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 .
The following final office action is in response to the reply filed June 3, 2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on January 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
Due the applicant’s amendment, no claims are currently withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention at this time, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 28, 2026.
Drawings
The drawing correction filed June 3, 2026 has not been approved because the lead line for the center of gravity 154a indicates a portion of the closure 114b rather than the closure 114a. How can the center of gravity of the closure 114a be disposed within the closure 114b?
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “(shown below)” on lines 12-13 of paragraph 34, as amended June 3, 2026, is confusing since the applicant is referring to the specification rather than to a specific figure of the drawings. It is suggested the applicant delete “as shown below” on lines 12-13 of paragraph 34 to avoid confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because “the first hinge component is configured to rotate” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the first hinge component actually rotates the first rear closure. Note that it appears that the first hinge component merely guides the movement of the first rear closure and that the strut actually rotates the first rear closure rather than the first hinge component.
Claim 7 is objected to because “the hinge assembly is configured to rotate the first rear closure” on lines 2-3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the hinge assembly actually rotates the first rear closure. Note that it appears that the hinge assembly merely guides the movement of the first rear closure and that the strut actually rotates the first rear closure rather than the hinge assembly.
Claim 12 is objected to because “the first hinge component configured to rotate” on lines 3-4 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the first hinge component actually rotates the first rear closure. Note that it appears that the first hinge component merely guides the movement of the first rear closure and that the strut actually rotates the first rear closure rather than the first hinge component.
Claim 12 is objected to because “the second hinge component configured to rotate the second rear closure” on lines 5-6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear how the second hinge component actually rotates the second rear closure. Note that it appears that the second hinge component merely guides the movement of the second rear closure and that the strut actually rotates the second rear closure rather than the second hinge component.
Claim 21 is objected to because it appears that the limitations set forth in claim 21 have already been set forth on lines 13-14 of claim 19.
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 2-5 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.
Recitations such as “a base” on line 2 of claim 2 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the base set forth above or is attempting to set forth another base in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “a bar” on line 1 of claim 4 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the applicant is referring to the bar set forth above or is attempting to set forth another bar in addition to the one set forth above.
Recitations such as “the bar” on line 2 of claim 4 render the claims indefinite because it is unclear to which one of the plurality of bars set forth above the applicant is referring.
Recitations such as “the bar defines the axis of rotation” on line 1 of claim 5 render the claims indefinite because this limitation has already been set forth on line 11 of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sehgal et al. (US 6000747).
With respect to claim 1, Sehgal et al. discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a hinge assembly 18, comprising:
a first hinge component 50 (fig. 2) configured to couple with a first rear closure 14 of a vehicle 10 (fig. 1); and
a second hinge component 48 (fig. 2) configured to couple with a second rear closure 16 of the vehicle 10;
a base (labeled below) configured to couple with the vehicle 10; and
a bar 52 (fig. 2) rotationally coupled with, and passing through, the base, the first hinge component 50, and the second hinge component 48, wherein in response to an applied force to the first rear closure 14, the first hinge component 50 and the second hinge component 48 are configured to rotate about an axis of rotation defined by the bar 52.
With respect to claim 2, the hinge assembly 18 further comprises a base (labeled below as the same base that is set forth in claim 1) configured to couple with the vehicle 10, the first hinge component 50 is configured to couple with the base, and the second hinge component 48 is configured to couple with the base 44.
With respect to claim 3, the first hinge component 50 is configured to rotate independently of the second hinge component 48, and the second hinge component 48 is configured to rotate independently of the first hinge component 50. See lines 14-16 of column 3.
With respect to claim 4, the hinge assembly further comprises a bar 52 (fig. 2) rotationally coupled with the base, the bar 52 configured to pass through the first hinge component 50 and the second hinge component 48.
With respect to claim 5, the bar 52 defines the axis of rotation.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seksaria et al. (US 6860537).
With respect to claim 10, Seksaria et al. discloses a vehicle (not shown, but set forth on line 2 of column 7), comprising:
a vehicle body (not shown, but comprising the body of the vehicle set forth on line 2 of column 7);
a first rear closure 2;
a second rear closure 10 positioned relative to the first rear closure 2;
a hinge assembly 70 (figs. 12 and 13) configured to couple with the vehicle body, the hinge assembly 70 comprising:
a first hinge component 71 (figs. 12 and 13) coupled with the first rear closure 2 (fig. 11),
a second hinge component 77 (figs. 12 and 13) coupled with the second rear closure 10 (fig. 2), wherein the first hinge component 71 and the second hinge component 77 are rotatably about a common axis of rotation defined by the pin 76 as set forth on lines 65-67 of column 9); and
a latch 100, 101 (fig. 2) configured to selectively couple the first rear closure 2 with the second rear closure 10; and
a strut 102 (figs. 2 and 15), comprising
a first end 106 coupled with the vehicle body as set forth on lines 44-47 of
column 12, and
a second end 104 coupled with the first rear closure 2 as set forth on lines
40-42 of column 12,
wherein in response to the latch 100, 101 coupling the first rear closure 2 with the second rear closure 10, i) the strut 102 is configured to rotate the first rear closure 2 and the second hinge component 77 about the common axis of rotation, and
in response to the latch 100, 101 decoupling the first rear closure 2 from the second rear closure 10, the strut 102 is configured to rotate the first rear closure 2 relative to the second hinge component 77 about the common axis of rotation. It should be noted that the strut 102 of Seksaria only need be capable of moving the first rear closure 2 relative to the second hinge component 77 in order to meet the limitations of claim 10. When the latch 100, 101 no longer couples the first rear closure 2 and the second rear closure 10, the strut 102 is capable of driving the first rear closure 2 from an open position to a closed position which includes rotating the first rear closure 2 relative to the second hinge component 77/the second rear closure.
With respect to claim 11, wherein in response to the latch 100, 101 not coupling the first rear closure 2 with the second rear closure 10, the first hinge component 71 is configured to rotate the first rear closure 2 about the axis of rotation relative to the second rear closure 10. It should be noted that the first hinge component 71 of Seksaria only need be capable of rotating the first rear closure 2 about the axis of rotation relative to the second rear closure 10 in order to meet the limitations of claim 11. Accordingly, when the latch 100, 101 no longer couples the first rear closure 2 and the second rear closure 10, the first hinge component 71 is capable of rotating the first rear closure 2 from an open position to a closed position about the axis of rotation relative to the second rear closure 10.
With respect to claim 12, wherein the hinge assembly further comprises a base 72, 73 (fig. 13) coupled with the vehicle body, the first hinge component 71 is configured to couple with the base 72, 73, the first hinge component 71 configured to rotate the first rear closure 2 about the axis of rotation, and the second hinge component 77 (fig. 13) is configured to couple with the base 72, 73, the second hinge component 77 configured to rotate the second rear closure 10 about the axis of rotation.
With respect to claim 13, wherein the first hinge component 71 is configured to rotate independently of the second hinge component 77, and the second hinge component 77 is configured to rotate independently of the first hinge component 71.
With respect to claim 14, wherein the hinge assembly 70 further comprises a bar 76 (fig. 13) rotationally coupled with the base 72, 73, and the bar 76 passes through the first hinge component 71 and the second hinge component 77.
With respect to claim 15, the bar 76 defines the axis of rotation.
With respect to claim 16, the second hinge component 77 comprises a first flanged arm (labeled below), and a second flanged arm (labeled below).
With respect to claim 17, further comprising a first extension (labeled below); and a second extension (labeled below); a third extension (labeled below) positioned between the first extension and the second extension; and a bar 76 passing through the first extension, the second extension, the third extension, the first hinge component 71, and the second hinge component 77. Note that the second hinge component includes the ear opposite the third extension. Therefore, the bar passes through the second hinge component 77.
With respect to claim 18, the hinge assembly 70 along with a strut 102, are configured to balance i) a first mass defined by the first rear closure 2 and ii) a second mass defined by the first rear closure 2 and the second rear closure 10. Note that the strut can balance the first rear closure 2 when the second rear closure 10 is opened relative to the first rear closure 2 and can balance both the first and second rear closures when they are in a closed position relative to one another.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis et al. (US 6938665).
With respect to claim 19, Lewis et al. discloses a hinge assembly, comprising:
a base 81 (fig. 6) comprising:
a first extension (labeled below),
a second extension (labeled below), and
a third extension (labeled below) positioned between the first extension and the second extension;
a first hinge component 83 positioned between the first extension and the third extension, the first hinge component 83 configured to couple with a first rear closure 83 of a vehicle V (fig. 2) to allow the first rear closure to rotate about an axis of rotation; and
a second hinge component 85 positioned between the second extension and the third extension, the second hinge component 85 configured to couple with a second rear closure 60 of the vehicle to allow the second rear closure to rotate about the axis of rotation; and
a bar 91 (fig. 7) coupled with the base 81 and passing through the first hinge component and the second hinge component, wherein the first hinge component and the second hinge component are independently rotatable about the axis of rotation defined by the bar 91.
With respect to claim 20, Lewis et al. further discloses that the first hinge component 83 is configured to rotate independently of the second hinge component 85, and the second hinge component 85 is configured to rotate independently of the first hinge component 83.
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.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sehgal et al. as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Seksaria et al. (US 6860537).
Seksaria et al. discloses an apparatus comprising a latch 100, 101 (fig. 2) configured to couple a first rear closure 2 with a second rear closure 10, wherein in response to the latch 100, 101 coupling the first rear closure 2 with the second rear closure 10, a first hinge component 71 is configured to rotate the first rear closure 2 about an axis of rotation (not numbered, but defined by the pin 76) while a second hinge component 77 rotates the second rear closure 10 about the axis of rotation. See lines 3-6 of column 10.
With respect to claim 7, Seksaria et al. discloses that in response to the latch 100, 101 not coupling the first rear closure 2 with the second rear closure 10, a hinge assembly 70 is configured to rotate the first rear closure 2, relative to the second rear closure 10, about the axis of rotation.
With respect to claim 8, Seksaria et al. further discloses a strut 102 (figs. 2 and 15) coupled with the first rear closure 2, wherein the strut 102 is configured to provide a force to rotate the first rear closure 2 about the axis of rotation.
With respect to claim 9, Seksaria et al. further discloses that the strut 102 is further configured to provide the force to rotate the second rear closure 10 about the axis of rotation. Note that when the first 2 and second 10 rear closures are latched together, the strut 102 provides the force to rotate both the first and second rear closures about the axis of rotation which meets the limitations of claims 8 and 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Sehgal et al. with a latch and strut, as taught by Seksaria et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent the second rear closure 10 from unwantedly pivoting relative to the first rear closure 2 and to enable a user to automatically open and close the first 2 and second 10 rear closures, respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
1646
1102
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1650
1114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1654
1118
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1644
1106
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant first argues that Sehgal et al. fails to disclose the claimed base. The applicant argues that the base of Sehgal et al. is not a unified hinge structure through which the bar passes and about which the hinge components rotate and that the base plate of Sehgal et al. does not receive the pivot shaft, does not form a part of the axis-defining structure, and does not participate in the rotational interface. This is not found to be persuasive because the base of Sehgal et al. comprises a unitary element comprised of elements 44 and 46 and the angled structural member that connects 44 and 46. See figures 2-4 of Sehgal et al., wherein none of the elements 44, 46 and the angled structure move as the door 14 and window 16 pivot relative to the elements 44, 46 and the angled structure. Since the base disclosed by Sehgal et al. includes elements 44, 46 and the angled structure integrated into one element, the base of Sehgal et al. is a unified hinge structure through which the bar 52 passes and about which the hinge components 48, 50 rotate and the base plate of Sehgal et al. does in fact receive the pivot shaft 52, does form a part of the axis-defining structure, and does participate in the rotational interface. The applicant also argues that the link 46 is a separate intermediate component that projects from the base plate and supports the hinge pivot shaft. This is also not found to be persuasive because the link 46 is fixed to the angled element that connects the link 46 to the base plate 44. Accordingly, the link 46, the base plate 44 and the angled structure that connects 44 and 46 form a unitary element which is equivalent to the applicant’s claimed base. See figures 2-4 of Sehgal et al., wherein none of the elements 44, 46 and the angled structure move as the door 14 and window 16 pivot relative to the vehicle body. The applicant then argues that Sehgal et al. fails to disclose a bar passing through the base and the first and second hinge components. This is not found to be persuasive because Sehgal et al. discloses a bar 52 which passes through the first and second hinge components 48 and 50. Moreover, since it has been demonstrated that the link 46 is part of the base, the bar 52 passes through the base as well.
Next, the applicant argues that Seksaria et al. fails to disclose a single strut acting through a unified hinge assembly to selectively provide both coupled and independent motion of two closures about a common axis. This is not found to be persuasive because it is not supported by the claim language. See lines 18-19 of claim 10 which require the strut to be configured rotate the first rear closure and the second hinge component rather than the second rear closure. Also see lines 23-24 of claim 10 which require the strut to be configured to rotate the first rear closure relative to the second hinge component rather than relative to the second rear closure. The phrase “configured to” has been interpreted to mean that the strut has to be capable of performing the functions set forth in claim 10. The phrase does not require the strut to be actually perform the functions. With respect to the limitations on lines 18-19 of claim 10, the strut 102 is disclosed as actually rotating the first rear closure 2 and the second hinge component/second rear closure 10 about the common axis. With respect to the limitations on lines 23-24 of claim 10, the strut 102 is capable of rotating the first rear closure 2 relative to the second hinge component/second rear closure 10. This would be possible when the first 2 and second 10 rear closures are both moved into the open position, the first and second rear closures being unlatched from one another, and actuating the strut 102 to close the first rear closure 2. The movement of the first rear closure 2 toward the closed position would not be transmitted to the second rear closure 10, thus the second rear closure 10 would remain in the open position as the first rear closure 2 is moved toward the closed position.
The applicant’s comments concerning claim 19 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights