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
It is noted that applicant has highlighted portions of the prior art on pages 11-12 and 14 in relation to Senatro’s Figure 2 and Guariento’s Figure 4 and Whitney’s Figure 2; however, the highlighting is difficult to see/observe since the highlighting may be too faint for the reader to notice. Thus, it is suggested that applicant include additional editorial notations to assist the reader with identifying the highlighted portions (for example, by using circles and/or arrows in addition to the highlighting).
The previous double patenting rejections have not yet been addressed and are thus maintained. Examiner has corrected the typographical error in the claim listing per applicant’s remarks on the bottom of page 9 and in relation to previously canceled claim 11.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Guariento does not teach “the trailer skirt and rib cover of present application are arranged as claimed "so that the leading edge of the trailer skirt 14 is positioned inboard in the lateral direction 32 far enough to prevent air flow from entering under the trailer" (para. 23 of the present application as filed, emphasis added).”. This argument is not on point because the quotation above is not recited in the claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “so that the leading edge of the trailer skirt 14 is positioned inboard in the lateral direction 32 far enough to prevent air flow from entering under the trailer”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Guariento teaches a front part 1 and a rear part 3 that directs air towards the inside. This argument is not on point because the 1/14/26 office action does not rely on Guariento’s front part 1 and rear part 3 as a whole and instead only relies on Guariento’s rib cover as illustrated in the labeled Figures 1 and 4 and described on pages 9-12 of the 1/14/26 office action.
In response to applicant's argument that Guariento teaches a front part 1 and a rear part 3 that directs air towards the inside and that Guariento’s rib cover is not a standalone/isolated component, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that Whitney does not teach “the trailer skirt of present application is angled as claimed "so that the leading edge of the trailer skirt 14 is positioned inboard in the lateral direction 32 far enough to prevent air flow from entering under the trailer" (para. 23 of the present application, emphasis added).”. This argument is not on point because the quotation above is not recited in the claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “so that the leading edge of the trailer skirt 14 is positioned inboard in the lateral direction 32 far enough to prevent air flow from entering under the trailer”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues that Whitney teaches away from the claimed limitation by citing Whitney’s sides 18. This argument is not on point because the 1/14/26 office action does not rely on Whitney’s sides 18 as a whole and instead only relies on the angling of Whitney’s lateral airstream deflector 80 as described on page 12 of the 1/14/26 office action.
In response to applicant's argument that Whitney teaches away from the claimed limitation by citing Whitney’s sides 18, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues that Whitney teaches an inwardly-directed angle instead of an outwardly-directed angle, this argument is not on point because Senatro discloses the outwardly-directed angle and the combination of Senatro and Whitney teaches the claimed angle range of 3-7 degrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the examiner relied on impermissible hindsight in combining Senatro/Bradley with Guariento and Whitney. This argument is unpersuasive because rationales for combining Senatro/Bradley with Guariento and Whitney were provided on page 12 of the 1/14/26 office action and applicant has not specifically disputed the propriety of the rationales of “for the purpose of shielding portions of the cross-members to provide better aerodynamic qualities by minimizing drag/turbulence” and “for the purpose of reducing drag and improving fuel economy (Whitney; abstract "to reduce drag, improve fuel economy")”.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The arguments against independent claims 1, 16, and 19 and their corresponding dependent claims are similarly unpersuasive for the reasonings described above.
Applicant does not appear to have provided remarks regarding the Information Disclosure Statement.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
For example:
[0032] “The top fairing 26 can be arranged in the same manner as disclosed in patent application number PCT/US17/30297 filed on April 29, 2017 and entitled End of Trailer Fairing for Improved Aerodynamic Performance, the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety for all purposes.”;
[0037] “The aerodynamic mud flap 22 can be arranged as shown in PCT/US2018/053761 filed October 1, 2018 and published as WO 2019/068089 entitled Aerodynamic Mud Flap, the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein in their entirety for all purposes.”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, and 12-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-15 of copending Application No. 18263382 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘382 reference application discloses an apparatus for a trailer comprising a trailer skirt, a rib cover, cross-members, a bogie assembly, an aerodynamic mud flap, and a top fairing.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senatro et al. US11332203 in view of foreign patent document Bradley WO2019169311, foreign patent document Guariento EP1870322, and Whitney et al. US4486046.
Regarding independent claim 1, Senatro discloses, in Figures 1-3,
An apparatus (Senatro; Fig. 1-3 and 6) for a trailer (Senatro; Fig. 1; cargo trailer 104) that has a longitudinal direction, a lateral direction, and a height direction, comprising: a trailer skirt (Senatro; Fig. 2; front panel 134) configured for attachment to the trailer, wherein the trailer skirt has an outer surface that has an outer surface length, wherein a majority of the outer surface length is oriented at an angle from extension forward in the longitudinal direction (Senatro; Fig. 2; front panel 134 is oriented at an acute angle to the longitudinal direction);
PNG
media_image1.png
647
1145
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Senatro is silent regarding wherein a majority of the outer surface length is oriented at an angle from 3 degrees to 7 degrees to the longitudinal direction such that the majority of the outer surface length extends inboard in the lateral direction upon extension forward in the longitudinal direction; an aerodynamic mud flap configured to be attached to the trailer, wherein the aerodynamic mud flap is configured for being located rearward of the trailer skirt in the longitudinal direction, wherein the aerodynamic mud flap has a barrier section that includes apertures therethrough that allow air and particles to flow through the barrier section during travel of the trailer; and a rib cover that is carried by the trailer, wherein the rib cover is located higher than a bottom edge of the trailer skirt in the height direction, and wherein the rib cover is located outboard from the trailer skirt in the lateral direction, wherein the trailer has a cross-member that has a first portion covered by the rib cover and has a second portion that is uncovered and exposed to wind when the trailer is moving; wherein the trailer has a trailer length in the longitudinal direction that is at least 48 feet.
Bradley teaches an aerodynamic mud flap (Bradley; Fig. 33-34; slotted mudflap 158 with openings/voids; [0065-0066, 00102-00103]) configured to be attached to the trailer, wherein the aerodynamic mud flap is configured for being located rearward of the trailer skirt in the longitudinal direction, wherein the aerodynamic mud flap has a barrier section (Bradley; barrier section 160) that includes apertures therethrough that allow air and particles to flow through the barrier section during travel of the trailer.
PNG
media_image2.png
913
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
822
696
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the trailer as taught by Senatro to include an aerodynamic mud flap as taught by Bradley for the purpose of providing improved aerodynamic performance by allowing air to flow through openings/apertures while still blocking road debris/projectiles and achieving optimized cost savings (Bradley; [0065] “optimized savings are achieved with mudflaps 158”).
Senatro is silent regarding wherein a majority of the outer surface length is oriented at an angle from 3 degrees to 7 degrees to the longitudinal direction such that the majority of the outer surface length extends inboard in the lateral direction upon extension forward in the longitudinal direction; and a rib cover that is carried by the trailer, wherein the rib cover is located higher than a bottom edge of the trailer skirt in the height direction, and wherein the rib cover is located outboard from the trailer skirt in the lateral direction, wherein the trailer has a cross-member that has a first portion covered by the rib cover and has a second portion that is uncovered and exposed to wind when the trailer is moving; wherein the trailer has a trailer length in the longitudinal direction that is at least 48 feet.
Guariento teaches, in Figures 1 and 4, a rib cover (Guariento; see labeled Fig. 1 and 4 below) that is carried by the trailer, wherein the rib cover is located higher than a bottom edge of the trailer skirt (Guariento; side fairing 16) in the height direction, wherein the rib cover is wedge shaped and located outboard from the trailer skirt in the lateral direction; wherein the rib cover covers increasingly larger portions of the trailer undercarriage upon extension of the rib cover in the longitudinal direction.
PNG
media_image4.png
563
800
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
809
557
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the trailer and trailer skirt as taught by Senatro to include the rib cover as taught by Guariento for the purpose of shielding portions of the cross-members to provide better aerodynamic qualities by minimizing drag/turbulence.
Senatro is silent regarding wherein a majority of the outer surface length is oriented at an angle from 3 degrees to 7 degrees to the longitudinal direction such that the majority of the outer surface length extends inboard in the lateral direction upon extension forward in the longitudinal direction; wherein the trailer has a trailer length in the longitudinal direction that is at least 48 feet.
Whitney teaches wherein a majority of the outer surface length (Whitney; Fig. 2 and 5; lateral airstream deflector 80) is oriented at an angle from 3 degrees to 7 degrees (Whitney; abstract; “at angles of 4°-15° relative to the direction of movement of the vehicle”) to the longitudinal direction such that the majority of the outer surface length extends inboard in the lateral direction upon extension forward in the longitudinal direction; wherein the trailer has a trailer length in the longitudinal direction that is at least 48 feet (Whitney; col. 4:22-24 “trailer T of typical length, 60 feet being selected”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the selection of the angle of the trailer skirt and the selection of the trailer length as taught by Senatro to be an angle of 3 degrees to 7 degrees (specifically, 6-degrees) and length of at least 35 feet (specifically, 60-feet) as taught by Whitney for the purpose of reducing drag and improving fuel economy (Whitney; abstract “to reduce drag, improve fuel economy”) and for providing sufficient cargo capacity to transport cargo that is at least 35-feet in length.
Regarding claim 2, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the top fairing does not extend rearward of the rearward terminal end of the trailer in the longitudinal direction (Senatro; Fig. 2 and 6; exit skirt fairing 144).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the top fairing (Senatro; Fig. 2 and 6; exit skirt fairing 144) has a leading airflow surface that is configured to be oriented within an angular range from is
Modified Senatro does not teach wherein the top fairing has a leading airflow surface that is configured to be oriented within an angular range from 5 degrees to 14 degrees to the top surface of the trailer; wherein the angular range is oriented with respect to the top surface of the trailer such that arms of the angular range are located rearward from a vertex of the angular range in the longitudinal direction; a tailing airflow surface that engages the leading airflow surface at a meeting location, wherein the tailing airflow surface is curved, wherein a common tangent line of the tailing airflow surface and the leading airflow surface is at the meeting location; and a frame that is configured to engage the top surface of the trailer to which the top fairing is configured to be attached.
Bradley teaches wherein the top fairing (Bradley; Fig. 18; top fairing 14) has a leading airflow surface (Bradley; leading airflow surface 114) that is configured to be oriented within an angular range from 5 degrees to 14 degrees (Bradley; [0077] angular range 120 is 8-14-degrees) to the top surface of the trailer; wherein the angular range is oriented with respect to the top surface of the trailer such that arms (Bradley; [0077] arms 124/126) of the angular range are located rearward from a vertex of the angular range in the longitudinal direction; a tailing airflow surface (Bradley; tailing airflow surface 112) that engages the leading airflow surface at a meeting location (Bradley; meeting location 130), wherein the tailing airflow surface is curved (Bradley; [0079] “curved surface”), wherein a common tangent line (Bradley; common tangent line 136) of the tailing airflow surface and the leading airflow surface is at the meeting location; and a frame (Bradley; frame 140) that is configured to engage the top surface of the trailer to which the top fairing is configured to be attached.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the top fairing as taught by Modified Senatro with the top fairing as taught by Bradley since the top fairings are known elements that obtain the predictable result of providing a more stable wake structure (Bradley; [0066] “stabilized wake structure”) and reduced drag (Bradley; [0002] “to reduce drag”) that cooperate with trailers with a reasonable expectation of success and with no unexpected results (MPEP 2143(I)(B) "Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another To Obtain Predictable Results").
Regarding claim 4, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 3, wherein the tailing airflow surface has a constant radius from the meeting location to a tailing airflow surface terminal end such that the entire tailing airflow surface has a single radius (Bradley; single radius 134; [0079]).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the barrier section including a plurality of horizontal louvers (Bradley; horizontal louvers 164), each horizontal louver forming an elongate member having a width extending in the lateral direction, where the plurality of horizontal louvers are spaced apart (Bradley; [00102] “spacing”) in the height direction in the form of an array, the spacing between adjacent horizontal louvers within the plurality of horizontal louvers increasing (Bradley; [00102] “increases from the bottom of the mudflap 158 towards the top”) as the plurality of horizontal louvers extend towards a top of the mud flap in the height direction (Bradley; Fig. 33).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 5, wherein the plurality of horizontal louvers all have upper horizontal louver surfaces that are all arranged at non-zero angles to the longitudinal direction, and wherein the plurality of horizontal louvers all have lower horizontal louver surfaces that are all arranged at non-zero angles to the longitudinal direction (Bradley; Fig. 34).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the trailer skirt has an overall length in the longitudinal direction and an overall height in the height direction that has an overall length/overall height ratio that is 6 or less (Senatro; there is a preponderance of evidence that Fig. 1-2 show that the ratio is approximately 2 based on comparison of the skirt/panel 134 to the wheel diameter of rear wheel 120).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 7, wherein the overall length/overall height ratio of the trailer skirt is 5 or less (Senatro; there is a preponderance of evidence that Fig. 1-2 show that the ratio is approximately 2 based on comparison of the skirt/panel 134 to the wheel diameter of rear wheel 120).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the trailer length is 53 feet (Whitney; col. 4:22-24 “trailer T of typical length, 60 feet being selected”).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the angle that the majority of the outer surface length is oriented to the longitudinal direction is from 5 degrees to 6 degrees (Whitney; abstract; “at angles of 4°-15° relative to the direction of movement of the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the trailer length extends in the longitudinal direction from the forward terminal end to the rearward terminal end, wherein a 30% point of the trailer is at a location that is distanced 30% of the trailer length from the forward terminal end in the longitudinal direction (Senatro; Fig. 1); wherein no portion of the trailer skirt is located forward of the 30% point in the longitudinal direction (Senatro; Fig. 1), wherein the trailer has a bogie assembly (Senatro; Fig. 1-2; bogie 108) that has a plurality of tires, and wherein the entire trailer skirt is configured for being located forward of all of the plurality of tires of the bogie assembly in the longitudinal direction (Senatro; Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein the overall length of the trailer skirt is 25% or less of the trailer length (Senatro; there is a preponderance of evidence that Fig. 1 shows that the length of the skirt is 25% or less of the trailer length).
Regarding independent claim 16, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to independent claim 1, and An apparatus (Senatro; Fig. 1-3 and 6) for a trailer (Senatro; Fig. 1; cargo trailer 104) that has a longitudinal direction, a lateral direction, and a height direction, the apparatus comprising: a trailer skirt (Senatro; Fig. 2; front panel 134) configured for attachment to the trailer, wherein the trailer skirt has an outer surface that has an outer surface length, wherein the trailer skirt is configured to be attached to the trailer such that: a majority of the outer surface length is oriented at an angle from 3 degrees to 7 degrees (Whitney; abstract; “at angles of 4°-15° relative to the direction of movement of the vehicle”) to the longitudinal direction such that the majority of the outer surface length extends inboard in the lateral direction upon extension forward in the longitudinal direction (Senatro; Fig. 2; front panel 134 is oriented at an acute angle to the longitudinal direction), and the majority of the outer surface length is located rearward of a longitudinal midpoint of the trailer in the longitudinal direction (Senatro; Fig. 1); a mud flap (Bradley; Fig. 33-34; slotted mudflap 158 with openings/voids; [0065-0066, 00102-00103]) configured to be attached to the trailer, wherein the aerodynamic mud flap is configured for being located rearward of the trailer skirt in the longitudinal direction; and a rib cover (Guariento; see labeled Fig. 1 and 4 above) that is configured to be carried by the trailer, wherein, when the rib cover is carried by the trailer and the trailer skirt is attached to the trailer: the rib cover is located higher than a bottom edge of the trailer skirt in the height direction, the rib cover is located outboard from the trailer skirt in the lateral direction, and the rib cover covers a portion of a cross member of the trailer (Guariento; see labeled Fig. 1 and 4 above).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 16, further comprising a top fairing (Senatro; Fig. 2 and 6; exit skirt fairing 144) configured for being attached to a top surface of the trailer, wherein the top fairing is configured to be located closer to a rearward terminal end of the trailer than to a forward terminal end of the trailer in the longitudinal direction (Senatro; Fig. 2 and 6; exit skirt fairing 144).
Regarding claim 18, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 16, wherein the mud flap has a barrier section (Bradley; Fig. 33-34; slotted mudflap 158 with openings/voids; [0065-0066, 00102-00103]) that includes apertures therethrough that are configured to allow air and particles to flow through the barrier section during travel of the trailer (Bradley; Fig. 33-34; slotted mudflap 158 with openings/voids; [0065-0066, 00102-00103]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senatro, Bradley, Guariento, and Whitney as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mihelic et al. US9308949.
Regarding claim 15, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 1, wherein there are
Modified Senatro does not teach wherein there are no further skirts configured for attachment to the trailer forward of the trailer skirt in the longitudinal direction that are on the same side of the trailer as the trailer skirt.
Mihelic teaches wherein there are no further skirts configured for attachment to the trailer forward of the trailer skirt in the longitudinal direction that are on the same side of the trailer as the trailer skirt (Mihelic; Fig. 1; left rear fairing 182 is the only skirt provided on the left-side of the trailer 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the trailer as taught by Modified Senatro to optionally remove the forward/front skirt fairings 112 so that there is only a single skirt on one-side of the trailer as taught by Mihelic for the purpose of avoiding the risk of the forward/front skirt making being damaged by contact with a hilly/bumpy/rough road in which the road has features/obstacles that could come into damaging contact with the skirt/fairing due to the relatively large distance/spacing between the front truck/cab wheels near the kingpin and the rear bogie wheels. An additional rationale is for the purpose of providing easier access to the underside/underbody of the trailer for inspection/maintenance.
Claim(s) 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senatro et al. US11332203 in view of foreign patent document Guariento EP1870322.
Regarding independent claim 19, Senatro discloses, in Figures 1-3,
An apparatus (Senatro; Fig. 1-3 and 6) for a trailer (Senatro; Fig. 1; cargo trailer 104) that includes a plurality of ribs (Senatro; Fig. 2; lateral cross-beams 110) extending in a lateral direction across a lower surface of the trailer, a longitudinal direction along a side edge of the trailer (Senatro; Fig. 1; cargo trailer 104); and a trailer skirt (Senatro; Fig. 2; front panel 134) that includes an upper edge, a lower edge, and a trailer skirt body extending therebetween, and wherein the trailer skirt body is configured to extend along a height direction away from the lower surface of the trailer (Senatro; Fig. 2; front panel 134).
Senatro does not disclose the apparatus comprising: a rib cover that includes an outer edge, an inner edge, and a rib cover body extending therebetween, wherein the outer edge is configured to extend in a longitudinal direction along a side edge of the trailer, and wherein the rib cover body is configured to extend in the lateral direction to cover a portion of at least one rib of the plurality of ribs; wherein the upper edge of the trailer skirt is configured to extend along the inner edge of the rib cover.
Guariento teaches, in Figures 1 and 4, a rib cover (Guariento; see labeled Fig. 1 and 4 above) that is carried by the trailer, wherein the rib cover is located higher than a bottom edge of the trailer skirt (Guariento; side fairing 16) in the height direction, wherein the rib cover is wedge shaped and located outboard from the trailer skirt in the lateral direction; wherein the rib cover covers increasingly larger portions of the trailer undercarriage upon extension of the rib cover in the longitudinal direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the trailer and trailer skirt as taught by Senatro to include the rib cover as taught by Guariento for the purpose of shielding portions of the cross-members to provide better aerodynamic qualities by minimizing drag/turbulence.
Regarding claim 21, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 19, wherein the trailer skirt has a substantially rectangular shape (Guariento; side fairing 16), and the rib cover has a substantially triangular shape (Guariento; see labeled Fig. 1 and 4 above).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senatro and Guariento as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Ortega et al. US20090146453.
Regarding claim 20, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 19, wherein the rib cover (Guariento; see labeled Fig. 1 and 4 above) is with the trailer skirt (Senatro; Fig. 2; front panel 134).
While Modified Senatro does not specifically teach wherein the rib cover is integrally formed with the trailer skirt, it is noted that per MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims, the limitation “wherein the rib cover is integrally formed with the trailer skirt” is being treated as a product-by-process limitation; that is, as long as the prior art discloses/teaches an element that has sufficiently similar structural properties and is sufficiently configured to perform, operate, or be used in substantially the same manner as the claimed stiffening member, then the prior art discloses/teaches this limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. The assembly of Guariento’s rib cover and Senatro’s trailer skirt appears to be substantially the same or similar as the claimed rib cover that is integrally formed with the trailer skirt.
Additionally, Ortega teaches “It is appreciated that the connection of the bottom section 24 to each of the left and right side sections 28, 29 may be either by attachment/joining of separate/discrete panel surfaces, or by the formation of a unitary body having integrally formed bottom and left/right side sections of the tapered aerodynamic surface.” (Ortega; [0028] “or by the formation of a unitary body having integrally formed bottom and left/right side sections of the tapered aerodynamic surface”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the formation of the rib cover and the trailer skirt as taught by Modified Senatro to be integrally formed as taught by Ortega for the purpose of minimizing/reducing the number of components for assembly.
Additionally, “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice” (MPEP 2144.04(V)(B) Making Integral - “In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.")”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the formation of the rib cover and the trailer skirt as taught by Modified Senatro to be integrally formed as taught by Ortega for the purpose of minimizing/reducing the number of components for assembly, and the modification is further supported by “MPEP 2144.04(V)(B) Making Integral” (In re Larson) for the purpose of having uniform structural properties for trailer operations.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Senatro and Guariento as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Whitney et al. US4486046.
Regarding claim 22, Modified Senatro teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The apparatus as set forth in claim 19, wherein an angle between the inner edge of the rib cover and the outer edge of the rib cover is in a range between approximately degrees and approximately degrees (Guariento; see labeled Fig. 1 and 4 above which teaches the rib cover being aligned and angled/tapered with the side fairing 16).
Modified Senatro is silent regarding wherein an angle between the inner edge of the rib cover and the outer edge of the rib cover is in a range between approximately 3 degrees and approximately 7 degrees.
Whitney teaches a lateral airstream deflector 80 that is angled/tapered at an angle within the range of 3-7 degrees (Whitney; Fig. 2 and 5; lateral airstream deflector 80; abstract; “at angles of 4°-15° relative to the direction of movement of the vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the selection of the angle of the interface between the rib cover and the trailer skirt as taught by Modified Senatro so that the angle between the inner edge of the rib cover and the outer edge of the rib cover is in a range between approximately 3 degrees and approximately 7 degrees (specifically, 6-degrees) as taught by Whitney for the purpose of reducing drag and improving fuel economy (Whitney; abstract “to reduce drag, improve fuel economy”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 3/18/26