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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Drawings
The previous drawing objection is withdrawn. Figures 1-33 are entered. Figures 34-38 are not entered pursuant to the petition decision mailed 10/14/2025.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 each recite a limitation the same or similar to "wherein said at least one vent is positioned spaced apart from all external surfaces of the vehicle and affixed to the vehicle by at least one connecting member". The metes and bounds of that recitation are indefinite because if the “at least one vent” is affixed to the vehicle then it forms part of vehicle and it is therefore unclear what is encompassed by “spaced apart from all external surfaces of the vehicle”. Claim 4 recites in part “wherein the vent is fully integrated to the frame of the vehicle”. If a vent is fully integrated with the frame of a vehicle it is unclear how it can be “spaced apart” from all external surfaces of the vehicle because the vent is a part of the vehicle and would define an external surface of the vehicle. There appears to be an arbitrary dividing line between what is “all external surfaces of the vehicle” and the one vent and the connecting member. For these reasons claims 1, 19, and 20 and all claims that depend therefrom are indefinite, because one of ordinary skill in the art is left to guess on how to define a vent, a connecting member, and all external surfaces of the vehicle.
For the purposes of examination the vent is a part of the vehicle because it is attached to the vehicle and the vent is spaced from other surfaces of the vehicle and defines a means for directing air flowing over or past those other surfaces of the vehicle.
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) 1-5, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McLaren Diffuser (see attached images and (McLaren diffuser detail - Photo gallery - F1technical.net) from F1 Technical 2012 testing.
Examiner Note: the McLaren diffuser is one of a multitude of rear diffusers / wing assemblies used on F1 cars dating back to at least 2012. There is ample evidence of a wide variety of rear diffuser /wing assemblies attached to F1 cars from that era that anticipate the recited features of the claims rejected below.
Claim 1. McLaren Diffuser discloses an apparatus for reducing overall drag of a vehicle, said apparatus comprising at least one vent (see the vents labeled in the annotated figure below), said at least one vent having a proximal end and a distal end (the proximal ends of the vents are forward leading edges of the vents in relation to the front-rear direction of the vehicle shown), wherein both ends being open and positioned and aligned longitudinally in the direction of travel (as shown in the annotated figure the vents are aligned longitudinally in the direction of travel), and wherein said at least one vent is positioned spaced apart from all external surfaces of the vehicle (the vents are spaced apart from the monocoque bod/surfaces of the F1 vehicle) and affixed to the vehicle by at least one connecting member (the rear diffuser is a modular component that attaches to the monocoque of the vehicle with at least on connecting member, if the diffuser was not attached with at least one connecting member it would be on the ground and would not travel with the vehicle, hence it is implied that the diffuser is connected), so that the proximal end faces a rear-facing surface and draws air flowing by said rear-facing surface (as shown in the annotated and attached figure of the diffuser the vents face the rear vehicle surfaces and air will pass over the vehicle body and through the vents of the diffuser).
PNG
media_image1.png
1072
1700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2. McLaren Diffuser functions such that air contained in the vent is expelled opposite to the vehicle's direction of travel, beginning with the vehicle's first movement, and with continued movement of the vehicle the air flowing by the rear-facing surface of the said vehicle is drawn at the proximal end and then expelled through the distal end (it is implied that air will pass through the diffuser, this claim does not recite structure it only recited function and one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the diffuser will function as recited in the claim).
Claim 3. McLaren Diffuser where the cross-sectional area of the said vent or vents is in longitudinal alignment with a significant part of the rear-facing surface of the vehicle so that the proximal end of the vent draws air flowing by this surface, beginning with the vehicle's first movement (as shown in the annotated figure there the diffuser has a cross sectional area which is in longitudinal alignment with the rear facing surface of the vehicle, it is readily recognized that as air passes over the body of the vehicle with movement a significant amount of air that passes over and proximal to the body will pass through the rear diffuser because that it the design goal of the rear diffuser).
Claim 4. McLaren Diffuser, the vent is fully integrated to the frame of the vehicle (as reasoned above it is implied that the vent is attached too or integrated with the monocoque of the vehicle such that the diffuser remains attached to the vehicle and when travelling at the high velocities known to F1 vehicles the diffuser can withstand the aerodynamic loads applied thereto).
Claim 17. McLaren Diffuser discloses a rear wing/diffuser assembly that comprises multiple vents (see annotated Figure).
Claim 19. McLaren Diffuser discloses an apparatus for reducing drags of a vehicle comprising: at least one vent; wherein said at least one vent is attached to said vehicle by at least one connecting member so that said at least one vent is spaced apart from all external surfaces of said vehicle. See annotated figure above and rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 20. Mclaren Diffuser discloses an apparatus for reducing drags of a vehicle comprising: at least three vents; wherein said at least three vents are attached to said vehicle and said at least three vents are spaced apart from all external surfaces of said vehicle. See annotated figure above and rejection of claim 1 above.
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) 5 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaren Diffuser in view of Mario Iliev-Rossi, Carbon Fiber, Kevlar, and the Unbreakable Spirit of F1: How Advanced Composites Changed Racing Forever (and Are Still Changing It in 2025!) (Carbon Fiber, Kevlar, and the Unbreakable Spirit of F1: How Advanced Composites Changed Racing Forever (and Are Still Changing It in 2025!) - F1Race).
Claim 5. McLaren Diffuser is silent whether the vent is moulded in one piece using a light thermoplastic material, carbon fibre reinforced polymer or light metal. However, the history of the use of carbon fiber in F1 racing is known and is detailed, in part, by Mario Iliev-Rossi in an article about the use of carbon fiber in F1 vehicles. Specifically, Mario Iliev-Rossi describes that “Enter the McLaren MP4/1, the first Formula 1 car with a carbon fiber composite chassis. . . .” and “By the mid-1980s, every F1 team had switched to carbon fiber.” Further, Mario Iliev-Rossi quotes Triton Motorsports USA as stating “Carbon fiber’s unique combination of strength, lightness, durability, and versatility has established it as the material of choice for high-performance applications in motorsports, where every advantage counts in the pursuit of victory.” Therefore, based on that historical knowledge the McLaren Diffuser is or would have been made of molded carbon fiber.
Claim 9. McLaren Diffuser does not explicitly disclose whether the vent is moulded in several sections. However, there are multiple vents shown in the annotated figure of McLaren Diffuser and it would have been readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art that one or more of the vents structures were or could be molded separately and subsequently secured together to form the completed rear wing and diffuser of McLaren Diffuser. Those manufacturing and assembly practices are well-known and only require routine skill to implement.
Claims 10-14. McLaren Diffuser does not explicitly discloses the vent dimensions recited in claims 10-14. It is clear that the McLaren Diffuser has height, width, length and thickness dimensions. It is unclear from the photo what those dimensions are, however the dimensions recited are obvious in view of the fact that the dimensions of wings, diffusers, and vents all depend on the size of the vehicle that is conjoined with the wing/diffuser/vent structure and the intended aerodynamic characteristics that optimize or improve performance for that vehicle. Dimensions are result effective variable that one of ordinary skill in the art can modify and measure the benefits or detriments thereof. Only routine skill for those of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the claimed invention was required to determine the desired dimensions that will cause the performance characteristics desired for a particular vehicle. See MPEP 2144.04, Changes in Size/Proportion, and 2144.05.II. Routine Optimization. Consequently claims 10-14 recite obvious size constraints in view of what is known and what is routine skill to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaren Diffuser in view of F1 – Rear wing change (2006) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtWKGE9HBQ0).
Claim 8. McLaren Diffuser is silent whether the vent is removable. However, it is known in F1 racing that the wings and many other components of an F1 are modular / removeable for the purpose of replacement and repair. One such example if this is shown in the YouTube video F1 – rear wing change dating back to 2006. Consequently, it would have been obvious and even desirable to one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to remove the vent(s) of the McLaren Diffuser at least for the purpose of repair or replacement with an improve rear wing structure.
Claim 18. McLaren Diffuser does not explicitly discloses said multiple vents are affixed to said vehicle by multiple connecting members. However, in the YouTube video F1 – rear wing change dating back to 2006 it demonstrates vehicle mechanics changing the rear wing assembly of an F1 car and multiple connecting members and attachment points are utilized to secure the rear wing assembly to the monocoque of the vehicle. The structure of the rear wing / diffuser assembly in McLaren Diffuser implies that there are multiple attachment points and connection members that secure the assembly to the monocoque of the vehicle.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaren Diffuser.
Claims 15 and 16. McLaren Diffuser illustrates a vehicle which one or more vents have been attached to reduce aerodynamic forces and drag on a moving vehicle. See also the rejection of claim 1. The rear wing/diffuser assembly taught by McLaren is permanent in as much as it remains secure to the vehicle throughout the course of operation and improves the vehicles aerodynamic performance. However, it is understood that the rear wing/diffuser assembly can be removed for replacement or repair which encompasses a use for a finite period of time which anticipates temporary attachment. Whether a component is integral or separable is a matter of obvious design choice and implementing only requires routine skill to those of ordinary skill in the art. See at least MPEP 2144.04.IV. Making Portable, Separable, Adjustable, or Continuous.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 and 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the prior art discloses or renders obvious the combination of features recited claim 5, particularly “a propellor or a fan attachment is located within the vent where the rotation of the fan or the propellor is induced by the downstream airflow.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Office recommends exploring all of the images of various F1 cars shown in the www.F1Technical.net gallery of 2012-testing. There are a variety of sizes and shapes or rear wing assemblies shown with different numbers and configurations of vents.
Why do race cars have aerodynamic shape?, Andres, Why do race cars have aerodynamic shape? - Study in Sweden;
3DRC Formula Aero Wings for 1/10th Formula cars, Red RC » 3DRC Formula Aero Wings for 1/10th formula cars;
CN 114408031 A, Automobile Empennage And Automobile For Collecting Energy Through Outer Flow Field Of Vehicle;
US 20210403100 A1, Land Vehicle Drag Reduction Device And Method;
CN 101111425 A, A Luggage Container For Motorbike, See Figs. 2-3.
DE 19727685 C2, Air Control Device;
US 5199762 A, Square-backed Vehicle Air Foil System;
US 4660879 A, Air Spoiler Apparatus With Solar Cells For Vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB S. SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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.
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.
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655