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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grzegorzewski et al. (US 6786535 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Grzegorzewski teaches a vehicle comprising: a cabin area (Fig. 1 element 16); a cargo area (Fig. 1 element 20); a gate disposed between the cabin area and the cargo area (Fig. 2 element 30), the gate having a closed configuration and an open configuration (Shown in transition between Figs. 2-3); an actuator attached to the gate and configurated to move the gate from the closed configuration to the open configuration (“FIGS. 10a and 10b schematically illustrate the use of drive motors 350, 352 which are operative to pivot the closure panel 354 between open and closed positions” Col. 5 lines 20-22).
Regarding Claim 2, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses a hinge attached to a corner of the gate to enable the gate to move from the closed configuration to the open configuration (Fig. 2 elements 56 and 58).
Regarding Claim 3, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 2 and further discloses the hinge is L-shaped (Shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 4, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the actuator is located outboard of the gate (Shown in Fig. 10b).
Regarding Claim 7, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses in the open configuration a surface on the gate is configured to be generally planar with a surface of a bed of the cargo area (Fig. 3 shows gate in the same plane as the cargo bed in the open configuration).
Regarding Claim 8, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the gate is configured to contact ribs on a surface of the cabin area in the open configuration (Shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 8 and further discloses a storage area is disposed between the ribs on the surface of the cabin area (Storage area shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1 and further discloses the gate is configured to be operated remotely by an electronic switch (“a single motor may be used as a regulator, latching motor, end gate drive motor, etc. Remote keyless entry may be implemented to signal pivotal movement of the midgate panel” Col. 5 lines 33-37).
Claim(s) 12-13, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grzegorzewski et al. (US 6786535 B1).
Regarding Claim 12, Grzegorzewski teaches a movable gate for a vehicle, comprising: a first surface configured to face a cargo area of the vehicle (Surface of element 30 shown in Fig. 3); a second surface configured to have a cabin area of the vehicle (Surface of element 30 shown in Fig. 2); and a hinge (Fig. 2 elements 56 and 58) configured to connect to an actuator so as to move the gate from the closed configuration to the open configuration (“FIGS. 10a and 10b schematically illustrate the use of drive motors 350, 352 which are operative to pivot the closure panel 354 between open and closed positions” Col. 5 lines 20-22).
Regarding Claim 13, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12 and further discloses the hinge is L-shaped (Shown in Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 16, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12 and further discloses in the open configuration the first surface of the gate is configured to be generally planar with a surface of a bed of the cargo area (Fig. 3 shows gate in the same plane as the cargo bed in the open configuration).
Regarding Claim 17, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12 and further discloses the gate is configured to contact ribs on the floor of the cabin area in the open configuration (Shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 18, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 17 and further discloses a storage area is disposed between the ribs on the floor of the cabin area (Storage area shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 20, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12 and further discloses the gate is configured to be operated remotely by an electronic switch (“a single motor may be used as a regulator, latching motor, end gate drive motor, etc. Remote keyless entry may be implemented to signal pivotal movement of the midgate panel” Col. 5 lines 33-37).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grzegorzewski et al. (US 6786535 B1) in view of Salmon et al. (US 9797180 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Grzegorzewski fails to explicitly teach a pinch sensor.
However, Salmon teaches a pinch sensor (“Anti-pinch measures can include, for example, ultrasonic sensors, infrared sensors, capacitive sensors, anti-pinch strips and the like. If an anti-pinch measure is engaged, for example if any object is caught between an edge of the tailgate 2 and the truck box 1, the anti-pinch measure will send a pinch stop command to the controller 28” Col. 4 lines 40-46).
Grzegorzewski and Salmon are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of foldable vehicle structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gate of Grzegorzewski to have the pinch sensor as disclosed by Salmon. Doing so would increase the safety of the system as the sensor would prevent the actuators from further closing/opening the gate if an object triggers the sensor.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grzegorzewski et al. (US 6786535 B1) in view of Hunt (US 6260916 B1).
Regarding Claim 10, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 1.
Grzegorzewski fails to explicitly teach the actuator is a first actuator and the vehicle includes a second actuator disposed in the gate, the second actuator configured to move a transparent element from an open configuration to a closed configuration, such that the transparent element is disposed within the gate.
However, Hunt teaches the actuator is a first actuator and the vehicle includes a second actuator disposed in the gate, the second actuator configured to move a transparent element from an open configuration to a closed configuration, such that the transparent element is disposed within the gate (Fig. 6 element 50).
Grzegorzewski and Hunt are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle gates. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transparent element of Grzegorzewski to be coupled to an internal actuator as disclosed by Hunt. Doing so would provide the user with the option to lower/raise the window on the midgate as desired while maintaining the ability to open/close the midgate for increased cargo space.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grzegorzewski et al. (US 6786535 B1) in view of Salmon et al. (US 9797180 B2).
Regarding Claim 15, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12.
Grzegorzewski fails to explicitly teach a pinch sensor.
However, Salmon teaches a pinch sensor (“Anti-pinch measures can include, for example, ultrasonic sensors, infrared sensors, capacitive sensors, anti-pinch strips and the like. If an anti-pinch measure is engaged, for example if any object is caught between an edge of the tailgate 2 and the truck box 1, the anti-pinch measure will send a pinch stop command to the controller 28” Col. 4 lines 40-46).
Grzegorzewski and Salmon are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of foldable vehicle structures. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gate of Grzegorzewski to have the pinch sensor as disclosed by Salmon. Doing so would increase the safety of the system as the sensor would prevent the actuators from further closing/opening the gate if an object triggers the sensor.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grzegorzewski et al. (US 6786535 B1) in view of Hunt (US 6260916 B1).
Regarding Claim 19, Grzegorzewski teaches the limitations set forth in Claim 12.
Grzegorzewski fails to explicitly teach the actuator is a first actuator and the vehicle includes a second actuator disposed in the gate, the second actuator configured to move a transparent element from an open configuration to a closed configuration, such that the transparent element is disposed within the gate.
However, Hunt teaches the actuator is a first actuator and the vehicle includes a second actuator disposed in the gate, the second actuator configured to move a transparent element from an open configuration to a closed configuration, such that the transparent element is disposed within the gate (Fig. 6 element 50).
Grzegorzewski and Hunt are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of vehicle gates. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transparent element of Grzegorzewski to be coupled to an internal actuator as disclosed by Hunt. Doing so would provide the user with the option to lower/raise the window on the midgate as desired while maintaining the ability to open/close the midgate for increased cargo space.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ACOSTA whose telephone number is (571)272-4886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/E.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/Nicholas McFall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights