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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/06/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 12/05/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20, 25-28 have 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.
Regarding the independent claims, an updated search and consideration was performed for the amended subject matter, an piece of NPL “Analyzing Porpoising on High Downforce Race Cars: Causes and Possible Setup Adjustments to Avoid It” published September 2022 was found which teaches the interlinking between a vehicle’s ride height, downforce, and speed as the underlying cause for porpoising, and further identifies that the setting of higher ride heights delays (or prevents) the onset of the porpoising behavior of the vehicle; and that porpoising of the vehicle can be detected via analysis of the suspensions movement (compression) pattern/frequency.
As such it would have been obvious to modify Wolf (which controls the positive and negative lift (downforce) via the underbody spoiler) to include the modulation of that downforce to raise the ride height to avoid porpoising; one would be motivated to implement this to avoid the negative affects of porpoising on both vehicle control and stability and also to improve driver comfort.
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, 25-27 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” and further in view of NPL, Gadola et al, “Analyzing Porpoising on High Downforce Race Cars: Causes and Possible Setup Adjustments to Avoid It”.
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 hasdiffuser.”(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.
Neither Wolf nor Suk however teach “the land vehicle 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 perform the following functions: detecting parameters indicative of porpoising of the land vehicle; and automatically controlling the angle of attack of the rear air diffuser to stop or prevent porpoising.”
Gadola analyzes the causes and effects of porpoising in race cars; Gadola also identifies porpoising as a negative feedback loop between the downforce of the vehicle increasing as the ride height decreases, which further increases said downforce; which continues until the flow separates collapsing the downforce, springing the vehicles back up (i.e. “porpoising”) and the cycle then begins again. (Introduction section, second paragraph, “Start-of-season tests and the first races showed that such a one-off event is somehow a leap into the unknown: more or less all cars are suffering from severe bouncing—the so-called porpoising—along the straights. This is caused by aerodynamic instability, and can result in floor damage, driver discomfort, discontinuous tire contact patch loading, and poor high-speed performance overall. As a matter of fact, the problem was first experienced with ground-effect Formula 1 cars about 45 years ago: it is due to marked non linearities of the downforce along ride height variation induced by downforce itself.” )that vehicle ride height corresponds to the speed at which porpoising starts (Results section, between figures 20-21, “This change was tried at the rear only, as porpoising seems to be triggered by the rear axle or at least it seems to start there. Figure 21, Figure 22 and Figure 23 show however that the effect is not in terms of system dynamics but only in terms of downforce-related dynamic ride heights: porpoising is basically delayed until a higher vehicle speed is reached simply because the dynamic ride heights are higher.”); Gadola then goes on to simulate static ride height configurations to identify the front-rear ride height settings and their corresponding tradeoff between aerodynamic performance (and by extension track speed/times) and porpoising onset.(Discussion section, between figures 33 and 34, “Configuration #4 with static ride height variations FRHS +10 mm, RRHS +20 mm is capable of removing porpoising completely, although at the expense of downforce. As a matter of fact, such a car would qualify in 20th position in 2013. Configuration #3 with static ride height variations FRHS +5 mm, RRHS +10 mm is finally a reasonable tradeoff: porpoising appears only at the end of the straight i.e., at top speed (see Figure 34), while the amplitude of vertical accelerations experienced by the driver is reduced to 0.8 g and just for a few seconds, resulting into an appreciable improvement in terms of comfort. On top of that lap time would be good for a 16th position in the 2013 starting grid, and this improvement is largely due to fairly consistent downforce levels (see Figure 35).”); Gadola then goes on to teach that porpoising can be detected/inferred via monitoring of the axle suspension joust movement frequency. (Materials and methods section, after figures 15, “What appears a simple effect when observed in quasi-static mode turns into a complex, cyclical combination of axle jounce and body pitch, where axle jounce is in turn a combination of damped suspension jounce and underdamped oscillation on tires. Validation with a real-world case unfortunately is not possible because Formula 1 vehicle data recorded on-board are not available outside the teams themselves, nevertheless a reference for the typical porpoising frequency can be easily estimated with the help of many videos available on the web by simply counting the number of bouncing cycles in a time interval, while a reference for the amplitude of vertical acceleration oscillations is available on [29]. Both numbers are extremely similar to what was achieved with the full vehicle model; hence we can say that porpoising is reproduced in a reasonably correct wave … It can also be stated that a vertical oscillation frequency around 6 Hz (see Figure 15) falls in a range where tolerability for the human body is low [30,31].”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application modify Wolf to include modulating the air diffuser/spoiler downforce generation to avoid the downforce-ride height feedback looping which causes porpoising as identified in Gadola, the onset detected via axle (suspension) frequency analysis. One would be motivated to implement the downforce adjustment to avoid porpoising in order to reduce driver discomfort. (Gadola Conclusion section, “Insiders and professionals in the motorsport world know very well that the so-called porpoising, which is heavily affecting the dynamic behavior of 2022 Formula 1 racing cars, is very difficult to deal with both for the drivers (complaining about back and neck pain and increased physiological stress during grand prix races) and for the race engineers trying to maximize vehicle performance.”)
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 air difusser, 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.
Regarding claims 25-27, as modified in the independent claims, modified Wolf teaches “The land vehicle of claim 1, wherein the land vehicle is configured to monitor a compression pattern of suspension of the land vehicle to determine when porpoising is occurring or is at risk of occurring.”(Materials and methods, after figure 15, “Formula 1 vehicle data recorded on-board are not available outside the teams themselves, nevertheless a reference for the typical porpoising frequency can be easily estimated with the help of many videos available on the web by simply counting the number of bouncing cycles in a time interval, while a reference for the amplitude of vertical acceleration oscillations is available on [29]. Both numbers are extremely similar to what was achieved with the full vehicle model; hence we can say that porpoising is reproduced in a reasonably correct way. … It can also be stated that a vertical oscillation frequency around 6 Hz (see Figure 15) falls in a range where tolerability for the human body is low [30,31].” Here Gadola that porpoising can be identified/predicted via analysis of the movement (compression) frequency of the axle suspension of the vehicle, the logic naturally flows that thus in the combination one would identify the occurrence or onset of porpoising via monitoring of the suspension movement frequency as taught in Gadola.)
Claim(s) 15-20, 28 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 it 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))
Regarding claims 28, as modified in the independent claims, modified Wolf teaches “The land vehicle of claim 1, wherein the land vehicle is configured to monitor a compression pattern of suspension of the land vehicle to determine when porpoising is occurring or is at risk of occurring.”(Gadola, Materials and methods section, after figure 15, “Formula 1 vehicle data recorded on-board are not available outside the teams themselves, nevertheless a reference for the typical porpoising frequency can be easily estimated with the help of many videos available on the web by simply counting the number of bouncing cycles in a time interval, while a reference for the amplitude of vertical acceleration oscillations is available on [29]. Both numbers are extremely similar to what was achieved with the full vehicle model; hence we can say that porpoising is reproduced in a reasonably correct way. … It can also be stated that a vertical oscillation frequency around 6 Hz (see Figure 15) falls in a range where tolerability for the human body is low [30,31].” Here Gadola that porpoising can be identified/predicted via analysis of the movement (compression) frequency of the axle suspension of the vehicle, the logic naturally flows that thus in the combination one would identify the occurrence or onset of porpoising via monitoring of the suspension movement frequency as taught in Gadola. Thus the logic naturally flows that in the combination that porpoising would be identified via detecting this movement frequency/pattern in the suspension.)
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 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
Prosecution Insights