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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission RCE request (filed on 12/02/2025) with corresponding claim set and arguments (filed 11/04/2025) + further arguments filed 12/02/2025 (in response to advisory action) have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the teachings of Suk, applicant’s arguments concerning when an adhesive tape being used (at elements 854) would not result in substantially all airflow being beneath the airfoil (i.e. on the side away from the vehicles body) are not persuasive. Please see paragraph [0072] which makes clear that any amount of mounts (element 854) can be used; which would naturally include a large amount of points more than those shown in the figures (e.g. 12, 24, 100, etc) under the plain meaning. As such this teaches embodiments with a large amount of mounting points such that the taping/adhesive would occupy a large majority to all of the space between the airfoil and the body of the vehicle (resulting in substantially all of the airflow being over the airfoil (on side of airfoil away from vehicle body)).
Regarding the second point (that a weld/adhesive is fixed/not pivoting). In the advisory action, the pointing to the welding and/or adhesive mounting types was not to suggest that in the combination with Wolf that Suk airfoil is mounted with a weld and/or adhesive, it was pointed to show that there are embodiments (of the airfoil shape/configuration of figure 9, which have substantially all airflow over the airfoil (over side away from the vehicle’s body). (i.e. it was pointed to as evidence for why the argument that Suk’s (figure 9) type airfoil requires airflow on both sides/would be unsuitable for a placement in which substantially all airflow is on the side away from the vehicle’s body was not persuasive (specifically the argument of the paragraph at the end of page 11 into the first paragraph of page 12 of the applicant’s arguments/remarks filed 11/04/2025)
Wolf teaches a pivoting type attachment point, the combination with Suk is changing (substituting) the shape of the air diffuser panel of Wolf for the airfoil shape of Suk.
Regarding the attachment of the airfoil to a vehicle Suk [0071] “In different embodiments, any means for attaching an airfoil to the edge of a motor vehicle could be used.” Suk makes clear that any means can be used (and by extension would be expected to function). Which further reenforces that the substitution of the airfoil onto the pivoting mount of Wolf would function predictably. i.e. In Suk the applicant makes clear that the airfoil diffuser is applicable to any mounting means.
Thus rendering obvious attaching the airfoil of Suk to the pivoting means/(and control mechanisms of Wolf), for the benefit of increased airflow redirection (improving operation of the diffuser as motivated by Suk [0076]-[0077]); the airflow redirection of Suk is based in part on the overhang (element 154 and 310 and [0053] of Suk) on the side away from the vehicle, i.e. to function/provide improvement Suk’s airfoil shape as motivated by [0076]-[0077], this function/improvement does not necessarily require airflow on both sides of the airfoil. Only airflow on the side away from the vehicle (suction side) is required for the improvement.
Thus applicant’s assertion that there is no reason/motivation in the cited art (Suk) to implement an airfoil shape is not persuasive as when one looks to how/why exactly Suk’s airfoil provides improved operation for a diffuser (i.e. the details as to how the flow redirection work/ the improvement of [0076]-[0077]) it becomes clear that this improvement is applicable to when the airflow is only on the suction side of the airfoil (side of airfoil away from the vehicle).
Applicant’s assertion that Suk does not teach/suggest an airfoil shape in which substantially all airflow is away (over the airfoil side away from the vehicle’s body) is further under cut in that the embodiment of figures 11-14 teaches exactly this principle that the airfoil shape does/can function with airflow going over only the side of the airfoil away from the vehicle’s body (e.g. figure 14). (While these embodiments are fixed/have a structural base which wouldn’t be suited to a pivoting arrangement, they still show that the underlying principles of operations of Suk’s airfoil can still provide the overall operational benefit of the airfoil shape (redirecting airflow) without airflow on the side close to the vehicle; only airflow on the side of the airfoil away from the vehicle is required for the improvement of operation)
As such the applicant’s arguments concerning amended limitations relating the attachment point between the airfoil and the underside panel as recited in the independent claims are not persuasive and the grounds of rejections of Wolf in view of Suk is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150353148 A1, Wolf, “MOTOR VEHICLE WITH A REAR DIFFUSER” and further in view of US 20200398908 A1, Suk et al, “Airfoils And Machines Incorporating Airfoils”.
Regarding Claim 1, Wolf teaches “A land vehicle having an aerodynamic system, comprising: a rear air diffuser positioned at the lower rear of the land vehicle and configured to redirect airflow from under the land vehicle upward behind the land vehicle while the vehicle is traveling in a forward direction; wherein the rear air diffuser has(Abstract “A diffuser is arranged at the rear of a vehicle in the region of the underbody and has a fixed front part and an adjoining, pivotable rear part. Negative and positive lift effects and aerodynamic drag effects are obtained by adjusting pivotable rear part between an upwardly pivoted position and a downwardly pivoted position.” + See figures 1 and 2 below which show the pivoting of the rear diffuser part (pivot about element 10) + [0022] the “front part” (element 7) is understood to be/include the underside panel, element 10 is the attachment point which the rear moveable panel portion pivots about, );”and wherein the trailing edge of the underside panel remains proximate to the leading edge of the rear air diffuser to direct substantially all airflow from beneath the underside panel under the leading edge of the rear air diffuser.”(See figures 1 and 2 posted below of Wolf, the diffuser pivots about the point 10, there is no depicted gap + as shown in the figures and from Wolf [0027] the presence of a baffle (element 15) in the deployed position implicitly teaches that there is no airflow above the rear air diffuser).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wolf however does not teach that the rear air diffuser has “an airfoil cross sectional shape”
Suk teach an airfoil which is implemented as part of a vehicle’s aerodynamic surfaces ([0067] The embodiments of airfoils discussed above, including airfoil 100 and airfoil 500 may be used in a variety of different applications. In some embodiments, airfoils may be used to direct airflow around edges of a motor vehicle, such as the rear edges. The disclosed airfoils could be used with a variety of different kinds of motor vehicles, including tractor trailers, truck cabs, and other trucks as well as SUV's, sedans, coupes, and other cars. It may be appreciated that airfoils could also be used with any other kind of motor vehicle such as motorcycles, ATVs, and snowmobiles.), which includes teachings for using the airfoil a rear underside air diffuser. ([0069] In one exemplary application, depicted in FIG. 9, set of airfoils 808 may be used to direct airflow around the back of motor vehicle 800. In the exemplary embodiment, motor vehicle 800 is a tractor trailer with trailer 802. The rear end of trailer 802 includes first airfoil 810, second airfoil 812, and third airfoil 814 that are arranged along driver side rearward edge 820, top rearward edge 822, and passenger side rearward edge 824 of trailer 802, respectively. In other embodiments, airfoils could be used along only one edge, only two edges, and/or along four edges. In some cases, for example, an airfoil could be positioned along lower rearward edge 826 of trailer 802.) The airfoil including a leading edge and trailing edge in which the leading edge is attached to/is the attachment point for the diffuser implementation (Fig 9 posted below, attachment points are taught as attaching to/clipping to the leading edge, + [0073]-[0075]); and teaches that the airfoil can be attached through any means ([0071] In different embodiments, any means for attaching an airfoil to the edge of a motor vehicle could be used. In some embodiments, fasteners, adhesives, welds, or other means can be used to secure an airfoil to a vehicle. In other embodiments, an airfoil could be attached using tool-less means, such as magnets or double-sided tape.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application to modify Wolf to substitute the flat surface rear diffuser panel for the airfoil shaped rear air diffuser as taught by Suk. One would be motivated to implement the airfoil as taught by Suk in order to increase the ability of the diffuser to redirect air thereby reducing drag and improving operation of the vehicle. Suk teaches this improvement of the shape in ([0076]-[0077]); further Suk teaches that “any means” of attachment would work for the airfoil as such a pivoting attachment type of Wolf would fit within the broad teachings of Suk/would function predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Wolf teaches “The land vehicle of claim 1, wherein the rear air diffuser includes a base portion and an overhang portion extending from the leading edge in a rearward direction under a portion of the base portion”(As combined in claim 1, Suk’s airfoil is used as the rear airdifusser, as can be seen in figure 2 below, element 120 is an overhanging portion which extends from the leading edge in a rearward direction (in the direction with the air flow) with a base portion (element 122/104) below it)
PNG
media_image2.png
398
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, modified Wolf teaches “The land vehicle of claim 2, further including a controller including a device processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions, executable by the device processor, to automatically control the angle of attack of the rear air diffuser based upon one or more driving parameters.”( Wolf [0015] The diffuser end part can be activated so that the diffuser end part is adjusted into the different operative positions at different speeds and from different speeds so that a coordinated negative lift and the aerodynamic drag can be correspondingly set.” The angle of the diffuser is set based/adjusted with vehicle speed)
Regarding Claim 4, modified Wolf teaches “The land vehicle of claim 3, wherein the one or more driving parameters includes at least one of the following:
vehicle speed;
vehicle acceleration;
vehicle steering angle;
lateral gravitational forces (G-forces);
vehicle location; and
positional orientation of other aerodynamic components of the land vehicle.”(Wolf [0015] The diffuser end part can be activated so that the diffuser end part is adjusted into the different operative positions at different speeds and from different speeds so that a coordinated negative lift and the aerodynamic drag can be correspondingly set.” The angle of the diffuser is set based/adjusted with vehicle speed)
Regarding Claim 5, modified Wolf teaches “The land vehicle of claim 1 wherein the rear air diffuser is pivotable to a position in which airflow is redirected at an angle of greater than 90 degrees from horizontal such that the resulting airflow is angled slightly forward from vertical.”( Suk [0054] This arrangement provides an airfoil that keeps the airflow stuck to opposing suction side 104 enough to turn the airflow direction by close to 90 degrees. That is, air initially flowing in horizontal direction 300 as it encounters leading edge 110 leaves trailing edge 112 traveling in second direction 302. In some cases, second direction 302 is a near vertical direction. In other embodiments, depending on the shape and local curvature of various segments of airfoil 100, the direction of incoming air could be changed by any amount between approximately 10 and 90 degrees.” Here approximately teaches that the range of (up to 90 degrees) includes degrees just above 90, i.e. greater than 90 degrees)
Regarding Claim 6, it is an aerodynamic system which recites elements equivalent to claim 1, which thus have the same grounds of rejection, combination, and motivation for combination as claim 1, and an additional limitation “wherein the rear air diffuser is pivotable to change an angle of attack of the rear air diffuser, such that at varied angles of attack the trailing edge of the underside panel remains proximate to the leading edge of the rear air diffuser.” (See Wolf figures 1 and 2 posted above rear diffuser pivots about element 10 showing that the trailing edge of the panel and the leading edge of the diffuser remain proximate to each other (at element 10/the pivot point))
Regarding Claims 7-10 their limitations are equivalent to the limitations of claims 2-5, they have the same grounds of rejection as their equivalent claims 2-5 above.
Regarding Claim 11, it is a system which is equivalent to claim 1, with slightly different bounds regarding the structure/attachment of the underside panel, however it still has the same citations regarding the underside panel as claim 1 despite the differences. As such it has the same grounds of rejection, combination, and motivation for combination as claim 1.
Claims 12-14 they have the same they have equivalent limitations to claims 2-4 above, they have the same grounds of rejection as their respective equivalent claims.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Wolf as applied to claims 1 and 6 and further in view of US 20230399063 A1, “ACTIVE AERODYNAMICS SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE”, Sostaric et al.
Regarding Claim 15, it is a system which is equivalent to claim 6, and thus have the same grounds of rejection, combination, and motivation for combination, as modified Wolf of claim 1 and 6, which includes the additional limitations regarding a rear wing i.e. “a rear wing positioned at the upper rear of the land vehicle and configured to generate downforce when the land vehicle is traveling in a forward direction” and “wherein the rear wing and the rear air diffuser work together to control the flow of air over and under the land vehicle; wherein the rear wing is pivotable to change an angle of attack of the rear wing:”
Wolf does not teach a rear wing, instead only teaches/focuses on the rear air diffuser.
Sostaric teaches a vehicle aerodynamic surfaces and control system thereof in which includes both a rear wing and a rear air diffuser which works in coordination ([0042]) to improve the aerodynamic capabilities of the vehicle. ([0042] “] In a possible synergistic coordination with the rear wing-shaped element (5a), the rear aero assembly (5) may further comprise a rear diffuser (5b) located in proximity and/or in correspondence of the rear end (3) (e.g., located on a rear lower or underbody portion of the vehicle (1)) so as to be reversibly configurable at least between: [0043] a first position, in which it generates a first amount of rear “lower” downforce and a first amount of rear “lower” aerodynamic drag applied to the rear end (3); and [0044] a second position displaced with respect to said first condition, in which it generates a second amount of rear “lower” downforce greater than the just cited first amount of rear lower downforce and/or in which it generates a second amount of rear lower aerodynamic drag greater than the first amount of rear lower aerodynamic drag.”); in which the rear wing adjust its angle (of attack) based on driving parameters ([0066])
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date o the application, to modify Wolf to include the other aerodynamic surface (front splitter and rear wing) and control thereof as taught by Sostaric onto the vehicle. One would be motivated to implement the other surfaces to provide synergistic improvement in the aerodynamic qualities/performance of the vehicle. The synergism between a rear diffuser and the other aerodynamic surfaces is taught in (Sostaric “[0042] In a possible synergistic coordination with the rear wing-shaped element (5a), the rear aero assembly (5) may further comprise a rear diffuser (5b) located in proximity and/or in correspondence of the rear end (3) (e.g., located on a rear lower or underbody portion of the vehicle (1)) so as to be reversibly configurable at least between: [0043] a first position, in which it generates a first amount of rear “lower” downforce and a first amount of rear “lower” aerodynamic drag applied to the rear end (3); and [0044] a second position displaced with respect to said first condition, in which it generates a second amount of rear “lower” downforce greater than the just cited first amount of rear lower downforce and/or in which it generates a second amount of rear lower aerodynamic drag greater than the first amount of rear lower aerodynamic drag”) The resulting modified Wolf would teach all aspects of claim 15.
Regarding Claims 16-19 they have the same grounds of rejection as claims 2-5 above.
Regarding Claim 20, modified wolf teaches “The land vehicle of claim 19, wherein the rear air diffuser and the rear wing are configured and arranged to merge the flow of air from underneath the land vehicle with the flow of air from above the land vehicle.”( From this use of the term “rear diffuser” in Wolf it is known implicitly that the rear diffuser panel is being used to merge the flow of the air under the vehicle upback toward the flow from the top of the vehicle. Thus while not remarked on in Wolf this remerging of the airflow is implicit to the teaching of the rear air diffuser. i.e. the principle function of rear diffuser is to reduce pressure drag (i.e. remerge the airflow from the top and bottom of the vehicle quicker/in less space that they would remerge without diffuser to improve aerodynamics/reduce drag))
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170240221 A1;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669