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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits of the invention, i.e. reducing turbulence, saving fuel, etc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0005, lines 2-3, the phrase “rear wheels below the rear wheels” is confusing.
Paragraph 0046, line 4, “inched” should be changed to --inches--.
Paragraph 0046, line 6, “he.she” should be changed to --he or she--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, the word “ate” should be changed to --at--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
With regard to claims 1, 10, and 17:
the phrase “rear wheels below the rear wheels” in line 2 is confusing. The claims will be examined as if this phrase is instead, --rear wheels below the frame rails--.
The phrase “the at least one panel extending laterally entirely between lateral ends of the truck” is confusing. It is unclear if this phrase intends to mean that the panel extends across the entire width of the trailer, or if the panel extends only within the width of the trailer, without extending outside of the trailer’s width. The claims will be examined as if they require the panels to extend across the entire width of the trailer.
Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claims 2-9, 11-16, and 18-20 stand rejected based on their dependence upon rejected claims.
Claim Interpretation
The term “panel holder angle” in the claims is interpreted to require an element that features an angle, and holds a panel. Thus, an entirely flat strip of material cannot meet this limitation because it does not constitute an “angle.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Note: Only claim 1 will be discussed below, as it is the broadest claim, and claims 10 and 17 each contain the same language of claim 1 with additional limitations.
The closest prior art is that of Bloomberg (US 10,421,498).
Bloomberg teaches a device installed behind the rear wheels of a truck, where the truck has frame rails (45, 46), and the device has a cross frame (13) attached to the frame rails, a panel holder (30) and panels (38) extending entirely across the width of the trailer. However, Bloomberg fails to teach or suggest the panel holder (30) being an angle. Instead, the panel holder is flat.
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 cited references provide further examples of mud guard type devices for trucks or other vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6300. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/ROBERT E FULLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676