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 .
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.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-7, drawn to a rear diffuser for a vehicle, classified in B62D 35/02.
II. Claims 8-13, drawn to a front wing for a vehicle, classified in B62D 35/005.
III. Claims 14-20, drawn to a rear wing for a vehicle, classified in B62D 35/007.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I, II and III are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombinations I, II and III have separate utility such as controlling the aerodynamics of a vehicle at differing points of airflow, while usable together do not require the presence of each other to function properly. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Subcombinations I, II and III have separate utility such as controlling the aerodynamics of a vehicle at differing points of airflow, while usable together do not require the presence of each other to function properly. Each of the subcombinations requires a different search in a different area of the art.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
No Claims is/are generic to the following disclosed patentably distinct species: I, I and III. The species are independent or distinct because they do not require the presence of the other species in order to properly function, as they may each perform the required task absent the other species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
The search requires differing searches in separate areas of the art. While there may be some overlap in the aerodynamic areas, each of the species functions independently and would require a different search strategy.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Jeremy T. Thissell (Reg. No. 56,065) on 23 February 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of I, claims 1-7. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suk (US 2020/0398908).
Regarding Claim 1, Suk discloses an air diffuser configured for use at the lower rear of a land vehicle (paragraph 0069; airfoil may be located at the lower rearward edge of the vehicle), comprising: an airfoil that, when located at the lower rear of a land vehicle, is oriented to redirect air passing under the land vehicle upward behind the land vehicle when the land vehicle is traveling in a forward direction; wherein the airfoil has a leading edge 110, a trailing edge 112, an upper side, and a lower side (Figs. 1 and 2), the airfoil cross-sectional shape including: a base portion 122 (Fig. 3) including a first surface 102 associated with the upper side and a second surface 104 associated with the lower side; an overhang portion 120 that extends under some of the base portion; and an elliptic portion 152 (Fig. 5) connecting the base portion and the overhang portion adjacent the leading edge.
Regarding Claim 2, the overhang portion 120 is curved toward the second surface 104 of the base portion.
Regarding Claim 3, the overhang portion 120 comprises a first arc portion having a first radius of curvature 210 (Fig. 4) on the lower side and the base portion 122 having a trailing portion comprising a second arc portion having a second radius of curvature 204 (Fig. 4) on the lower side that is different from the first radius of curvature.
Regarding Claim 4, the first radius of curvature 210 is smaller than the second radius of curvature 204 (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 5, the first radius of curvature 210 is approximately two thirds the length of the second radius of curvature 204 (0.75 vs. 1.175; paragraph 0048-0049).
Regarding Claim 6, a free end of the overhang portion 120 is separated from the base portion by a gap 195 (Fig. 3), and wherein the gap is substantially greater than a local thickness of the overhang portion.
Regarding Claim 7, the gap 195 (paragraph 0041) is at least twice as large as the local thickness of the overhang portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art relates to differing versions of airfoils and diffusers for the rear of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)270-1167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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.
/JASON S DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612