DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to application 18/940,886 filed on November 8, 2024.
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 .
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
On lines 3-4, the limitation of “the upper end of the multimodal trunk lid” lacks antecedent basis. It is suggested applicant replace “an end” on line 1 with “an upper end.”
Claim Interpretation
With regard to claim 6, the limitation wherein the extendable bearing element is “arranged within the vehicle body” has been interpreted as a bearing element (part 30 in Fig. 3a) that is not completely exposed outside of the vehicle body. In order for the mechanism to function in the embodiment of Figures 3a-3c, it is assumed the end of 30 (not D1) is on a track and the top of bearing element 30 must be exposed outside the vehicle body in order to freely move from Fig. 3a to Fig. 3c.
With regard to claim 7, the limitations of “a fully open position” and “a partially open position” are interpreted as 2 distinct opening positions. Whether one positions is more “fully open” than the other is subjective given the context of the claim.
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)(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(s) 1-3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roesler “US 20080179909). With regard to claim 1, Roesler teaches a vehicle comprising: a multimodal trunk lid 12; and a first pivot point 18 wherein the multimodal trunk lid is mounted in a first mode of operation around the first pivot point on a vehicle body 2 located at one end of the multimodal trunk lid in a way that it is pivoted into a first open position (Fig. 3), and wherein the multimodal trunk lid is mounted on the vehicle body in a second operating mode in a way that it is translationally moved into a second open position (Fig. 4). With regard to claim 2, Roesler teaches the vehicle, wherein the multimodal trunk lid 12 is moved in its entirety in the first mode of operation (Fig. 3) as well as in the second mode of operation (Fig. 4). With regard to claim 3, Roesler teaches the vehicle, wherein the multimodal trunk lid is mounted on the vehicle via a pivot joint 14 with a vehicle-side first suspension 18 and a second suspension 17 on the trunk lid side, wherein the first suspension 18 forms the first pivot point and the second suspension 17 forms a second pivot point, and wherein the multimodal trunk lid is moved translationally in the second operating mode (Fig. 4) by a combined pivoting of the multimodal trunk lid around the second pivot point and the pivot joint around the first pivot point. With regard to claim , Roesler teaches the vehicle, wherein the vehicle body has an extendable bearing element 14 that is arranged within the vehicle body in the first mode (Fig. 3) of operation and which extends upward from the vehicle body in the second mode of operation (Fig. 4), and at the end of which the first pivot point 18 is arranged. With regard to claim 7, Roesler teaches the vehicle, wherein the multimodal trunk lid is designed to assume a fully open position in the first open position (Fig. 3) and a partially open position (Fig. 4) in the second open position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8-10 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.
Claim 5 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to show or render obvious the vehicle as claimed, and particularly
wherein in the first mode of operation, the multimodal trunk lid is connected to the second suspension in a non-rotatable manner, and in the second mode of operation, the non-rotatable connection is released, and including the remaining structure of claim 4. The present invention also particularly includes the vehicle, wherein in the first mode of operation, an upper end of the multimodal trunk lid is connected to the first suspension and in the second mode of operation, the connection between the first suspension and the upper end of the multimodal trunk lid is released, and including the remaining structure of claim 5. The present invention also particularly includes the vehicle, wherein the multimodal trunk lid has a carrier arranged at a lower end of the multimodal trunk lid, which is designed to engage in a floor hatch located in the trunk in the second mode of operation, so that the multimodal trunk lid takes the floor hatch with it when moving to the partially opened position, thus uncovering a hidden cargo floor, and including the remaining structure of claim 8. Claims 9 and 10 depend on claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hirose (US 4688844) has been cited to show a similar vehicle comprising: a vehicle body 1, a lid 3;4, a first pivot point 8, a first opening position (Fig. 1; upper hidden lines) and a second opening position (Fig. 1; lower hidden lines).
Sande (US 20030025350) has been cited to show a similar vehicle comprising: a vehicle body 1, a lid 6,a first pivot point 11, a first opening position (Fig. 2), a second opening position (Fig. 3) and an extendable bearing element 17.
Iacovoni (US 9945161) has been cited to show a similar vehicle comprising: a vehicle body 2, a lid 6;8, a first pivot point 12, a first opening position (Fig. 3) and a second opening position (Fig. 2).
Abe (US 10737627) has been cited to show a similar vehicle comprising: a lid 20,a floor tache 20, a carrier 35 on a lower end of the lid that is engaged with the floor hatch @25, uncovering a hidden cargo floor.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
July 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights