanism comprises: a link mechanism; a step body mechanically coupled to the link mechanism such that the step body is configured to move between the stowed position and the deployed position by the link mechanism; and a cover body mechanically coupled to the step body such that the cover body is configured to move between a cover position in which the cover body covers the step body and an uncover position in which the cover body uncovers the step body [Trumble Figs. 1, 4, 11, and 14, Reference Characters 32 (link mechanism), 52 (step body), 48 (cover body); Trumble Paragraph 0042: “the tailgate step system 32 includes a base frame 36 that rigidly connects to the tailgate frame 28, an actuation handle 40 that is structured to actuate the tailgate step system 32 between the stowed position and the deployed position, a step support link 44 that includes a step skin 48 that matches with (e.g., aligns, includes matching or coordinating graphics/symbols, colors, etc.) the tailgate skin 24, a step surface 52 that supports a user during use in the deployed position, and a rotating drive link 56 and a sliding drive link 60 that connect the actuation handle 40 and the step support link 44 via the base frame 36.”].
Regarding Claim 3, Trumble teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the link mechanism comprises: a pair of door-side brackets fixed to the tailgate; a pair of step-side brackets fixed to the step body; and a plurality of links pivotally connecting the pair of step-side brackets to the pair of door-side brackets, respectively, wherein a top end of each of the plurality of links is pivotally connected to a corresponding door-side bracket of the pair of door-side brackets, respectively, and wherein a bottom end of each of the plurality of links is pivotally connected to a corresponding step-side bracket of the pair of step-side brackets, respectively [Trumble Fig. 11, Reference Characters 36 (door-side bracket, typ), 44 (step-side bracket, typ), 96 (link, typ), C (axis where top end of link 96 is pivotally connected to door-side bracket 36), D (axis where bottom end of link 96 is pivotally connected to step-side bracket 44)].
Regarding Claim 4, Trumble teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the link mechanism further comprises a reinforcing portion connecting the pair of step-side brackets, and wherein the reinforcing portion is fixed to the step body [Annotated Trumble Fig. 8, below].
Regarding Claim 16, Trumble teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the link mechanism comprises a first link and a second link, and wherein the first link and the second link are configured such that when the step body is in the deployed position, at least a portion of the first link contacts the second link so that the step body is prevented from further rotating toward the tailgate [Trumble Figs. 11 and 13, Reference Characters 96 (first link) and 106 (second link)].
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Trumble Fig. 8
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trumble et al. (US 20250332999 A1) (hereinafter “Trumble”) in view of Abbott (US 4020920 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 5, Trumble teaches a vehicle tailgate apparatus comprising a link mechanism but does not teach a gas spring. Abbott teaches the apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the link mechanism further comprises a gas spring configured to provide a biasing force to bias the step body toward the deployed position, wherein a first end of the gas spring is pivotally connected to any one door-side bracket of the pair of door-side brackets, and wherein a second end of the gas spring is pivotally connected to one of the pair of step-side brackets corresponding to the any one door-side bracket [Abbott Figs. 1-3, Reference Characters 34 (gas spring), 50 (gas spring first end), 38 (door-side bracket, not shown), end of 38 (gas spring second end, not shown), 30 (step-side bracket); Abbott Paragraph 4: “A torque tube 28 is attached to side support members 26a and 26b and also has attached to it a clevis member 30 extending upwardly therefrom and to which is pivotally connected piston rod 32 of hydraulic-pneumatic actuator 34. Cylinder 36 of hydraulic-pneumatic actuator 34 is in turn pivotally connected to actuator support member 38 which forms a part of fixed member 11. Actuator support member 38 is also attached to the transit vehicle 39 by means of screws, bolts or the like 34 connected to fixed step riser 40 forming a part of the entry system to vehicle 39 comprising fixed step 12, riser 40 and vehicle floor 42.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle tailgate apparatus of Trumble to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a gas spring in view of Abbott. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Trumble and Abbott because this would have achieved the desirable result of preventing sagging of the step, as recognized by Abbott [Abbott Paragraph 3: “the leverage relationship and the amount of play in the linkage connections {in the prior art} causes the front end of the step to sag below the level of the bus chassis and be damaged by objects encountered on the road and along the side”; Paragraph 8: “preventing sagging of the leading edge of the movable step when in the retracted position”].
Regarding Claim 6, Trumble teaches a vehicle tailgate apparatus comprising a link mechanism but does not teach a gas spring. Abbott teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the link mechanism further comprises a gas spring configured to provide a biasing force to bias the step body toward the deployed position. [Abbott Figs. 1-3, Reference Characters 34 (gas spring), 50 (gas spring first end), 38 (door-side bracket, not shown), end of 38 (gas spring second end, not shown), 30 (step-side bracket); Abbott Paragraph 4: “A torque tube 28 is attached to side support members 26a and 26b and also has attached to it a clevis member 30 extending upwardly therefrom and to which is pivotally connected piston rod 32 of hydraulic-pneumatic actuator 34. Cylinder 36 of hydraulic-pneumatic actuator 34 is in turn pivotally connected to actuator support member 38 which forms a part of fixed member 11. Actuator support member 38 is also attached to the transit vehicle 39 by means of screws, bolts or the like 34 connected to fixed step riser 40 forming a part of the entry system to vehicle 39 comprising fixed step 12, riser 40 and vehicle floor 42.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle tailgate apparatus of Trumble to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a gas spring in view of Abbott. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Trumble and Abbott because this would have achieved the desirable result of preventing sagging of the step, as recognized by Abbott [Abbott Paragraph 3: “the leverage relationship and the amount of play in the linkage connections {in the prior art} causes the front end of the step to sag below the level of the bus chassis and be damaged by objects encountered on the road and along the side”; Paragraph 8: “preventing sagging of the leading edge of the movable step when in the retracted position”].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trumble et al. (US 20250332999 A1) (hereinafter “Trumble”) in view of Way (US 3865399 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 7, Trumble teaches a vehicle tailgate apparatus comprising a step mechanism but does not teach a step latch. Way teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the step mechanism further includes a step latch provided on the tailgate, and a step striker provided on the step body, and the step body is locked to and unlocked from the tailgate by the step latch and the step striker [Way Fig. 2; Way “Summary of the Invention” Paragraph 10: “An auxiliary step is connected by a plurality of pivotal links to the base plate. When the pickup truck tailgate is lowered to its horizontal position, the auxiliary step can be unlatched from a locked, nested position to assume a horizontal position as a step.”; Way “Description of the Preferred Embodiment” Paragraph 6: “the top edge 30 is nested beneath the base plate edge 18 and the assembly is latched by a suitable latching means indicated at 90. Latch 90 may be a deadbolt type lock or any suitable spring type latch well known in the art.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle tailgate apparatus of Trumble to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a step latch in view of Way. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Trumble and Way because this would have achieved the desirable result of securing the step so that the step can be blended into the exterior tailgate appearance, unlike other securing means, as recognized by Way [Way Paragraph 10: “An auxiliary step is connected by a plurality of pivotal links to the base plate. When the pickup truck tailgate is lowered to its horizontal position, the auxiliary step can be unlatched from a locked, nested position to assume a horizontal position as a step. Additional links are provided for locking the step in its operating position in a stiff arm type arrangement. When the tailgate is returned to its vertical position for travel, the auxiliary step can be folded back, nested, and locked into an attractive position immediately next to the base plate. While primarily intended to be attached to existing pickup truck tailgates, the auxiliary step apparatus of the invention lends itself to being built into the tailgate structure at the factory and with an appended exterior panel designed to blend the auxiliary step apparatus into the exterior tailgate appearance.”].
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trumble et al. (US 20250332999 A1) (hereinafter “Trumble”) in view of Moreau (US 20040178242 A1). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 12, Trumble teaches a vehicle tailgate apparatus comprising a step mechanism but does not teach a key. Moreau teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the step mechanism further comprises: a key member pivotably mounted on an upper portion of the cover body; and a key blade extending from the key member [Moreau Fig. 1, Reference Character 18; Moreau Paragraph 0025: “Mechanism 18 has a key lock 18b for locking container 10”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle tailgate apparatus of Trumble to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a key in view of Moreau. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Trumble and Moreau because this would have achieved the desirable result of preventing unauthorized access to the step, as recognized by Moreau [Moreau Paragraph 0057: “Key lock 18b may be locked to prevent the latch handle from being operated and opening door 11.”]. It should be noted that while Moreau teaches a storage space and does not explicitly teach a step, Moreau’s invention is regarded as analogous art. Moreau’s key lock shares the location, basic structure, and function of the key lock location, structure, and function of the claimed invention. It should be further noted that known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, F.). Design incentives and market forces include increasing safety, decreasing theft, and preventing unauthorized use, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 13, Trumble teaches a vehicle tailgate apparatus comprising a step mechanism but does not teach a key. Moreau teaches the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the step mechanism further comprises: a lock block provided on an upper portion of the step body; and a lock slot provided in the lock block, wherein the key blade is configured to be engaged to or disengaged from the lock slot by a pivot of the key member while the cover body is in the cover position [Moreau Fig. 1, Reference Character 18; Moreau Paragraph 0025: “Mechanism 18 has a key lock 18b for locking container 10”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle tailgate apparatus of Trumble to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a key in view of Moreau. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Trumble and Moreau because this would have achieved the desirable result of preventing unauthorized access to the step, as recognized by Moreau [Moreau Paragraph 0057: “Key lock 18b may be locked to prevent the latch handle from being operated and opening door 11.”]. It should be noted that while Moreau teaches a storage space and does not explicitly teach a step, Moreau’s invention is regarded as analogous art. Moreau’s key lock shares the location, basic structure, and function of the key lock location, structure, and function of the claimed invention. It should be further noted that known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, F.). Design incentives and market forces include increasing safety, decreasing theft, and preventing unauthorized use, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trumble et al. (US 20250332999 A1) (hereinafter “Trumble”) in view of Jarjoura et al. (US 11608123 B2) (hereinafter “Jarjoura”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 15, Trumble teaches a vehicle tailgate apparatus comprising a step mechanism but does not teach support cables. Jarjoura teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the step mechanism further comprises a pair of support cables connecting the step body and the cover body [Jarjoura Figs. 5 and 9a, Reference Character 23]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vehicle tailgate apparatus of Trumble to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a pair of support cables in view of Jarjoura. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Trumble and Jarjoura because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing , as recognized by Jarjoura [Jarjoura Paragraph 32: “cables are also incorporated into the design to provide sequence of operation and structure for all of the mentioned features, in both the closed vertical position and the open horizontal position of the tailgate 14.” and “the movable tailgate portion 12 is configured to rotate to its step position to a set angle, such as may be set per customer design requirements. When rotated in this position, mechanical and stationary step mechanisms and features are available, to allow the user of the vehicle 18 to step up for ease of access to the truck bed 16.”].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 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. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 8, Trumble teaches a vehicle tailgate apparatus but does not teach a storage space. The prior art does not teach or suggest the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the step body comprises a storage space defined therein, wherein the cover body is configured to cover the storage space, and wherein the cover body is pivotally connected to the step body through a pivot shaft. The closest reference, Trumble, teaches a void [Annotated Trumble Fig. 8, above], but does not teach a storage space or a pivot connection between the cover body and the step body.
Claim 14 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. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 14, Trumble teaches a vehicle tailgate apparatus but does not teach an inner cover. The prior art does not teach or suggest the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the step mechanism further comprises an inner cover attached to an interior surface of the cover body. The closest reference, Trumble, teaches the cover body effectively covering the void between the cover body and the step body [Annotated Trumble Fig. 8, above], but does not teach an inner cover.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
