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
Claims 1-10 are pending and examined.
Drawing
The drawings Figures 1-6 are objected to because Figures 1-6 do not facilitate understanding of the invention (MPEP 702 Requisites of the Application). Applicant must submit replacement drawings that shows structural relationship as recited in claim 1. For example, what is the vehicle (12)? Where is control unit (14) on the vehicle? Where is the driving unit (15) on the vehicle?
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.
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 1-10 are rejected because claims 1-10 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected because “fixed seat (11) for installation on a vehicle” as recited is unclear or misleading. The specification is clear that the vehicle is a motor cycle. Specification including the drawing does not define what “fixed seat (11)”. MPEP 2111(IV) states that “The only exceptions to giving the words in a claim their ordinary and customary meaning in the art are (1) when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer; and (2) when the applicant disavows or disclaims the full scope of a claim term in the specification. To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess.” The plain and ordinary meaning of a fixed seat is a structure that a person sits on. However, the context of claims and drawings does not support the plain and ordinary meaning of a fixed seat. Examiner would interpret and examine “fixed seat” as a base or housing where a rotating shaft is attached. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected because “square-shape support frame” as recited claim 2 and “mouth-shaped support frame” as recited in claim 3 are indefinite what is considered square and mouth shaped. Also, “mouth-shaped support frame” as recited in claim 3 which depends on claim 2 lacks antecedent basis. Examiner would interpret and examine “square-shape support frame” as recited claim 2 and “mouth-shaped support frame” as support frame having sides. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claim 4 is rejected because “equals sign-shaped support frame”, “the upper and lower cross-sectional shapes of the support frame” as recited is indefinite what is considered equals sign-shaped and cross-sectional shapes. Also, “the upper and lower cross-sectional shapes of the support frame” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner would interpret and examine “equals sign-shaped support frame”, “the upper and lower cross-sectional shapes of the support frame” as support frame having sides. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected because “rotation angle” as recited lacks antecedent basis. Claims 8 and 9 depend ultimately on claim 1 which recites “flipping angle”. Examiner would interpret and examine “rotation angle” and “flipping angle” as same. Appropriate correction is needed.
Claim 1 is rejected because "control unit" does not correspond to any structure disclosed in the specification. As such, “control unit” may include hardware and/or software. “control unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “control” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. These phrases could be interpreted to be hardware, software, etc. Any of these interpretations would change the scope of the claim. Therefore, the claim as presently drafted fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. If the claimed subject matter is software, Applicant is required to show adequate algorithm from the disclosure of the specification capable of carry out the function. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is rejected because "computing unit" does not correspond to any structure disclosed in the specification. As such, “control unit” may include hardware and/or software. “computing unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “integrates and calculates” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. These phrases could be interpreted to be hardware, software, etc. Any of these interpretations would change the scope of the claim. Therefore, the claim as presently drafted fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applicant regards as the invention rendering the claim indefinite. If the claimed subject matter is software, Applicant is required to show adequate algorithm from the disclosure of the specification capable of carry out the function. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected based on the dependency on rejected claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "control device" configured to “control”, “driving unit” configured to “control” as recited in claim 1; and “computing unit” “integrates and calculates” as recited in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
"control device" configured to “control” as recited in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. "control device" corresponds to “[0040] … The control device (14) includes a computing unit (141), a comparison unit (142), and a storage unit (143).”. As such, control device corresponds to a computing unit (141), a comparison unit (142), and a storage unit (143). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts of “a computing unit (141), a comparison unit (142), and a storage unit (143)” for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
"driving unit" configured to “control” as recited in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. "driving unit" corresponds to “[0043] In addition, in the present invention, the vehicle is a motorcycle, and the motorcycle is equipped with two sets of variable-angle vehicle fixed wind wing structures, which are installed on both sides of the front of the motorcycle shell. Furthermore, the driving unit is a motor device.”. As such, "driving unit" corresponds to a motor for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
“computing unit” “integrates and calculates” as recited in dependent claim 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure for the computing unit for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
If the entity is a “computer system” which may include hardware and/or software. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection,
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 of this title, 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Santucci etal., WO 2020095166 A1 in view of Li, CN 116409425 A.
As to claim 1, Santucci teaches a variable-angle vehicle fixed wind wing structure (1), comprising (Figs. 1-9 shows wings 1 and 1’ of a motorcycle; “wings 1, 1' are rotatable about the rotational axis 2 by an angle preferably equal to +/- 25° with respect to the direction of midplane P (horizontal to the ground)”, ¶42):
a fixed seat (11) for installation on a vehicle (2) (“support element 7 in particular comprises a portion which extends between the axis of wing 2 and the fairing of the front portion 101 of the motor vehicle 100.”, ¶44);
a rotating shaft (12) set on the fixed seat (11) (“support element 7 in particular comprises a portion which extends between the axis of wing 2 and the fairing of the front portion 101 of the motor vehicle 100.”, ¶44);
a fixed wind wing mechanism (13) including a support frame (131) and a fixed-wing (132), wherein a distance is maintained between the support frame (131) and the fixed-wing (132) to form at least one air inlet (134) and at least one air outlet (135), and the rotating shaft is installed on the support frame (131) and connected to the 10 fixed-wing (132) (“Each wing 1, 1' comprises a support element 7 mounted on the outer side of said wing 1, 1'. The support element 7 allows the cantilevered side of the wing to be supported, thus making it more stable. The support element 7 in particular comprises a portion which extends between the axis of wing 2 and the fairing of the front portion 101 of the motor vehicle 100. More specifically, the support element 7 as an "L"-shaped profile oriented toward the fairing of the motor vehicle 100 so as to define a channel for conveying the air flow with the respective wing 1, 1' and the fairing.”, ¶44-45; and
a control device (14) installed on the vehicle (2) and electrically connected to a driving unit (15) (“said actuators S are functionally connected to a control unit CPU. The control unit CPU is programmed to selectively move the first 1 and second 1' wing and, in particular, to select the rotation angle of said wings about the rotational axis 2 with respect to midplane P. “, ¶48);
wherein the driving unit (15) is coupled to the rotating shaft (12) and connected to the fixed wind wing mechanism (13), and the rotation of the rotating shaft (12) is controlled by the driving unit (15) to flip the fixed-wing (132), thereby adjusting the flipping angle of the fixed-wing (132) and changing the distance between the fixed-wing (132) and the support frame (131) as well as the inflow and outflow through the air inlet (134) and the air outlet (135) (“actuation means 3 diagrammatically shown in Figures 1 to 3, 5 to 9 comprise two actuators 3 for moving each wing 1, 1' between said neutral N, raised U and lowered D positions. Said actuators preferably are electric motors…Said device 10 preferably comprises a first and second actuator S which actuate the first 1 and second 1' wing, respectively, and said actuators S are functionally connected to a control unit CPU. The control unit CPU is programmed to selectively move the first 1 and second 1' wing and, in particular, to select the rotation angle of said wings about the rotational axis 2 with respect to midplane P. The angle of the wings 1, 1' with respect to midplane P, and therefore the resulting roll torque are an output calculated by the control unit CPU according to the steering angle, the rolling angle, and the vehicle speed. Thereby by varying the roll torque, the rolling speed of the vehicle may be varied, i.e. the roll inclination of the vehicle may be made quicker, in particular when it has to enter a curve or exit a curve. Thereby, the motor vehicle 100 goes from the standing position to the steering inclination position and vice versa in a significantly quicker manner. This effect is particularly perceivable at speeds of the motor vehicle 100 exceeding 50 km/h.”, ¶46 and 48);
wherein the control device (14) is disposed for controlling the flipping angle of the fixed-wing (132), and adjusts the flipping angle of the fixed-wing (132) automatically and in real-time based on the traveling posture and speed of the 25 vehicle (2) (“said actuators S are functionally connected to a control unit CPU. The control unit CPU is programmed to selectively move the first 1 and second 1' wing and, in particular, to select the rotation angle of said wings about the rotational axis 2 with respect to midplane P. The angle of the wings 1, 1' with respect to midplane P, and therefore the resulting roll torque are an output calculated by the control unit CPU according to the steering angle, the rolling angle, and the vehicle speed. Thereby by varying the roll torque, the rolling speed of the vehicle may be varied, i.e. the roll inclination of the vehicle may be made quicker, in particular when it has to enter a curve or exit a curve. Thereby, the motor vehicle 100 goes from the standing position to the steering inclination position and vice versa in a significantly quicker manner. This effect is particularly perceivable at speeds of the motor vehicle 100 exceeding 50 km/h.”, ¶46 and 48).
Santucci does not specifically teach:
wherein, during the process of air flowing through the air inlet (134), the fixed-wing (132), and the air outlet (135), pressure is generated and provided to the vehicle according to the flipping angle and cross-sectional shape of the fixed-wing (132).
However, Li teaches a motorcycle with fixed wing 520 for wind flow through where pressure is generated between the windward side and the windward part according to angle setting for the windward sides and the curved shape of the fixed wing (Li: Figs. 27A,B, 28A,B and related text; ¶160-162). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for the motorcycle as taught by Santucci to include during the process of air flowing through the air inlet, the fixed-wing, and the air outlet, pressure is generated and provided to the vehicle according to the flipping angle and cross-sectional shape of the fixed-wing as taught by Li to improve o improve the grip, stability and traction of the vehicle on the road (Santucci: ¶2).
As to claim 2, Santucci modified by Li teaches the variable-angle vehicle fixed wind wing structure wherein the support frame (131) is a square-shape support frame, and the rotating shaft (12) and a rotating support shaft (133) are correspondingly set on two corresponding sides 30 of the square-shape support frame, and the two ends of the fixed-wing (132) are respectively connected to the rotating shaft (12) and the rotating support shaft (133) to form a rectangular structure with a horizontal bar; the upper and lower cross- sectional shapes of the support frame (131) also exhibit a wing-like structure, thereby allowing the support frame (131) and the fixed-wing (132) to generate an integrated 5 wind field effect (Santucci: Figs. 5-9 and related text shows fixed wings 1 and 1’ is included in square shaped support with a rotating axis of P to direct wind flow, ¶28).
As to claim 3, Santucci modified by Li teaches the variable-angle vehicle fixed wind wing structure wherein the mouth-shaped support frame and the fixed wing (132) form two air inlets (134) and two air outlets (135), and by changing the flipping angle of the fixed wing (132), the air flow velocity of the two air inlets and two air outlets can be affected, thereby causing an overall aerodynamic effect and air downforce on the support frame (131) and the fixed wing (132) (Santucci: Figs. 1-9 and related text; “From a constructional viewpoint, wing 1 comprises a leading edge or inlet edge la and a trailing edge or outlet edge lb, opposite to the leading edge la, which are defined with respect to the direction of the wind flow F. Wing 1 is mounted on the front axle of the motor vehicle 100 so that during the driving, the air current F flows over wing 1 with a direction that goes from the leading edge la toward the trailing edge lb. It may be assumed that the direction of the air flow F substantially is horizontal to vehicle 100 when driving. As shown in Figures 1 to 3, the wings have a tapered drop-shaped profile characterized by an enlarged inlet edge la and a tapered outlet edge lb. In the drawings, the profile is symmetrical with respect to the plane passing through the leading la and trailing lb edges. Said wing profile may also take on a different shape according to the aerodynamic effect desired.”, ¶28-29).
As to claim 4, Santucci modified by Li teaches the variable-angle vehicle fixed wind wing structure wherein the support frame (131) is a equals sign-shaped support frame, and the rotating shaft (12) is located in the middle of the two corresponding edges of the equals sign-shaped support frame, and one end of the fixed wing (132) is connected to the rotating shaft (12) to form a three-tiered horizontal structure in the middle of the equals sign-shaped support frame; the upper and lower cross-sectional shapes of the support frame (131) also present a wing-shaped structure, thereby allowing the support frame (131) and the fixed wing (132) to generate an overall wind field effect (Santucci: Figs. 1-9 and related text).
As to claim 5, Santucci modified by Li teaches the variable-angle vehicle fixed wind wing structure wherein the equal sign shape support frame and the fixed-wing (132) form two air inlets (134) and two air outlets (135) respectively, by changing the flipping angle of the fixed- wing (132), the air flow velocity of the two air inlets and two air outlets can be affected, thereby producing a whole aerodynamic effect and air downforce on the entire support frame (131) and fixed-wing (132) (Santucci: Figs. 1-9 and related text; “From a constructional viewpoint, wing 1 comprises a leading edge or inlet edge la and a trailing edge or outlet edge lb, opposite to the leading edge la, which are defined with respect to the direction of the wind flow F. Wing 1 is mounted on the front axle of the motor vehicle 100 so that during the driving, the air current F flows over wing 1 with a direction that goes from the leading edge la toward the trailing edge lb. It may be assumed that the direction of the air flow F substantially is horizontal to vehicle 100 when driving. As shown in Figures 1 to 3, the wings have a tapered drop-shaped profile characterized by an enlarged inlet edge la and a tapered outlet edge lb. In the drawings, the profile is symmetrical with respect to the plane passing through the leading la and trailing lb edges. Said wing profile may also take on a different shape according to the aerodynamic effect desired.”, ¶28-29).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Santucci etal., WO 2020095166 A1 in view of Li, CN 116409425 A, further in view of Grimm, US 20180009444 A1.
As to claim 6, Santucci modified by Li does not explicitly teach the variable-angle vehicle fixed wind wing structure further comprising a vehicle motion sensor (16) installed on the vehicle (2), wherein the vehicle motion sensor (16) is disposed for sensing the vehicle's (2) speed, inclination angle, headwind, and tailwind, and transmitting the sensing results to the control device (14).
However, Grimm teaches vehicle sensors installed in a vehicle to monitor parameters “driving speed and acceleration or deceleration are also a function of the switching state of the transmission, of a load, of an inclination of the street (downhill slope), of a wind situation (headwind or tailwind), etc.” (Grimm: ¶26, 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for the motorcycle as taught by Santucci modified by Li to include a vehicle motion sensor installed on the vehicle, wherein the vehicle motion sensor is disposed for sensing the vehicle's speed, inclination angle, headwind, and tailwind, and transmitting the sensing results to the control device as taught by Grimm to improve the grip, stability and traction of the vehicle on the road (Santucci: ¶2).
As to claim 7, Santucci modified by Li and Grimm teaches the variable-angle vehicle fixed wind wing structure wherein the control device (14) comprises a computing unit (141), a comparison unit (142), and a storage unit (143), and when the vehicle motion sensor (16) transmits the sensing result to the control device (14), the computing unit (141) integrates and calculates the vehicle dynamic parameters such as the travel speed, tilt angle, headwind, and tailwind, to obtain a calculation result, and the comparison unit (142) compares the calculation result with the adjustment parameters recorded in the storage unit to control the flip angle of the fixed wind wing (132) based on the closest adjustment parameter (Grimm: Figs. 1-3 and related text describes control device, comparator and storage device; ¶26, 54).
As to claim 8, Santucci modified by Li and Grimm teaches the variable-angle vehicle fixed wind wing structure further comprising a control unit (144) and a communication interface (145) in the control device (14), and the control unit (144) is electrically connected to the communication interface (145), and the control unit (144) adjusts the rotation angle of the fixed wind wing (132) by driving unit (15), and the communication interface (145) receives the driving motion signals from the vehicle motion sensor (16) (Santucci: ¶46 and 48; Li: “The riding vehicle 10 also includes a body control module and an electronic key. The body control module is communicatively connected to the power system 200, and the electronic key is communicatively connected to the body control module”; Grimm: Figs. 1-3 and related text; ¶26, 54; see claims 1 and 6 above for rationale, motivation, reasons to combine).
As to claim 9, Santucci modified by Li and Grimm teaches the variable-angle vehicle fixed wind wing structure wherein the communication interface (145) is disposed for receiving signals from other electronic control systems of the vehicle (2) and performing active adjustments of the rotation angle of the fixed wind wing (132) (Santucci: ¶46 and 48; Li: “The riding vehicle 10 also includes a body control module and an electronic key. The body control module is communicatively connected to the power system 200, and the electronic key is communicatively connected to the body control module”, ¶153; Grimm: Figs. 1-3 and related text; ¶26, 54; see claims 1 and 6 above for rationale, motivation, reasons to combine).
As to claim 10, Santucci modified by Li and Grimm teaches the variable-angle vehicle fixed wind wing structure wherein the communication interface (145) is disposed for transmitting the rotation angle of the fixed wind wing (132) to the electronic control system of the vehicle (2), thereby providing angle information of the fixed wind wing (132) to the driver of the vehicle (2) (Santucci: ¶46 and 48; Li: “The riding vehicle 10 also includes a body control module and an electronic key. The body control module is communicatively connected to the power system 200, and the electronic key is communicatively connected to the body control module”, ¶153; Grimm: Figs. 1-3 and related text; ¶26, 54; see claims 1 and 6 above for rationale, motivation, reasons to combine).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Examiner’s Request
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, the applicant is requested to indicate support for amended claim language and newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). (MPEP 2163 I. B. New or Amended Claims). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667