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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/3/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Drawings have overcome every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/11/2025. Claims 14-19 have been rejected as follows. Claim 20 is objected to. Claims 1-13 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rose et al (US 2023/0069045).
Regarding claim 14, Rose et al discloses an aerodynamic adjustment method, comprising transitioning a plurality of fins (14a, 14b, Fig. 2) from a stowed position (Fig. 1) to a deployed position (Fig. 2), the plurality of fins (14a, 14b, Fig. 3A-D) including an aftmost fin (14b, Fig. 3C) that pulls ([0025], lines 11-16) the other fins (14a, Fig. 3D) within the plurality of fins during the transitioning (Fig. 3A-D); and providing a buttress (downward sloping tapered cover) with the plurality of fins in the deployed position to reduce a drag coefficient ([0023]) of a vehicle.
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, 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 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breidenbach (US 2022/0009566) in view of Rose et al (US 2023/0069045).
Regarding claim 14, Breidenbach discloses an aerodynamic adjustment method ([0085], lines 1-7), comprising transitioning a plurality of fins (62, see annotated Figure below) from a stowed position (62, Fig. 12B) to a deployed position (62, Fig. 12A); and providing a buttress (downward sloping tapered cover) with the plurality of fins in the deployed position (62, Fig. 12A) to reduce a drag coefficient of a vehicle ([0085], lines 1-7). See annotated Figure below. Breidenbach uses an actuator to power one or more fins connected by linkage assemblies (63, Fig. 12D; [0283], lines 12-15). However, Breidenbach does not expressly disclose the plurality of fins in which an aftmost fin pulls the other fins within the plurality of fins during the transitioning.
Rose et al teaches a plurality of fins (14a, 14b, Fig. 3A-D) including an aftmost fin (14b, Fig. 3C) that pulls ([0025], lines 11-16) the other fins (14a, Fig. 3D) within the plurality of fins during the transitioning (Fig. 3A-D) from a stowed position (Fig. 1) to a deployed position (Fig. 2) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle aerodynamic drag reduction systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fin transitioning of Breidenbach to include the type of transitioning as taught by Rose et al. Doing so would provide improved simplicity and reliability for movement of fins between stowed and deployed positions.
PNG
media_image1.png
475
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Breidenbach in view of Rose et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 14 above, and Breidenbach further discloses wherein the plurality of fins (62, Fig. 12A-I) are slidably engaged (Fig. 12A-B; [0085], lines 9-12) with a cargo bed wall (Fig. 12A-B) of the vehicle (61, Fig. 12A-B), wherein each fin (sides of 62, see annotated Figure) is positioned entirely outboard of the cargo bed such that no portion of the fin (sides of 62) spans over (tonneau cover is top of 62) the cargo bed. See annotated Figure above.
Regarding claim 16, Breidenbach in view of Rose et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 14 above, and Breidenbach further discloses wherein the transitioning comprises an automatic transitioning ([0317], lines 1-4) made in response to an operational condition ([0317], lines 4-6) of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 17, Breidenbach in view of Rose et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 14 above, and Breidenbach further discloses wherein the operational condition is a speed ([0317], lines 4-10) of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, Breidenbach in view of Rose et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 14 above, and Breidenbach further discloses wherein the plurality of fins (62, see annotated Figure above) are stowed within a diffuser (62, Fig. 12B, see annotated Figure above; [0085], lines 12-15) when the plurality of fins are in the stowed position (62, Fig. 12B). See annotated Figure above.
Regarding claim 19, Breidenbach in view of Rose et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 14 above, and Breidenbach further discloses wherein the plurality of fins (62, Fig. 12A-I) are a plurality of driver side fins (62, Fig. 12A; see annotated Figure above) slidable engaged ([0085], lines 9-12) with a driver side cargo bed wall (Fig. 12A), and further comprising a plurality of passenger side fins (62, Fig. 12A; see annotated Figure above) slidably engaged ([0085], lines 9-12) with a passenger side bed wall (Fig. 12A). See annotated Figure above.
Claims 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singer (US 2021/0170847) in view of Rose et al (US 2023/0069045).
Regarding claim 14, Singer discloses an aerodynamic adjustment method ([0120], lines 4-10), comprising transitioning a plurality of fins (304, 306; Fig. 23-26, [0121]) from a stowed position (304, 306; Fig. 23) to a deployed position (304, 306; Fig. 25-26); and providing a buttress (tapered wall; [0127]) with the plurality of fins (304a/b/c, 306a/b/c, Fig. 25-26) in the deployed position (Fig. 25-26) to reduce a drag coefficient of a vehicle. The tapered shape of the cargo bed in the deployed position is angled downward (Fig. 25-26) which reduces drag by creating a smooth laminar airflow, decreasing turbulence for air coming off the roof of the cab. However, Singer does not expressly disclose the plurality of fins including an aftmost fin that pulls the other fins within the plurality of fins during the transitioning.
Rose et al teaches a plurality of fins (14a, 14b, Fig. 3A-D) including an aftmost fin (14b, Fig. 3C) that pulls ([0025], lines 11-16) the other fins (14a, Fig. 3D) within the plurality of fins during the transitioning (Fig. 3A-D) from a stowed position (Fig. 1) to a deployed position (Fig. 2) in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle aerodynamic drag reduction systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fin transitioning of Singer to include the type of transitioning actuator as taught by Rose et al. Doing so would provide improved simplicity and reliability for movement of fins between stowed and deployed positions.
Regarding claim 15, Singer in view of Rose et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 14 above, and Singer further discloses wherein the plurality of fins (304, 306; Fig. 23-26) are slidably engaged (312, 314; Fig. 23-26, [0125], lines 1-5) with a cargo bed wall (302, Fig. 23-26; [0121], lines 3-6) of the vehicle (322, Fig. 23-26), wherein each fin is positioned entirely outboard of the cargo bed such that no portion of the fin spans over the cargo bed.
Regarding claim 19, Singer in view of Rose et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 14 above, and Singer further discloses wherein the plurality of fins (304, 306; Fig. 23-26) are a plurality of driver side fins (304a/b/c, Fig. 25-26) slidable engaged (312, Fig. 23-26; [0121], lines 3-6, [0125], lines 1-5) with a driver side cargo bed wall (308, Fig. 23-26), and further comprising a plurality of passenger side fins (306a/b/c, Fig. 23) slidably engaged (314, Fig. 23-26; [0121], lines 3-6, [0125], lines 1-5) with a passenger side bed wall (310, Fig. 23-26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
Claim 20 is 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 primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claims 1 and 20 is the inclusion of the limitations defining the nesting of the fins within apertures of subsequent fins, defined by the recitation “the plurality of fins including at least a first fin and a second fin, when the plurality of fins are in the stowed position, the first fin is held within a second fin aperture of the second fin, the second fin defining an inboard side of the second fin aperture at a position between the cargo bed and the second fin aperture.” When applicant’s plurality of fins are in the stowed position, the fins nest within each other by being held in an aperture of the other fins. The system can retract when the vehicle is stationary so as to not interfere with a user’s access to loading the cargo bed over the cargo bed walls. The aerodynamic ribs can be deployable from the apertures when travelling at certain speeds to provide aerodynamic gains and drag reduction. The closest prior art of Singer or Breidenbach do not have fins with this transitioning feature. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. Claims 2-8 and 10-13 contain allowable subject matter by virtue of dependency from claim 1.
The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 9 is the combination of telescoping fins and diffuser as claimed with the inclusion of the tonneau cover limitations “the tonneau cover is a rollable tonneau cover that unrolls when the plurality of passenger side fins and the plurality of driver side fins are moved to the deployed position, and that rolls when the plurality of passenger side fins and the plurality of driver side fins are moved to the stowed position”. The closest prior art of Singer does not disclose a rollable tonneau cover that moves with side fins in a deployed and stowed position. The cover of Singer does not deploy as the fins are moved. Instead, Singer’s cover (316, Fig. 27-28) is unfolded over the fins and removed by the aid of hydraulic pistons. The prior art of Breidenbach discloses a tonneau cover device which cannot be modified with a rollable type of cover that unrolls as claimed. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 14 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. On page 10 of Applicant’s response, claim 14 is amended and applicant argues that neither Singer nor Breidenbach teaches an aftmost fin that pulls other fins; and that Breidenbach discloses links 63 is not a teaching of pulling fins using an aftmost fin. With respect to these arguments, the new ground of rejection relies on Rose et al which clearly teaches an aftmost fin that pulls the other fins during transitioning from stowed and deployed positions as shown in Fig. 3. It is noted that Breidenbach uses an actuator to power one or more fins and that upon movement of the aftmost fin, it would follow that the aftmost fin would pull the other fins since they are functionally interconnected, one will affect another.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 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.
/D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612