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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italy on 7/20/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IT 102022000015267 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statements filed 7/19/2023 and 1/9/2024 have been considered and are included in the file with notes.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first hinge arranged at one between the leading edge and trailing edge and the second hinge arranged at the other between the leading edge and trailing edge of claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “Movable spoiler” should be changed to --A movable spoiler--.
In claim 1, line 2, “the Movable spoiler” should be changed to --the movable spoiler--.
In claim 1, line 15, “and trailing edge” should be changed to --and a trailing edge--.
In claim 1, lines 22-23, “the moveable spoiler assembly being characterized in that” should be changed to --wherein--.
In claim 1, line 38, “is of a linear type” should be changed to --is of the linear type--.
In claim 2, lines 6-7, “the leading edge and trailing edge” should be changed to --the leading edge and the trailing edge--.
In claim 2, lines 10-11, “the leading edge and trailing edge” should be changed to --the leading edge and the trailing edge--.
In claim 2, lines 17-18, “and said variation of the angle of incidence” should be changed to --and variation of said angle of incidence--.
In claim 15, line 15, “the further straight” should be changed to --the additional straight--.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the first guide element and the second guide element are at least partially parallel to each other and are mainly oriented, in particular parallel to each other and are mainly oriented, in particular tilted, along a direction parallel to a direction of travel of the road vehicle”. The phrasing is unclear because being oriented tilted and being parallel to the direction of travel are not consistent. For examining purposes, the phrase will be read as the first guide element and the second guide element are oriented along a direction parallel to a direction of travel.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the linear type” in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitations “a first hinge arranged at one between the leading edge and trailing edge” and “a second hinge arranged at the other between the leading edge and trailing edge”. It is unclear since the claim appears to recite that the hinges are at either the leading edge or the trailing edge. However, based on the figures and the specification, the hinges, if anything, are arranged at side edges.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “the first hinge” and “the second hinge” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “the guide element is at least as long as the guide element”. Even though there are labeled reference numbers here, each element must still be called out appropriately, i.e. the first guide element and the second guide element. Additionally, the terms “in particular” and “more particularly” provide a lack of clarity as to whether these narrower portions are required or not.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “electric motors”, and the claim also recites “preferably of the irreversible type” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the linear type” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the rotary type” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the steps as if the rotary type of actuator is used, however, in claim 15 which claim 16 depends upon, a linear type of actuator is recited, therefore, it is unclear and a misrepresentation of the invention having the second actuator being both linear and rotary.
Claims 3-5, 8-11, 13, and 15 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the second actuator is of a rotary type”, however, claim 1, which claim 10 depends from, recites the limitation “the second actuator is of a linear type”. Therefore, claim 10 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the second actuator is of the rotary type”, however, claim 15, which claim 16 depends from, recites the limitation “the second actuator is of the linear type”. Therefore, claim 16 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 11 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Czapka et al. (US 2020/0283078, cited in IDS dated 7/19/2023).
Regarding claim 14, Czapka et al. discloses a method for controlling a movable spoiler (16) for a road vehicle (Fig. 1), the movable spoiler (16) defining an airfoil element having a leading edge (Fig. 2, edge pointing out of the page) and a trailing edge (Fig. 2, edge pointing into the page), relative to a forward motion direction of the road vehicle (Fig. 1), the method comprising the steps of: commanding a movement of the movable spoiler between a retracted position, in which the movable spoiler is in a position proximal to a body of the road vehicle (Fig. 4, paragraph [0036]), and an extracted position, in which the movable spoiler is in a position distal to the body (Fig. 5, paragraph [0036]); tilting the movable spoiler with respect to a longitudinal axis of the same to vary an angle of incidence of the leading edge with respect to said forward motion direction (Figs. 5-6); providing at least a first actuator (30) of the linear type and comprising a guide element (housing of the actuator), having a straight section (see Figs. 3-4), and a slide element (rod of actuator (30)) slidable on the straight section (cylinder body of the actuator, Fig. 3-4); providing at least a second actuator (46); wherein the step of commanding is performed at least by sliding the slide element of the first actuator on the respective straight section (see Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 15, Czapka et al. discloses the method of claim 14 and discloses wherein the second actuator (46) is of the linear type and comprises a guide element (cylinder body) having a straight section (Fig. 3) and a curved section or an additional straight section (straight section in two separate sections), and a slide element (piston) selectively slidable on the straight section and the curved section or the additional straight section (additional straight section as noted above); wherein the step of commanding is performed by simultaneous sliding of the slide element of the first actuator and the slide element of the second actuator along the respective straight sections (Figs. 4-5); and wherein the step of tilting is performed at least by sliding the slide element of the second actuator on the curved section or on the further straight section (Figs. 5 to 6), in a deferred manner with respect to the sliding of the slide element of the first actuator on the respective straight section (Figs. 5 to 6).
