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.
(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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by kirchhoff (U.S. 6,641,190 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kirchhoff discloses a tailgate extension system (see figs. 1-4), comprising:
a tailgate (26; see figs. 1-4 and refer to col. 2, lines 19-31) coupled to a vehicle (20), the tailgate (26) comprising:
i) a frame (as shown in figs. 1-4);
ii) a panel hinge assembly (54) coupled to the frame (see figs. 1-2);
iii) a tailgate bed extension panel (52; see figs. 3-4 and refer to col. 3, lines 11-33), coupled to the panel hinge assembly (54), and configured to rotate about the panel hinge assembly (54) along a first axis of rotation (refer to col. 3, lines 15-33: “pivot between open and closed positions…relative to the first part 42”); and
iv) a support arm (92) coupled to the frame (as shown in figs. 3-4) and configured to rotate about the frame along a second axis of rotation (see figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 2, Kirchhoff discloses wherein the support arm comprises an inner support arm and an outer support arm (col. 5, lines 22-30: 92 has an adjustable length and is a telescoping member).
Regarding claim 3, Kirchhoff discloses wherein the support arm (92) is configured to extend into an extended position (as shown in fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Kirchhoff discloses wherein:
i) the tailgate bed extension panel (52; see figs. 3-4 and refer to col. 3, lines 11-33) is configured to rotate between a closed position (fig. 3) and an open position (fig. 4),
ii) the support arm (92) is configured to rotate between a closed position (fig. 3) and an open position (fig. 4), and
iii) when the tailgate bed extension panel (52) is in the open position and the support arm (92) is in the open position (fig. 4), the tailgate bed extension panel (52) is configured to engage the support arm (92; as shown in fig. 4, they are engaged at 55/98).
Regarding claim 5, Kirchhoff discloses a retention mechanism (100, figs. 3-4) configured to secure the support arm (92) in the closed position (refer to col. 5, lines 39-42).
Regarding claim 8, Kirchhoff discloses a striker (62, 68; see fig. 7 and refer to col. 4, lines 1-20) coupled to the tailgate bed extension panel (52); and
a latch assembly (100, figs. 3-4) coupled to the support arm (92; refer to col. 5, lines 39-42).
Regarding claim 10, Kirchhoff discloses wherein the frame comprises an opening (22) configured to house the support arm when the support arm (92) is in the closed position (see figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Kirchhoff discloses wherein the first axis of rotation is perpendicular to the second axis of rotation (see figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 12, Kirchhoff discloses wherein the support arm (92) is configured to rotate 90 degrees about the frame to rotate from the closed position to the open position (as shown in figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 13, Kirchhoff discloses further comprising the vehicle (20; see figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, Kirchhoff discloses wherein the vehicle comprises a pickup truck (20; see figs. 1-2 and refer to col. 5, lines 42-44).
Regarding claim 15, Kirchhoff discloses a method for engaging a tailgate panel extension bed support arm, comprising:
a) disengaging a retention mechanism (32; see figs. 1-2 and refer to col. 2, lines 32-44), wherein, when engaged, the retention mechanism (32) is configured to secured a support arm (92) of a tailgate (26) in a closed position (see figs. 1-2), wherein the tailgate (26) is coupled to a vehicle (20) and comprises:
a frame (as shown in figs. 1-4);
a panel hinge assembly (54) coupled to the frame (see figs. 1-2);
a tailgate bed extension panel (52; see figs. 3-4 and refer to col. 3, lines 11-33), coupled to the panel hinge assembly (54), and configured to rotate about the panel hinge assembly along a first axis of rotation (refer to col. 3, lines 15-33: “pivot between open and closed positions…relative to the first part 42”); and
the support arm (92) coupled to the frame (as shown in figs. 3-4) and configured to rotate about the frame along a second axis of rotation (see figs. 3-4);
b) rotating the support arm (92) into the open position (as shown in fig. 4); and
c) rotating the tailgate bed extension panel (52; see figs. 3-4 and refer to col. 3, lines 11-33) to an open position (fig. 4), causing the tailgate bed extension panel (52) to engage the support arm (92; as shown in fig. 4, they are engaged at 55/98).
Regarding claim 16, Kirchhoff discloses prior to rotating the support arm (92) into the open position (fig. 4), rotating the hinge assembly (54), exposing the support arm (see figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Kirchhoff discloses extending the support arm (92) into an open position (see fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Kirchhoff discloses wherein
i) the tailgate bed extension panel (52; see figs. 3-4 and refer to col. 3, lines 11-33) is configured to rotate between a closed position (fig. 3) and an open position (fig. 4),
ii) the support arm (92) is configured to rotate between a closed position (fig. 3) and an open position (fig. 4), and
iii) when the tailgate bed extension panel (52) is in the open position (fig. 4) and the support arm (92) is in the open position (see fig. 4), the tailgate bed extension panel (52) is configured to engage the support arm (92; as shown in fig. 4, they are engaged at 55/98).
Regarding claim 20, Kirchhoff discloses wherein the tailgate further comprises: a striker (62, 68; see fig. 7 and refer to col. 4, lines 1-20) coupled to the tailgate bed extension panel (52); and
a latch assembly (100, figs. 3-4) coupled to the support arm (92; refer to col. 5, lines 39-42).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over kirchhoff (U.S. 6,641,190 B2) alone.
Regarding claim 7, Kirchhoff teaches all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; however, Kirchhoff is silent to the F-frame shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the frame of Kirchhoff to have an F-frame shape since a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey, 357 F. 2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9, and 19 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matlack (U.S. 5,518,158) and Neighbors et al. (U.S. 10,525,870B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571) 272-5405. 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights