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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 of the claim, the limitation “such that roof part” appears to be missing an article for the claim term “roof part”. It is suggested to insert the article --the-- before the term “roof part” in order to improve clarity
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a guide mechanism” in claim 1 (For examination purposes, the “guide mechanism” comprises a guide rail as per [0011] that states “The guide mechanism may include: a guide rail”);
“a drive part” in claim 1 (For examination purposes, the “drive part” comprises a motor as per [0077] that states “The drive part 600 may be a motor”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by foreign patent document Matsumura JPH06329053.
Regarding independent claim 1, Matsumura discloses, in Figures 1-3,
A moving spoiler (Matsumura; Fig. 1-3; deflector 5 of cabin roof 6) comprising: a spoiler cover (Matsumura; the rear-half portion of the assembly of the top plate 14 and both side plates 15 and that connects to rear strut 12) having an operating space (Matsumura; the covered space provided by the rear-half portion of the assembly of the top plate 14 and both side plates 15) having an opening portion (Matsumura; the rear opening of the rear-half portion of the assembly of the top plate 14 and both side plates 15 that the sub-deflector 17 passes through) at a rear side of the operating space, the spoiler cover is configured to be attached to a roof part (Matsumura; the front-half portion of the assembly of the top plate 14 and both side plates 15 and that connects to front strut 11) such that roof part covers a portion of the operating space (Matsumura; Fig. 1 shows part of the roof part that covers the operating space that is occupied by the sub-deflector 17 when in the stowed position); a moving plate (Matsumura; sub-deflector 17) configured to move into the operating space or move to an outside of the operating space through the opening portion of the operating space (Matsumura; Fig. 1; electric motor 23 drives the sub-deflector 17 between the stowed/retracted position and the deployed/expanded position); a guide mechanism between an inner surface of the operating space and the moving plate and configured to guide a movement of the moving plate (Matsumura; guide rails 16 that comprise guide grooves 16a that slidingly cooperate with guide pins 18 of sub-deflector 17); and a drive part configured to provide driving power for moving the moving plate (Matsumura; Fig. 1; electric motor 23 drives the sub-deflector 17 between the stowed/retracted position and the deployed/expanded position).
Regarding claim 5, Matsumura discloses The moving spoiler of claim 1, wherein the drive part (Matsumura; Fig. 1; electric motor 23 drives the sub-deflector 17 between the stowed/retracted position and the deployed/expanded position) provides rotational driving power (Matsumura; electric motor 23 rotates worm gear 24), a rotational motion made by the drive part is converted into a rectilinear motion (Matsumura; page 3 “to push and pull the sub deflector 17 in the front-back direction.”), and the rectilinear motion is transmitted to the moving plate (Matsumura; page 3 “to push and pull the sub deflector 17 in the front-back direction.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over foreign patent document Matsumura JPH06329053 in view of Rich US4707014.
Regarding claim 7, Matsumura teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The moving spoiler of claim 1, further comprising an upper end of a rear side of the operating space (Matsumura; the rear opening of the rear-half portion of the assembly of the top plate 14 and both side plates 15 that the sub-deflector 17 passes through), and the moving plate moves (Matsumura; sub-deflector 17).
Matsumura does not disclose an upper lamp at an upper end of a rear side of the operating space, and the moving plate moves below the upper lamp.
Rich teaches roof-top lamps/lights 26 that are located at and extend above the upper edge of the roof spoiler 22 for the purpose of providing safety lighting during off-road use (Rich; Fig. 1; roof-top lamps/lights 26; col. 1:42-46 providing safety lighting during off-road use).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the upper end of the rear side of the operating space of the moving spoiler as taught by Matsumura to comprise an upper lamp as taught by Rich for the purpose of providing safety lighting during off-road use (Rich; col. 1:42-46 providing safety lighting during off-road use).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over foreign patent document Matsumura JPH06329053 in view of Nakamura et al. US10343594.
Regarding claim 8, Matsumura teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The moving spoiler of claim 1, further comprising a lower end of a rear side of the operating space (Matsumura; the rear opening of the rear-half portion of the assembly of the top plate 14 and both side plates 15 that the sub-deflector 17 passes through), and the moving plate moves (Matsumura; sub-deflector 17).
Matsumura does not disclose a lower lamp at a lower end of a rear side of the operating space, and the moving plate moves above the lower lamp.
Nakamura teaches a rear spoiler 3 that is positioned above a lower lamp unit 2 for the purpose of providing cover for the lower lamp unit/light (Nakamura; Fig. 2; lower lamp unit 2 that is positioned below rear spoiler 3; the rear spoiler 3 provides cover for the lower lamp unit 2; col. 1:19-21 a rear spoiler provides cover for a tail light).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lower end of the rear side of the operating space of the moving spoiler as taught by Matsumura to comprise a lower lamp as taught by Nakamura for the purpose of providing cover for the lower lamp unit/light (Nakamura; col. 1:19-21 a rear spoiler provides cover for a tail light).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over foreign patent document Matsumura JPH06329053 in view of Algermissen et al. US20120091752.
Regarding claim 9, Matsumura teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, but does not disclose further comprising a strip at an upper end of the opening portion, and a top surface of the strip and a top surface of the moving plate are aligned on the same plane.
Algermissen teaches a seal 27 in groove 26 for the purpose of sealing the deflector 24 (Algermissen; Fig. 6; seal 27 in groove 26; [0043] “The deflector 24 is sealed with a seal 27”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the upper end of the opening portion as taught by Matsumura to comprise a seal strip in a sealing groove as taught by Algermissen for the purpose of sealing the spoiler/deflector (Algermissen; [0043] “The deflector 24 is sealed with a seal 27”).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over foreign patent document Matsumura JPH06329053 in view of Algermissen et al. US20120091752 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Beierl et al. US11827284.
Regarding claim 10, Modified Matsumura teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, but does not teach further comprising seal ribs protruding from a front lower end of the strip and a rear lower end of the strip toward the moving plate and supported on the top surface of the moving plate.
Beierl teaches distal sealing lip arms 41 and 42 that are spaced apart and positioned on opposite ends of one another for the purpose of improving the sealing of any gaps (Beierl; Fig. 3; distal sealing lip arms 41 and 42; abstract: “A sliding seal lip is provided between the spoiler blade and the shell rear wall, which sliding seal lip closes a front-side gap (S) between the spoiler blade and the shell rear wall in the spoiler position of the spoiler blade.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify each of the front lower end of the strip and the rear lower end of the strip as taught by Modified Matsumura to each include a seal rib as taught by Beierl for the purpose of improving the sealing of any gaps (Beierl; abstract: “A sliding seal lip is provided between the spoiler blade and the shell rear wall, which sliding seal lip closes a front-side gap (S) between the spoiler blade and the shell rear wall in the spoiler position of the spoiler blade.”).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over foreign patent document Matsumura JPH06329053 in view of Algermissen et al. US20120091752 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sturtevant et al. US3059562.
Regarding claim 11, Modified Matsumura teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, but does not disclose wherein the top surface of the moving plate includes a seating groove, and the strip is seated in the seating groove when the moving plate moves to the outside of the operating space.
Sturtevant teaches a seating groove at a distal end 118 that fits a corresponding sealing strip 120 for a deflector 110.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the moving plate as taught by Modified Matsumura to include a seating groove as taught by Sturtevant for the purpose of providing a dynamic sealing interface that maintains a seal during the entire actuation of the moving plate.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over foreign patent document Guy et al. FR3113276 in view of foreign patent document Matsumura JPH06329053.
Regarding independent claim 1, Guy discloses, in Figures 1-6 and 12-13,
A moving spoiler (Guy; Fig. 1-6 and 12-13) comprising: a spoiler cover (Guy; Fig. 5; the distal rear portion of roof 11 that covers the rearward half of the central aerodynamic element/blade 31 when the blade is in the stowed/retracted position) having an operating space having an opening portion at a rear side of the operating space, the spoiler cover is configured to be attached to a roof part (Guy; Fig. 5; the portion that is just in front of the the distal rear portion of roof 11 and covers the forward half of the central aerodynamic element/blade 31 when the blade is in the stowed/retracted position) such that roof part covers a portion of the operating space; a moving plate (Guy; Fig. 5; central aerodynamic element/blade 31) configured to move into the operating space (Guy; Fig. 5 stowed/retracted position) or move to an outside of the operating space through the opening portion of the operating space (Guy; Fig. 6 deployed/expanded position); an inner surface of the operating space and the moving plate and a movement of the moving plate (Guy; Fig. 5-6); and a drive part (Guy; displacement/motor means 35) configured to provide driving power for moving the moving plate.
Guy does not disclose a guide mechanism between an inner surface of the operating space and the moving plate and configured to guide a movement of the moving plate.
Matsumura teaches a guide mechanism between an inner surface of the operating space and the moving plate and configured to guide a movement of the moving plate (Matsumura; guide rails 16 that comprise guide grooves 16a that slidingly cooperate with guide pins 18 of sub-deflector 17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the moving spoiler as taught by Guy to include a guide mechanism as taught by Matsumura for the purpose of providing a durable and proper alignment for retraction and deployment of the moving plate.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over foreign patent document Guy et al. FR3113276 in view of foreign patent document Matsumura JPH06329053 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grassini US5060340.
Regarding claim 12, Modified Guy teaches the invention substantially the same as described above, and The moving spoiler of claim 1, wherein an available space is between the spoiler cover and a rear window glass (Modified Guy; page 5/33 “rear window of the tailgate 20”).
Modified Guy does not teach a rear wiper is installed in the available space.
Grassini teaches a windscreen wiper 1 that is mounted beneath a rear spoiler 15.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the moving spoiler as taught by Modified Guy to include a rear wiper as taught by Grassini for the purpose of cleaning the rear window.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-4 and 6 is/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:
Regarding claim 2 and corresponding child/dependent claims 3-4, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the limitation “each of the rail parts has a curved shape that is curved upward and downward”. Even if prior art taught the claimed limitation, modifying the Matsumura reference would render Matsumura’s invention inoperable for its intended use because having rail parts that have both upward and downward curves would interfere with the deployment of Matsumura’s sub-deflector 17 since Matsumura discloses guide rails 16 that are only curved upwards and are not curved both upward and downward.
Regarding claim 6, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the limitation “a rack gear extending from a front portion of the operating space to a rear portion of the operating space such that the rack gear engages with the pinion gear and moves forward or rearward together with the moving plate in accordance with a rotation of the pinion gear”. Even if prior art taught the claimed limitation, modifying the Matsumura reference would render Matsumura’s invention inoperable for its intended use because relatively substantial motor and gear reorganization/redesign would be required to substitute Matsumura’s gearing that drives a laterally-aligned drive shaft 21 with a rack-and-pinion gear system that is longitudinally-aligned to cooperate with Matsumura’s sub deflector 17 that travels in the front-back/longitudinal direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kishima US9868478 teaches a rack and pinion gear system for a rear bumper spoiler.
Miller et al. US10106210 teaches (guide) rails 33, a worm wheel 28, and a second gear 30.
Froeschle et al. US20070236045 teaches a central main air guiding element 14 that covers/overlaps two lateral auxiliary air guiding elements 15 and 16.
Marion et al. US20220348271 teaches a slider drive member 22 with a movement rail 69.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
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.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612 12/30/25