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czapka et al. (US 2020/0283078) in view of Wong (WO 2010/030158, cited in IDS dated 1/9/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Czapka et al. discloses a movable spoiler assembly (Fig. 1, includes (16)) comprising: a movable spoiler (16) configured to be movably attached to a body (Fig. 1, (10)) of a road vehicle (10) and capable of being moved, in a mounted condition of the movable spoiler assembly on the road vehicle, at least between a retracted position (Fig. 4, paragraph [0026]), wherein it is arranged in a position proximal to the body (Fig. 4), and an extracted position (Figs. 5-7, paragraphs [0027]-[0029]), wherein it is arranged in a position distal to the body; and an actuation system (Figs. 2 and 3 show the actuation system) configured to control the movable spoiler (16) between the retracted position (Fig. 4) and the extracted position (Fig. 5); the movable spoiler (16) defining an airfoil element having a longitudinal axis (Fig. 2) and including a leading edge (edge pointing out of the page) and trailing edge ((68), edge pointing into the page in Fig. 2) extending along at least one axial direction; the actuation system comprising at least two actuators ((30) for one function, and (46) for another function) and at least two transmission elements ((36) and (54)) to operatively couple each actuator to the movable spoiler, respectively (Figs. 4-5); the movable spoiler assembly being characterized in that the at least two actuators comprise a first actuator (30) configured to command at least the displacement of the movable spoiler (16) between the retracted position and the extracted position (paragraph [0037] rod (35) of (30) moves (16) between positions), and a second actuator (46) configured to command at least a tilt of the movable spoiler with respect to the longitudinal axis (paragraph [0043] teaches the second actuator (46) commands a tilt of the movable spoiler (16) based on the angle adjustment from the pivotal connection), so as to vary an angle of incidence of said leading edge (see differences between Fig. 5 and Fig. 6), in said mounted condition, relative to a forward motion direction of the road vehicle (Figs. 4-6); wherein the first actuator (30) is of the linear type and comprises a first guide element (housing of the actuator) having a straight section (Figs. 3 and 4) and a slide element (rod of actuator (30)) slidable on the straight section to command the movement of the movable spoiler between the retracted position and the extracted position (cylinder body of actuator, see Figs. 3 and 4); wherein the second actuator (46) is of a linear type and comprises a second guide element (housing of actuator) having a straight section (Fig. 5) and a slide element (rod (54)) slidable on the straight section (see Fig. 5); wherein the first guide element and the second guide element are at least partially parallel to each other and are mainly oriented, in particular tilted, along a direction parallel to a direction of travel of the road vehicle (see Figs. 2-7 show the guide elements generally oriented in a forward/rearward direction which would be parallel to the direction of travel).
Czapka et al. teaches the at least two actuators as hydraulic as an example of a type of actuator, however, does not explicitly disclose the at least two actuators are electric.
Wong, like Czapka et al., teaches a movable spoiler assembly (Fig. 2), and teaches wherein the actuators can be pneumatically, electro-hydraulically or hydraulically operated (p. 18, lines 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movable spoiler assembly of Czapka et al. to include electro-hydraulically operated actuators as taught by Wong, with a reasonable expectation of success, as an obvious choice to try due to a limited number of ways to control cylinder operation in use. Further, Wong teaches that the expected results would be equivalent when used as electric actuators are widely used in the automotive industry for actuating spoilers.
Regarding claim 2, Czapka et al. as modified by Wong teaches the movable spoiler assembly of claim 1, and teaches (references to Czapka et al.) wherein the at least two transmission elements comprise: a first transmission element (36) connecting the first actuator (30) to the movable spoiler (16) at a first hinge (44) arranged at one between the heading edge and trailing edge (Figs. 4-6, (44) is closer to the trailing edge (70). Please note that “at one” is being interpreted as near one of the edges based on the specification and drawings.), and a second transmission element (54) connecting the second actuator (46) to the movable spoiler (16) at a second hinge (56) arranged at the other between the leading edge and trailing edge (Figs. 4-6, (56) is closer to the leading edge), the first actuator being configured to hold the first hinge in place ((30) maintains the position of the first hinge, see Fig. 5 to Fig. 6), the second actuator being configured to command a rotation of the second hinge around the first hinge held in position (by retraction of the transmission element (54), Fig. 6), so as to determine said tilt of the movable spoiler and said variation of the angle of incidence (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Czapka et al. as modified by Wong teaches the movable spoiler assembly of claim 2, and teaches (references to Czapka et al.) wherein the first transmission element (36) comprises: a first arm connecting the slide element of the first actuator with the first hinge (Fig. 5); a third hinge (38) connecting the movable spoiler to said body and configured to be arranged in a fixed position on said body (at (24)); and a second arm connecting the third hinge to the first arm at a centreline point of the first arm, so that the sliding of the slide element on the guide element of the first actuator causes a rotation of the centreline point around the third hinge and a rototranslation of the first arm with respect to the third hinge (from Fig. 4 to Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Czapka et al. as modified by Wong teaches the movable spoiler assembly of claim 4, and teaches (references to Czapka et al.) wherein the second arm has a longitudinal extension equal to half the longitudinal extension of the first arm (Fig. 5 shows that the second arm has roughly half the longitudinal extension of the first arm).
Regarding claim 6, Czapka et al. as modified by Wong teaches the movable spoiler assembly of claim 1, and teaches (references to Czapka et al. unless otherwise noted) wherein the slide element (rod of actuator (30)) of the first actuator and the slide element (rod (54)) of the second actuator are simultaneously slidable along the respective straight sections to control the movement of the movable spoiler between the retracted position and the extracted position (Figs. 4-6); and wherein the guide element (housing of actuator) of the second actuator further comprises a curved section or an additional straight section extending from the respective straight section, the slide element of the second actuator being slidable on said curved section or on said further straight section to control said rotation of the second hinge (56) around the first hinge (44) and vary, thereby, said angle of incidence (Wong: Figs. 3A-3F, second actuators (302, 304) have an additional straight section, with slide element (piston) slidable).
Regarding claim 7, Czapka et al. as modified by Wong teaches the movable spoiler assembly of claim 6, and teaches (references to Czapka et al.) wherein the straight section of the first guide element and the straight section of the second guide element are parallel to each other (Fig. 5 shows each straight section roughly parallel with each other); in particular, the guide element is at least as long as the guide element (guide elements are generally similar lengths); more particularly, the straight section of the first guide element is at least as long as the straight section of the second guide element (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Czapka et al. as modified by Wong teach a road vehicle (having a body (10)) comprising: a vehicular body (10), which defines along its length a longitudinal axis (from the front to the back of the vehicle in Fig. 1) of the road vehicle and along its width a transverse axis of the road vehicle (transverse axis is from the left to the right (width) of the vehicle in Fig. 1); and a movable spoiler assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); the movable spoiler assembly being mounted on the body (10) such that the movable spoiler is movably attached to the body (10) with the leading edge (Fig. 2, edge pointing out of the page) and trailing edge ((68), edge pointing into the page in Fig. 2) transverse to the longitudinal axis of the road vehicle; said longitudinal axis of the movable spoiler being transverse to the longitudinal axis of the road vehicle (Fig. 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czapka et al. (US 2020/0283078) in view of Wong (WO 2010/030158) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Potvin et al. (US 2019/0054962).
Regarding claim 12, Czapka et al. as modified by Wong teaches the movable spoiler assembly of claim 1. However, Czapka et al. as modified by Wong does not explcitily teach wherein the at least two actuators are defined by electric motors, preferably of the irreversible type.
Potvin et al., like Czapka et al., teaches a movable spoiler assembly, and teaches wherein each actuator is defined by electric motors (paragraph [0027] teaches that the actuators for the movable spoiler includes electric actuators that are powered by electric motors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the movable spoiler assembly of Czapka et al. as modified by Wong to provide electric motors as taught by Potvin et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, for the electric actuators in order to power the actuators.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czapka et al. (US 2020/0283078) in view of Duong (US 2021/0086846).
Regarding claim 16, Czapka et al. discloses the method of claim 15. However, Czapka et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the second actuator is of a rotary type, has an axis of rotation and comprises a shaft operable in rotation about the axis of rotation; wherein the step of commanding is performed by rotational actuation of the shaft simultaneously with the sliding of the slide element of the first actuator on the straight section; and wherein the step of tilting is performed by rotational actuation of the shaft in a deferred manner with respect to the sliding of the slide element of the first actuator on the straight section.
Duong, like Czapka et al., teaches a method for controlling a movable spoiler (1) for a vehicle, and teaches wherein the second actuator (13,14) is of a rotary type (paragraph [0018]), has an axis of rotation and comprises a shaft operable in rotation about the axis of rotation (paragraph [0018]); wherein the step of commanding is performed by rotational actuation of the shaft simultaneously with the sliding of the slide element of the first actuator (2, 4) on the straight section; and wherein the step of tilting is performed by rotational actuation of the shaft in a deferred manner with respect to the sliding of the slide element of the first actuator on the straight section (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Czapka et al. to include a rotary type actuator as taught by Duong, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to pivot and retain a desired pivoting position for the tilting step (Duong: paragraph [0018]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 8-11 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 prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a movable spoiler assembly as claimed in detail in claims 3 and 8, especially the features “the second hinge is mounted so as to be slidable along a guide arranged on the movable spoiler and extending along a transverse axis of the movable spoiler” in addition to the other limitations.
Czapka et al. teaches a movable spoiler, however, without the guide arranged on the movable spoiler and extending along a transverse axis of the movable spoiler. Thus, the prior art does not fairly teach these features as specifically required by the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Lorenz (US 2019/0210711), Kottenstette (US 7780223), Wegemer (US 7578543), Borghi (US 6575522), and Promutico (US 2021/0139087) teach a movable spoiler and method of controlling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643