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 .
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burns US 6,631,938.
Regarding claim 1, Burns discloses:
A tailgate seat system (including tailgate 102; Fig. 3 and back panel 200; Fig. 3) comprising: a tailgate (102; Fig. 3) rotatable between a raised position (while the vehicle (100; Fig. 3) is being driven) and a lowered position (as shown in Fig. 3); and a backrest assembly (including back panel 200; Fig. 3) mounted to the tailgate (102; Fig. 3), the backrest assembly including: a support structure (212; Fig. 3) mounted to the tailgate (102; Fig. 3); a back panel (200; Fig. 3) mounted to the tailgate (102; Figs. 1 and 3) by way of the support structure (212; Fig. 3); and armrests (206A; Fig. 3; 206B; Fig. 5; col. 3, line 3) mounted to the back panel (200; Fig. 3), wherein: the backrest assembly (including back panel 200; Fig. 3) is movable between a stowed position (as shown in solid lines in Fig. 1) and a deployed position (as shown in Fig. 3), in the stowed position (as shown in solid lines in Fig. 1) the support structure (212; Fig. 3) is collapsed (is rotated clockwise from the deployed position shown in Fig. 3 to the stowed position as shown in solid lines in Fig. 1 where it is hidden and is considered to be “collapsed”, as broadly as recited) and both the back panel (200; annotated Figs. 1 and 3 below), and the armrests (206A; 206B; Fig. 5; annotated Figs. 1 and 3 below) are coplanar (as shown in annotated Fig. 1 below) and seated on the tailgate (that is positioned adjacent to the tailgate), and in the deployed position (as shown in Fig. 3) the support structure (212; Fig. 3) is extended (rearwardly, as shown in annotated Fig. 3 below) to support the back panel (200; Fig. 3) and the armrests (206A; Fig. 3) spaced apart from the tailgate (102; Fig. 3); in a non-coplanar relationship, as can be seen in annotated Fig. 3 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
637
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
581
569
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Burns discloses:
The tailgate seat system of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the tailgate (102; Fig. 3) is configured to be mounted to a pickup truck (abstract lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 3, Burns discloses:
The tailgate seat system of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the tailgate (102; Fig. 3) is configured to be mounted to a sport utility vehicle (SUV) (abstract line 6).
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 1, 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duvall, Jr. US 6,588,822 in view of Wimberley US 8,123,271.
Regarding claim 1, Duvall, Jr. discloses:
A tailgate seat system (10; Fig. 4) comprising: a tailgate (12; Fig. 1) rotatable between a raised position (the normal driving position of the tailgate) and a lowered position (shown in Fig. 1); and a backrest assembly (including back panel 38; Fig. 4) mounted to the tailgate (12; Fig. 1), the backrest assembly including: that a backrest or back panel (38; Fig. 4) is pivotally coupled to the tailgate (12; Fig. 1; as described in col. 3, lines 14-15); a back panel (38; Fig. 4) mounted to the tailgate (12; Fig. 1) by way of the pivotal coupling; and armrests (64; Fig. 4) mounted to the back panel (38; Fig. 4), wherein: the backrest assembly (including back panel 38; Fig. 4) is movable between a stowed position (Fig. 6) and a deployed position (Fig. 4), in the stowed position (Fig. 6) the pivotal coupling of the tailgate (12; Fig. 1) and the back panel (38; Fig. 4) is collapsed and both the back panel (38; Fig. 4) and the armrests (64; Fig. 4) are coplanar (as shown in Fig. 5) and seated on the tailgate (12; Fig. 6; where the seated position is shown in Fig. 6), and in the deployed position (Fig. 4) the pivotal coupling of the tailgate is extended to support the back panel (38; Fig. 4) and the armrests (64; Fig. 4) spaced apart from the tailgate (12; Fig. 1) in a non-coplanar relationship, as shown in Fig. 4.
However, Duvall, Jr. does not disclose that the pivotal coupling of the backrest (38; Fig. 4) to the tailgate (12; Fig. 1) includes a specific support structure which makes up the pivotal coupling.
Notwithstanding, Wimberley discloses a tailgate (14; Fig. 1) with a backrest (12; Fig. 1) pivotally mounted thereto by a hinge (19; Fig. 1; as disclosed in col. 5, line 8) which provides a support structure for the backrest (12; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it 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 to construct the pivotal coupling of the back panel to the tailgate of Duvall, Jr. to be a hinge as a specific support structure thereof as taught by Wimberley with a reasonable expectation of success because a hinge is a notoriously well-known way to pivotally couple structural members in the automotive art and Wimberley explicitly demonstrates in Figures 1-3 that the use of a hinge to rotate a backrest associated with a vehicle tailgate is suitable for such purpose.
Regarding claim 2, Duvall, Jr., as modified by Wimberley, discloses:
The tailgate seat system of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the tailgate (12; Fig. 1 of Duvall, Jr.) is configured to be mounted to a pickup truck (abstract of Duvall, Jr, line 2).
Regarding claim 4, Duvall, Jr., as modified by Wimberley, discloses:
The tailgate seat system of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the armrests include cup holders (aperture 66 and net 68 in Fig. 4; see col. 4, lines 8-13) and are mounted to the tailgate (12; Fig. 1 of Duvall, Jr.) by way of the support structure by being mounted to the armrests which are mounted to the support structure.
Regarding claim 5, Duvall, Jr., as modified by Wimberley, discloses:
The tailgate seat system of claim 1, as explained above, wherein in the lowered position of the tailgate (12; Fig. 1 of Duvall, Jr.), the backrest assembly (including back panel 38; Fig. 4) is coplanar with a cargo bed of a vehicle to which the tailgate (12; Fig. 1 of Duvall, Jr.) is rotatably (movable from a closed vertical closed position to the horizontal position shown in Fig. 1) mounted to. Specifically, the cargo bed is coplanar with the upper surface (14; Fig. 1) of the tailgate (12; Fig. 1) as pointed out in annotated Fig. 1 below. Also, the back panel (38; Fig. 1) has a back surface (48; Fig. 6) which is coplanar with the upper surface (14; Fig. 1) of the tailgate (12; Fig. 1) as shown in Fig. 6. Therefore, by association, the backrest assembly (including back panel 38; Fig. 1) is coplanar with a cargo bed of a vehicle to which the tailgate (12; Fig. 1) is rotatably mounted.
PNG
media_image3.png
791
891
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Duvall, Jr., as modified by Wimberley, discloses:
The tailgate seat system of claim 1, as explained above, further comprising a locking mechanical mechanism (see col. 3, lines 40-58) included with the back panel (38; Fig. 6) of the backrest assembly (which includes back panel back surface 48; Fig. 6).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duvall, Jr. US 6,588,822 in view of Wimberley US 8,123,271 as applied above to claim 1 and further in view of Burns US 6,631,938.
Regarding claim 3, Duvall, Jr., as modified by Wimberley, discloses:
The tailgate seat system of claim 1, as explained above, wherein the tailgate on which the seat system is mounted is configured to be mounted to a pickup truck (abstract of Duvall, Jr, line 2).
However, Duvall, Jr., as modified by Wimberley, does not explicitly disclose that the tailgate is configured to be mounted to a sport utility vehicle (SUV).
Notwithstanding, Burns discloses that a tailgate on which a seat system (including back panel 200; Fig. 3) may be mounted to either a pickup truck (abstract lines 5-6) or a sport utility vehicle (SUV) (abstract line 6).
Therefore, it 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 to mount the tailgate which supports a seat system of Duvall, Jr., as modified by Wimberley, to a sport utility vehicle (SUV) as taught by Burns with a reasonable expectation of success because sport utility vehicles are known to be constructed with a fold down rear closure or tailgate and such tailgate seat system of Duvall, Jr., as modified by Wimberley, would perform the same way whether mounted to a pickup truck or a sports utility vehicle.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duvall, Jr. US 6,588,822 in view of Wimberley US 8,123,271, as applied above to claim 1, and further in view of Bowden et al. US 2007/0007789.
Regarding claim 9, Duvall, Jr., as modified by Wimberley, discloses:
The tailgate seat system of claim 1, as explained above, except for further comprising a footrest assembly mounted to the tailgate.
Notwithstanding, Bowden et al. disclose a tailgate seat system (100; Fig. 3) which is mounted to a tailgate (110; Fig. 3) and includes a footrest assembly (160; 170; Fig. 3) mounted to the tailgate by way of the tailgate seat assembly (100; Fig. 3).
Therefore, it 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 to provide the tailgate seat assembly of Duvall, Jr., as modified by Wimberley, with a footrest assembly as taught by Bowden et al. with a reasonable expectation of success for enhanced comfort of a user seated in the seat of the tailgate seat assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8 and 10-12 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.
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The recitation in claim 7 of the locking mechanism including locking tabs configured to cooperate with the support structure to retain the backrest assembly in the deployed position is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Duvall, Jr. US 6,588,822, the closest prior art of record, discloses a locking mechanism as described in column 3, lines 40-58, including tabs (56; Fig 7; col. 3, line 51) which are configured to cooperate with the tailgate (12; Fig. 6) to retain the backrest assembly (including the back panel back surface 48; Fig. 6) in the stowed position (as described in col. 3, lines 63-67), however, the locking tabs do not cooperate with the support structure to retain the backrest assembly in the deployed position.
Claim 8 is considered to contain allowable subject matter at least due to its dependence upon claim 7 which contains allowable subject matter.
The recitation in claim 10 of a retracted position of the footrest assembly being coplanar with the back panel, the armrests, and a cargo bed of a vehicle to which the tailgate is rotatably mounted to is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Bowden et al. US 2007/0007789 disclose the closest prior art related to a footrest assembly (160, 170; Fig. 3) which is associated with a tailgate seat system (100; Fig. 3) and the footrest assembly of Bowden et al. does not have a retracted position which is coplanar with a back panel, armrests, and a cargo bed of a vehicle to which the tailgate is rotatably mounted to.
Claims 11 and 12 are considered to contain allowable subject matter at least due to their ultimate dependence upon claim 10 which contains allowable subject matter.
The recitation in claim 13 of a stowed position where the back panel, the armrests, and the foot plate are all coplanar with each other is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Bowden et al. US 2007/0007789 disclose the closest prior art related to a footrest assembly (160, foot plate 170; Fig. 3) which is associated with a tailgate seat system (100; Fig. 3) and the foot plate of Bowden et al. does not have a retracted position which is coplanar with the back panel and armrests.
Claims 14-17 are considered to contain allowable subject matter at least due to its dependence upon claim 13 which contains allowable subject matter.
The recitation in claim 18 that in the stowed position with the tailgate in the lowered position, the back panel, the armrests, the foot plate, and the cargo bed are all coplanar with each other is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Bowden et al. US 2007/0007789 disclose the closest prior art related to a footrest assembly (160, foot plate 170; Fig. 3) which is associated with a tailgate seat system (100; Fig. 3) and the foot plate of Bowden et al. does not have a retracted position which is coplanar with the back panel and armrests.
Claims 19-20 are considered to contain allowable subject matter at least due to its dependence upon claim 18 which contains allowable subject matter.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kahl et al. US 9,896,004 disclose a tailgate seat system (20, 201, 202; Fig. 1). However, the system lacks a locking mechanism with tabs for locking the backrest (201; Fig. 1) in a deployed position as recited in claim 7 and a footrest assembly as recited in claims 10-12 and 13-20.
Hogan et al. US 9,701,225 disclose a tailgate seat system (10; Fig. 4) with armrests (60, 60’; Fig. 4), a backrest (59; Fig. 4) and a footrest assembly (130; Fig. 4). However, the system lacks a locking mechanism with tabs for locking the backrest (59; Fig. 4) in a deployed position as recited in claim 7, that the footrest assembly has a retracted position which is coplanar with a backrest, armrests, and a cargo bed of a vehicle as recited in claim 13 and a foot plate as recited in claim 18.
Fournier US 7,201,424 discloses a tailgate seat system (10; Fig. 1) including a backrest (18; Fig. 1). However, Fourier lacks a locking mechanism as recited in claims 7 and 8 and a footrest assembly as recited in claims 10-12 and 13-20.
Boomhower et al. US 2002/0109369 disclose a tailgate seat system (10; Fig. 1) including a backrest (22; Fig. 1). However, Boomhower et al. lacks a locking mechanism as recited in claims 7 and 8 and a footrest assembly as recited in claims 10-12 and 13-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
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 (571)270-5500. 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights