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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner holds prior art US 3363717 A Delville Hunt Rowland teaches amended claims.
Regarding arguments page 6-8 regarding Delville, Examiner holds fig. 2 is in a state of a closed structure.
Regarding arguments pages 8-9 regarding Chashchukhin, examiner holds amended claim 1 and 9 are taught by prior art. Additionally amended limitation “used to reduce a drag experienced by a body in an ambient fluid” is an intended use limitation, and prior art only needs to be capable of such limitation. Limitations based on the intended use of a structure do not confer patentability if the prior art is capable of performing the same function – see MPEP 2111.02(II).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14 and 17 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20140042771 A1 Lo; Wen Liang.
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)(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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3363717 A Delville Hunt Rowland.
Regarding claim 1 Deville teaches, a drag reduction device (fig. 3, element 1) that is used to reduce a drag experienced by a body in an ambient fluid (fig. 2), wherein the drag reduction device is a closed structure (fig. 2 is a closed structure state) and is configured to be detachably attached to the body (element 1 figs, 2 attaching to element 5), wherein the drag reduction device comprises a first part and a second part, the first part attached to the second part (fig. 2, elements 1 and 2), and the second part is configured to be detachably attached to the body (col. 3, lines 22-27), wherein the first part is made of a flexible material (col. 3, lines 22-27), and the first part is configured to be able to change its shape under an action of the ambient fluid (col. 3, lines 28-36 the air inflates the structure); wherein the first part itself delimits a first closed space (fig. 2, element 1), containing no breaks or openings (fig. 2, element 1), and the first part is detachably attached to a part of the body via the second part (fig. 2) wherein the first closed space contains a first fluid, and the first part changes its shape by interacting with the first fluid and the ambient fluid, so that the drag experienced from the body in the ambient fluid is reduced (col. 3, lines 28-36 the air inflates the structure).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8, 9, 11, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9499035 B1 Chashchukhin; Sergey.
Regarding claim 1, Chashchukhin teaches, a drag reduction device (element 131) that is used to reduce a drag experienced by a body in an ambient fluid (fig. 5), wherein the drag reduction device is a closed structure and is configured to be detachably attached to the body (fig. 4, element 131), wherein the drag reduction device comprises a first part (fig. 4, element 112) and a second part (fig. 4, element 118), the first part is attached to the second part (fig. 4), and the second part is configured to be detachably attached to the body (fig. 4), wherein the first part is made of a flexible material (fig. 4, element 112), and the first part is configured to be able to change its shape under an action of the ambient fluid (fig. 5); wherein the first part itself delimits a first closed space (fig. 5), containing no breaks or openings (fig. 5), and the first part is detachably attached to a part of the body via the second part (fig. 4 and 5) wherein the first closed space contains a first fluid, and the first part changes its shape by interacting with the first fluid and the ambient fluid (fig. 5), so that the drag experienced from the body in the ambient fluid is reduced (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5 Chashchukhin teaches, the drag reduction device of claim 1, wherein the first part encapsulates the body within the first closed space via the second part (fig. 4, elements 118 and 112).
Regarding claim 8 Chashchukhin teaches, the drag reduction device of claim 1, wherein the first fluid is the same as or different from the ambient fluid (col. 4, lines 24-38).
Regarding claim 9 Chashchukhin teaches, a drag reduction device that is used to reduce a drag experienced by a body in an ambient fluid, wherein the drag reduction device is configured to be detachably attached to the body (fig. 4, element 131), wherein the drag reduction device comprises a first part (fig, 4. Element 112) and a second part (fig. 4, element 118), the first part is attached to the second part (fig. 4), and the second part is configured to be detachably attached to the body (fig. 4), wherein the first part is made of a flexible material (fig. 4, element 112), and the first part is configured to be able to change its shape under an action of the ambient fluid (fig. 5); wherein the first part itself delimits a non-closed space (fig. 4, element 112), and the first part is attached to a part of the body via the second part (fig. 4, element 112 and element 118), thereby delimiting a second closed space (fig. 5, element 112) containing no breaks or openings (fig. 5), wherein the second closed space contains a second fluid, and the first part changes its shape by interacting with the second fluid and the ambient fluid, so that the drag experienced from the body in the ambient fluid is reduced (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11 Chashchukhin teaches, the drag reduction device of claim 9, wherein the second fluid is the same as or different from the ambient fluid (col. 4, lines 24-38).
Regarding claim 19, Chashchukhin teaches, the drag reduction device of claim 1, wherein the flexible material is a filament which is joined at both ends to form a closed shape (fig. 5, element 112), and the second part is a bonding member (fig. 4, element 118, col. 3, lines 59-67), the filament attached to a part of the body through the bonding member (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Chashchukhin teaches, the drag reduction device of claim 9, wherein the flexible material is a filament (fig. 4, element 112), and the second part comprises a bonding member (col. 3, lines 59-67), the filament attached at its two ends respectively to two different locations on a surface of the body through the bonding member thereby delimiting the second closed space (fig. 4 element 118 and fig. 5 element 115).
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.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chashchukhin as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 20140042771 A1 Lo; Wen Liang.
Regarding claim 14, Chashchukhin teaches, wherein the flexible material is a flexible film (fig. 4, element 112), but fails to teach, wherein the flexible film forms a continuous wall containing no breaks or openings and delimits the first closed space.
However Wen teaches, wherein the flexible film forms a continuous wall containing no breaks or openings and delimits the first closed space (para 0023 and element 13 fig. 7 upper portion).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover taught by Chashchukhin with the solid sheet cover taught by Wen with a reasonable expectation of success because “if a user worries about a too-large flood 3, the user can cover the whole car 2 by the cover body 13 of the waterproof car cover 1 and then zip up the zipper 14 of the cover body 13 and the floor mat 10 after the car 2 is parked on top of the floor mat 10 and the inflation is completed, so as to achieve the effects of covering the car 2 completely, isolating the car 2 from the outside, preventing the car from being sunk by the flood 3, and floating and balancing the car body.” (para 0023).
Regarding claim 15, Chashchukhin as modified teaches, the drag reduction device of claim 14, wherein the flexible film encapsulates the body so that the body is located within the first closed space (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, Chashchukhin as modified teaches, the drag reduction device of claim 14, wherein the second part is a bonding member , and the flexible film is detachably attached to the body through the bonding member (col. 3, lines 59-67).
Regarding claim 17, Chashchukhin teaches, the drag reduction device of claim 9, wherein the flexible material is a flexible film, the second part is a bonding member (col. 3, lines 59-67), but fails to teach, the flexible film forms a continuous wall containing no breaks or openings,
However, Wen teaches, the flexible film forms a continuous wall containing no breaks or openings (para 0023 and element 13 fig. 7 upper portion)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover taught by Chashchukhin with the solid sheet cover taught by Wen with a reasonable expectation of success because “if a user worries about a too-large flood 3, the user can cover the whole car 2 by the cover body 13 of the waterproof car cover 1 and then zip up the zipper 14 of the cover body 13 and the floor mat 10 after the car 2 is parked on top of the floor mat 10 and the inflation is completed, so as to achieve the effects of covering the car 2 completely, isolating the car 2 from the outside, preventing the car from being sunk by the flood 3, and floating and balancing the car body.” (para 0023).
Chashchukhin further teaches, and is attached to a part of the body via the bonding member (fig. 4 element 118), thereby delimiting the closed space (col. 3, lines 59-67).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDI M. CURRY whose telephone number is (469)295-9296. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/C.M.C/
Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights