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 .
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.
Claims 6, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ribaldone et al. US 10,173,736.
Regarding claim 6, Ribaldone et al. disclose an air deflector device (1; Fig. 8 below) for a vehicle (see line 1 of the abstract), the air deflector device (1; Fig. 8 below) comprising: an air deflector portion (2; Fig 8 below) configured to deflect an air flow (which impacts thereon when the vehicle is moving forwardly) occurring due to a movement of the vehicle, whereby the air deflector portion (2; Fig. 8 below) is further configured to be moved between a closed position (Fig. 7) and an opened position (Fig. 8), whereby the air deflector portion (2; Fig. 8 below) has a front portion (towards the FRONT of the vehicle as pointed out in Fig. 8 below) and a rear portion (towards the REAR of the vehicle as pointed out in Fig. 8 below) relative to a direction of the air flow (as pointed out in at the left edge of Fig. 8 below); a mounting mechanism (pivot pin 7; Fig. 8 below; col. 3, line 22) disposed at the front portion of the air deflector portion (2; Fig 8 below) and comprising a force element (biasing spring 16; Fig. 8 below; col. 3, lines 15-17) configured to apply a force pushing the air deflector portion (2; Fig 8. below) from its opened position (Fig. 8 below), to its closed position (Fig. 7; i.e., biased toward a “raised” position as described in col. 3, lines 15-16); and an actuation mechanism (5; Fig. 8 below) disposed at the rear portion of the air deflector portion (2; Fig. 8 below) and configured to push the air deflector portion (2; Fig. 8 below) from its closed position (Fig. 7) to its opened position (Fig. 8 below), based on the air flow (see col. 3, lines 45-54), whereby the actuation mechanism (56; Fig. 8 below) comprises at least one impact surface (the inner surface of the actuation mechanism 5 as pointed out in Fig. 8 below) disposed at the rear portion of the air deflector portion (such position shown in Fig. 8 below) and angled into the vehicle relative to the air deflector portion (the angle as pointed out at the bottom of Fig. 8 below), whereby the air flow impacts the at least one impact surface (as shown in Fig. 8 below) after first passing over the front portion of the air deflector portion (2; Fig. 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
840
935
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Ribaldone et al. disclose the air deflector device according to claim 6, as explained above, whereby the air deflector device is configured to be mounted under the vehicle (see line 1 of the abstract) in a front of the vehicle, as shown in Fig. 2 above.
Regarding claim 13, Ribaldone et al. disclose the air deflector device according to claim 6, as explained above, whereby the force element (16; Fig. 8 above) is configured as a spring element to provide force. See biasing spring 16; Fig. 8 above; col. 3, lines 15-17.
Regarding claim 15, Ribaldone et al. a vehicle (see line 1 of the abstract) comprising the air deflector device according to claim 6, as explained above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribaldone et al. US 10,173,736.
Regarding claim 7, Ribaldone et al. disclose the air deflector device according to claim 6, as explained above, where the actuation mechanism moves the air deflector portion from its closed position into its opened position at a predetermined threshold speed. See col. 2, lines 62-64.
However, Ribaldone et al. does not explicitly disclose the value of the predetermined speed to be higher than 40km/h.
Notwithstanding, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct the actuation mechanism of Ribaldone et al. to be configured to move the air deflector portion from its closed position into its opened position if the movement speed of the vehicle is higher than 40 km/h with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 14 are allowed.
Claims 8, 9 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The recitation in claim 1 of a locking mechanism configured to be moved between an unlocked position and a locked position, whereby in its locked position, the locking mechanism is further configured to lock the air deflector portion in its opened position is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Ribaldone et al. disclose an air deflector portion (2; Fig. 8 above) which is configured to be moved from a closed position (Fig. 8) to an open position (Fig. 7) by being pushed by an air flow (as pointed out in Fig. 8 above). However, Ribaldone et al. do not disclose a locking mechanism to lock the air deflector portion in its opened position. Rather, the air deflector portion (2; Fig. 8 above) moves from the open position to the closed position as the vehicle slows by way of the biasing spring (16; Fig. 8).
The recitation in claim 8 of a locking mechanism configured to be moved between an unlocked position and a locked position, whereby in its locked position, the locking mechanism is further configured to lock the actuation mechanism in its opened position. is neither taught nor fairly suggested by the prior art of record. Specifically, Specifically, Ribaldone et al. disclose an air deflector portion (2; Fig. 8 above) which is configured to be moved from a closed position (Fig. 8) to an open position (Fig. 7) by being pushed by an air flow (as pointed out in Fig. 8 above). However, Ribaldone et al. do not disclose a locking mechanism to lock the actuation mechanism (5; Fig. 8 above) in its opened position. Rather, the air deflector portion (2; Fig. 8 above) moves from the open position to the closed position as the vehicle slows by way of the biasing spring (16; Fig. 8).
Claims 9 and 11 are considered to contain allowable subject matter at least due to their ultimate dependence upon claim 8 which contains allowable subject matter as explained above.
Pertinent Prior Art
Regarding the art cited in the IDS filed 7/2/26, WO 20129223917 fails to disclose a locking mechanism as recited in claim 1 and fails to disclose a mounting mechanism disposed at the front portion of the air deflector portion as recited in claim 6. WO 2016092165 also fails to disclose a locking mechanism as recited in claim 1 and fails to disclose an impact surface angled into the vehicle relative to the air deflector portion as recited in claim 6
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Herlem US 10,953,934 discloses an air deflector portion 5 in Figure 2 with a mounting mechanism 7 in Figure 2 which is disposed at a front portion thereof. However, Herlem fails to disclose a locking mechanism as recited in claim 1 or a an angled impact surface which is angled into the vehicle relative to the air deflector portion as recited in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571)270-5500. 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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights