DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier (US 7201424 B1) in view of Edwards (US 6116676 A).
Regarding claim 1, Fournier teaches “A vehicle tailgate seat assembly (10; Fournier Fig 1) comprising: a base (16; Fournier Annotated Fig 3) defining a first seat base (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3), a second seat base (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) and a central portion (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) between the first seat base and the second seat base; … a first seat first back (18; Fournier Annotated Fig 3) pivotally connected (18c; Fournier Fig 4 [column 3 lines 8-10]) to the base to provide a first seat back (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) for the first seat when the seat back is in an open position; and a second seat back (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) coupled to the base and configured to provide a second seat back for the second seat.”
Fournier does not teach a support structure.
However, Edwards teaches “…a support structure (4; Edwards Fig 1) configured to connect the base onto a tailgate of a vehicle…”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the tailgate seat assembly of Fournier with the support structure of Edwards with a reasonable expectation of success for a seat assembly configured for quick removal to allow access to the entirety of the cargo space.
PNG
media_image1.png
436
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 2, Fournier teaches a first and second seat.
Fournier does not teach a first and second seat cushion.
However, Edwards teaches seat cushions in column 4 lines 26-34.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the seats of Fournier with the cushions of Edwards with a reasonable expectation of success for more comfortable seats.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Fournier and Edwards, as seen above in claim 2, teaches “The vehicle tailgate seat assembly (10; Fournier Fig 1) of claim 2, wherein the first seat back (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) comprises a first seat back cushion (18f; Fournier Annotated Fig 3) and the second seat back (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) comprises a second seat back cushion (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3).”
Regarding claim 11, Fournier teaches “A vehicle tailgate (14; Fournier Fig 1) for a pickup truck (12; Fournier Fig 1), the vehicle tailgate comprising: a top support surface (14a; Fournier Fig 1) when the tailgate is in the open position; and a vehicle tailgate seat assembly (10; Fournier Fig 1) comprising: a base (16; Fournier Annotated Fig 3) defining a first seat base (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3), a second seat base (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) and a central portion (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) between the first seat base and the second seat base; … a first seat first back (18; Fournier Annotated Fig 3) pivotally connected (18c; Fournier Fig 4 [column 3 lines 8-10]) to the base to provide a first seat back (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) for the first seat when the seat back is in an open position; and a second seat back (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) coupled to the base and configured to provide a second seat back for the second seat.”
Fournier does not teach a support structure.
However, Edwards teaches “…a support structure (4; Edwards Fig 1) configured to connect the base onto a tailgate of a vehicle…”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the tailgate seat assembly of Fournier with the support structure of Edwards with a reasonable expectation of success for a seat assembly configured for quick removal to allow access to the entirety of the cargo space.
In reference to claim 12, Fournier teaches a first and second seat.
Fournier does not teach a first and second seat cushion.
However, Edwards teaches seat cushions in column 4 lines 26-34.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the seats of Fournier with the cushions of Edwards with a reasonable expectation of success for more comfortable seats.
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Fournier and Edwards, as seen above in claim 12, teaches “The vehicle tailgate (14; Fournier Fig 1) for a pickup truck (12; Fournier Fig 1) of claim 12, wherein the first seat back (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) comprises a first seat back cushion (18f; Fournier Annotated Fig 3) and the second seat back (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) comprises a second seat back cushion (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3).”
Regarding claim 20, Fournier teaches “A motor vehicle (12; Fournier Annotated Fig 1) comprising: a body having a front end (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 1) and a rear end (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 1); a tailgate (14; Fournier Annotated Fig 1) located at the rear end of the body and moveable between an open position and a closed position; and a vehicle tailgate seat assembly comprising (10; Fournier Annotated Fig 1): a base (16; Fournier Annotated Fig 3) defining a first seat base (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3), a second seat base (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) and a central portion (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) between the first seat base and the second seat base; … a first seat first back (18; Fournier Annotated Fig 3) pivotally connected (18c; Fournier Fig 4 [column 3 lines 8-10]) to the base to provide a first seat back (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) for the first seat when the seat back is in an open position; and a second seat back (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) coupled to the base and configured to provide a second seat back for the second seat.”
Fournier does not teach a support structure.
However, Edwards teaches “…a support structure (4; Edwards Fig 1) configured to connect the base onto a tailgate of a vehicle…”
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the tailgate seat assembly of Fournier with the support structure of Edwards with a reasonable expectation of success for a seat assembly configured for quick removal to allow access to the entirety of the cargo space.
PNG
media_image2.png
494
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
6. Claims 4-5, 8, 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier (US 7201424 B1) in view of Edwards (US 6116676 A) as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Bauer (US 9540051 B2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fournier and Edwards, as applied to claim 1, teaches a first seat back, a firs seat base, a second seat back and a second seat base (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3).
The aforementioned combination of prior art does not teach the seats forming a first and second container.
However, in column 3 lines 44-67, Bauer teaches removable cushions (30 &32; Bauer Figs 5 &7) positioned in a recess. When the cushions are removed and the seat assembly is in the closed position, the recesses act as containers.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the seat assembly of Fournier with the support structures and cushions of Edwards, the cushions being removable to create containers, as taught by Bauer with a reasonable expectation of success for a tailgate seat assembly with more storage capacity.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Fournier, Edwards and Bauer, as applied to claim 4, teaches “The vehicle tailgate seat assembly (10; Fournier Fig 1) of claim 4, wherein the support structure (4; Edwards Fig 1) comprises a plurality of clamping bars coupling the base onto the tailgate (4; Edwards Fig 1).”
In reference to claim 8, the combination of Fournier and Edwards, as applied to claim 1, teaches a first and second seat (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3).
The aforementioned combination of prior art does not teach latches.
However, Bauer teaches latches (26; Bauer Fig 5) for each seat.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the seat assembly of Fournier with the support structure of Edwards and the latches of Bauer with a reasonable expectation of success for an additional storage cavity that is properly secured.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Fournier and Edwards, as applied to claim 11, teaches a first seat back, a firs seat base, a second seat back and a second seat base (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3).
The aforementioned combination of prior art does not teach the seats forming a first and second container.
However, in column 3 lines 44-67, Bauer teaches removable cushions (30 &32; Bauer Figs 5 &7) positioned in a recess. When the cushions are removed and the seat assembly is in the closed position, the recesses act as containers.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the seat assembly of Fournier with the support structures and cushions of Edwards, the cushions being removable to create containers, as taught by Bauer with a reasonable expectation of success for a tailgate seat assembly with more storage capacity.
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Fournier, Edwards and Bauer, as applied to claim 14, teaches “The vehicle tailgate (14; Fournier Fig 1) for a pickup truck (12; Fournier Fig 1) of claim 14, wherein the support structure (4; Edwards Fig 1) comprises a plurality of clamping bars coupling the base onto the tailgate (4; Edwards Fig 1).”
In reference to claim 17, the combination of Fournier and Edwards, as applied to claim 11, teaches a first and second seat (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3).
The aforementioned combination of prior art does not teach latches.
However, Bauer teaches latches (26; Bauer Fig 5) for each seat.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the seat assembly of Fournier with the support structure of Edwards and the latches of Bauer with a reasonable expectation of success for an additional storage cavity that is properly secured.
7. Claims 9-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier (US 7201424 B1) in view of Edwards (US 6116676 A) as applied to claim 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Green et al. (US 10780833 B2).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fournier and Edwards, as applied to claim 1, teaches a central portion (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3).
The aforementioned combination of prior art does not teach the central portion to be removable.
Green et al. teaches a central portion (134b; Green et al. Fig 1C) as being removable in column 4 lines 62-67.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the tailgate seat assembly of Fournier with the support structure of Edwards with a removable central portion as taught by Green et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for a versatile central portion.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Fournier, Edwards and Green et al., as applied to claim 9, teaches “The vehicle tailgate seat assembly (10; Fournier Fig 1) of claim 9, wherein the central module (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) comprises one or more of a cup holder module, a storage box module and a fishing rod holder module (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3).”
In reference to claim 18, the combination of Fournier and Edwards, as applied to claim 11, teaches a central portion (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3).
The aforementioned combination of prior art does not teach the central portion to be removable.
Green et al. teaches a central portion (134b; Green et al. Fig 1C) as being removable in column 4 lines 62-67.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the tailgate seat assembly of Fournier with the support structure of Edwards with a removable central portion as taught by Green et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for a versatile central portion.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Fournier, Edwards and Green et al., as applied to claim 18, teaches “The vehicle tailgate (14; Fournier Annotated Fig 1) for a pickup truck (12; Fournier Annotated Fig 1) of claim 18, wherein the central module (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3) comprises one or more of a cup holder module, a storage box module and a fishing rod holder module (As seen in Fournier Annotated Fig 3).”
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 6-7 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 6, there is no art to be taken alone or in combination with any of the aforementioned art to achieve a storage box fixed to a base with clamping bars. Therefore, claim 6 and its dependent claim 7 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.
In reference to claim 16, there is no art to be taken alone or in combination with any of the aforementioned art to achieve a storage box fixed to a base with clamping bars. Therefore, claim 16 is 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.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reitzloff et al. discloses a tailgate seat assembly, but lacks a distinct central portion.
Everett discloses a tailgate seat assembly, but lacks a first and second container and seat cushions.
Duvall, Jr. discloses a tailgate seat assembly, but lacks a distinct central portion.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ROBERT DIGIOVANNANTONIO whose telephone number is (571)272-4526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/D.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights