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, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hastings (4,861,096).
Hastings discloses a vehicle system comprising a cargo bed (16) including a first side wall (22), a second side wall (24), a front wall (18), and a tailgate (26) structure, as shown in Figure 1. A cargo bed swing door system (30) includes a swing door (30) mounted to the first side wall (22), as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The swing door (30) moves between a closed position, as shown in Figure 1, and an open position, as shown in Figure 2. The cargo bed (16) is accessible through a cargo bed side access opening when the swing door (30) is moved to the open position, as shown in Figure 2.
In reference to claim 11, the swing door (30) is movable to the open position without repositioning the tailgate structure (26), as shown in Figure 2.
In reference to claim 13, cargo bed swing door system (30) includes a step (40) formed in the first side wall (22) that is exposed when the swing door (30) is moved to the open position, as shown in Figure 2.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a) as being anticipated by Horner et al. (US 2022/0001939).
Horner et al. discloses a vehicle system comprising a cargo bed (14) including a first side wall (20), a second side wall (18), a floor, a front wall (16), and a tailgate structure (22), as shown in Figure 1. The cargo bed swing door system (24,26) includes a swing door (24) mounted to the first side wall (20), as shown in Figure 1. The swing door (24) moves between a closed position and an open position, as disclosed in paragraph [0013]. The cargo bed is accessible through a cargo bed side access opening when the swing door (24) is moved to the open position, as shown in Figure 1.
In reference to claim 11, the swing door (24) is movable to the open position without repositioning the tailgate structure, as shown in Figure 1.
In reference to claim 12, the swing door is located between a vehicle rear well and a vehicle tail lamp assembly when in the closed position, as best shown in Figure 1.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dean (US 2006/0119134).
Dean discloses a vehicle system comprising a cargo bed (14) including a first side wall (22), a second side wall (22), a floor (20), a front wall, and a tailgate structure (24), as shown in Figure 2. The cargo bed swing door system (60) includes a swing door (60) mounted to the first side wall (22) and a swing door mounted to the second side wall (22), as shown in Figure 1B. The swing door (60) moves between a closed position, as shown in Figure 4, and an open position, as shown in Figure 1B. The cargo bed is accessible through a cargo bed side access opening when the swing door (60) is moved to the open position, as shown in Figures 1B and 2.
In reference to claim 11, the swing door (60) is moveable to the open position without repositioning the tailgate structure, as shown in Figures 1B and 2.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings (4,861,096) in view of Bedi et al. (6,460,915).
Hastings discloses the cargo bed side access opening is a pass-through opening formed through the inner panel, as broadly claimed. This limitation does not require the access opening to be completely surrounded by the inner panel. However, Hastings does not disclose the hinge pillar.
Bedi et al. teaches reinforcing a cargo bed door opening with a pillar (36), as in Figures 1 and 3.
In reference to claim 3, the pillar (36) is mounted to both an outer panel (28) and an inner panel (26) of the first side wall, as shown in Figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pillar mounted to both the inner and outer panels of Hastings, as taught by Bedi et al., to pivotally mount the swing door with a reasonable expectation for success to provide a sufficiently strong structure to support the swing door.
Claim 2-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean (US 2006/0119134) in view of Bedi et al. (6,460,915).
Dean teaches pivotally attaching the swing door at a location above a vehicle wheel well, as shown in Figures 1B and 2.
In reference to claim 4, the cargo bed side access opening is a pass-through opening formed through the inner panel, as broadly claimed. This limitation does not require the access opening to be completely surrounded by the inner panel.
However, Dean does not disclose the hinge pillar.
Bedi et al. teaches reinforcing a cargo bed door opening with a pillar (36), as in Figures 1 and 3.
In reference to claim 3, the pillar (36) is mounted to both an outer panel (28) and an inner panel (26) of the first side wall, as shown in Figure 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pillar mounted to both the inner and outer panels of Dean, as taught by Bedi et al., to pivotally mount the swing door above the vehicle wheel well with a reasonable expectation for success to provide a sufficiently strong structure to support the swing door.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings (4,861,096) in view of Stortzum (US 2009/0127886), further in view of Dellock et al. (US 2012/0280528).
Hastings does not disclose the light pipe.
Stortzum teaches providing a light to the swing door to illuminate portions of the door and the cargo bed side access opening when the door is moved to the open position, as disclosed in paragraph [0032].
Dellock et al. teaches providing exterior lighting using a light pipe, as shown in Figure 1 and disclosed in paragraph [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to:
Provide a light to the swing door of Hastings to illuminate portions of the door and the cargo bed side access opening when the door is moved to the open position, as taught by Stortzum, with a reasonable expectation for success to illuminate the swing door, the access opening, and the ground beneath the swing door to make operation at night easier and safer; and,
Form the light as a light pipe, as taught by Dellock et al., with a reasonable expectation for success as an obvious design choice of a specific light structure that is commonly used in the industry to provide exterior light on a vehicle closure.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of references, as applied to claim 6, in view of Onopa et al. (US 2008/0232123).
Hastings, as modified, does not disclose connecting a light pipe to a side marker portion of a tail lamp assembly.
Onopa et al. teaches connecting a vehicle exterior light (102) to a side marker portion of a vehicle tail lamp assembly (512), as shown in Figures 1 and 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to connect the light pipe of Hastings, as modified, to a side marker portion of tail lamp assembly, as taught by Onopa et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to minimize electrical wiring to minimize weight and cost.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings (4,861,096) in view of Stortzum (US 2009/0127886).
Hastings does not disclose the storage compartment.
Stortzum teaches providing a storage compartment, a pocket, on an interior facing surface of swing door (2), as disclosed in paragraph [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a storage compartment to the interior facing surface of the swing door of Hastings, as taught by Stortzum, with a reasonable expectation for success to provide a convenient storage area for tools and other items.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings (4,861,096) in view of Parker (US 2021/0387680).
Hastings discloses the swing door includes a latch mechanism (38), as shown in Figure 2. The latch mechanism is described as a conventional latch means. Figure 2 shows the latch mechanism on the swing door such that it would receive a striker pin of the first wall, as is conventional construction.
However, Hastings does not disclose two vertically separated latching mechanisms.
Parker teaches providing a door (205) with two vertically separated latching mechanisms (221), as shown in Figure 2B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second latch mechanism and corresponding lower striker pin on the first wall of Hastings at a location below the first latch mechanism, as taught by Parker, with a reasonable expectation for success to more securely latch the swing door in the closed position to withstand the weight of loose material like gravel or dirt transported within the cargo bed.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings (4,861,096) in view of Greer (US 2013/0194088).
Hastings does not disclose the sensor system.
Greer teaches providing a sensor system to monitor a position of a truck bed closure (2), as disclosed in paragraphs [0011-0019]. The sensor system includes sensor (8).
In reference to claim 15, a control module is operably connected to the sensor system and programmed to prevent a vehicle gear shift when the truck bed closure (2) is in the open position, as disclosed in paragraph [0019].
In reference to claim 16, a control module is operably connected to the sensor system and programmed to command an alarm (4) when the truck bed closure (2) is in the open position, as disclosed in paragraphs [0011-0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a sensor system operably coupled to a control module to prevent a gear shift or command an alarm when the swing door of Hastings is open, as taught by Greer, with a reasonable expectation for success to prevent a driver from driving with the door open that could cause the loss of items stored in the cargo bed and/or damaging the swing door.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruford et al. (7,090,276) in view of Pool et al. (US 2002/0070577).
Bruford et al. discloses a vehicle system comprising a cargo bed (12) and a tailgate structure (15), as shown in Figure 2. A deployable stairgate system (20) includes a deployable ladder (20) moves between a stowed position in which the deployable ladder (20) is housed within an internal cavity of the tailgate structure (15), as shown in Figure 1, and a deployed position in which the deployable ladder (20) extends outside of the internal cavity, as shown in Figure 2. The deployable ladder (20) includes a lower step (25) that provides a cover molding section of the tailgate structure when the deployable ladder (20) is in the stowed position, as shown in Figure 1.
However, Bruford et al. does not disclose the additional step.
Pool et al. teaches providing an additional step (18) that is vertically higher than a lower step (20) when the deployable ladder (16) is in the deployed position, as shown in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an additional step that is vertically higher than the lower step to the deployable ladder of Bruford et al., as taught by Pool et al., with a reasonable expectation for success to improve access to the cargo bed by allowing people to take smaller steps while using the ladder as may be necessary for children and people with mobility issues.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner is citing several references like Dowle et al. (US 2023/0382309) that show a cargo bed side access opening that is formed as a hole that is completely surrounded by the inner panel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP whose telephone number is (571)272-6656. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:30.
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.
GREGORY A. BLANKENSHIP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3612
/GREGORY A BLANKENSHIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 August 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights