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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/8/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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: rectifying body in claim 1 covering member in claim 3 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. The specification defines the rectifying body as a deflector 14 ( paragraph 0030, lines 1-2, Fig. 1 ). The specification defines the covering member as a undercover 12C ( paragraph 00 29 , lines 2-4 , Fig. 1 ). 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) 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Karsten et al (DE102008053973A1) . With regards to claim 1 , Karsten et al discloses a rectifying device ( front spoiler system 1, Fig. 5 ) comprising: a rectifying body that is moved in a deployment direction to be deployed on a front side of a front wheel of a vehicle ( front spoiler system 1 is moved between an open and closed configuration on the vehicle front 6, Fig. 3, 5) , to suppress an air flow to the front wheel ( when the wheels of the front axle only come to a stop at the edge of the road boundary, the overhang comes into contact with the terrain, so that with a sufficient approach angle the ground clearance of the vehicle must be designed so that the vehicle does not get stuck, paragraph 0002, lines 6-7 ) , and that is moved in a housing direction to be housed in a vehicle body ( front spoiler system 1 can be stored in vehicle front 6, Fig. 3 ) ; and a heating mechanism that is operated to heat a periphery of the rectifying body ( front spoiler system 1 has heating wires 5 that can heat inflow section 13 of front spoiler system 1, Fig. 1 ) . With regards to claim 2 , Karsten et al discloses wherein the heating mechanism is operated to heat the rectifying body ( front spoiler system 1 has heating wires 5 that can heat inflow section 13 of front spoiler system 1, Fig. 1 ) . With regards to claim 3 , Karsten et al discloses a covering member that covers a lower side of the vehicle body ( one-piece elastomeric component 2 that cover a lower side of the vehicle front 6 to hide the front spoiler system 1, Fig. 3,4 ) , that is provided with a deployment hole from which the rectifying body is deployed (front spoiler system 1 is rotated along swivel section 12 in and out of a hole in soil structure 7, Fig. 3,5) , and the heating mechanism being operated to heat between the rectifying body and a peripheral surface of the deployment hole ( heating wire 5 heats the front spoiler system 1, Fig. 1 ) . With regards to claim 4 , Karsten et al discloses wherein the heating mechanism is operated to heat the covering member ( front spoiler system 1 has heating wires 5 that can heat inflow section 13 of front spoiler system 1 which includes one-piece elastomeric component 2 , Fig. 1 ) . With regards to claim 7 , Karsten et al discloses a drive mechanism that drives the rectifying body ( pivoting section 12 drives component 2 from soil structure 7, Fig. 1-3 ) , wherein the heating mechanism is operated in a case in which a temperature of the drive mechanism is lower than or equal to a second temperature ( the front spoiler system includes a heating device such as a heating coil or a number of heating wires and the heating device is located in the airflow section, the swivel area or the airflow lip of the front spoiler system and facilitates the movement of the components relative to each other and the removal of ice and snow even in correspondingly bad weather conditions, paragraph 0014, lines 1-3 ) . With regards to claim 8 , Karsten et al discloses wherein the heating mechanism is operated in a case in which there is an abnormality in movement of the rectifying body ( the heating device is located in the airflow section, the swivel area or the airflow lip of the front spoiler system and facilitates the movement of the components relative to each other and the removal of ice and snow even in correspondingly bad weather conditions by being turned on and off , paragraph 0014, lines 1-3 ) . With regards to claim 9 , Karsten et al discloses wherein the heating mechanism is operated in a case in which a speed of the rectifying body is lower than a set speed ( the heating device is located in the airflow section, the swivel area or the airflow lip of the front spoiler system and facilitates the movement of the components relative to each other and the removal of ice and snow even in correspondingly bad weather conditions by being turned on and off , paragraph 0014, lines 1-3 ) . 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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karsten et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fukami et al (US 4,678,118). With regards to claim 5 , Karsten et al does not disclose wherein the heating mechanism is operated to inject a fluid around the rectifying body. Fukami et al teaches wherein the heating mechanism is operated to inject a fluid around the rectifying body ( air dam skirt 2 is operated to be injected with hot water to pipes 71,72 to heat the air dam skirt 2, Fig. 5 ) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Karsten et al and Fukami et al before him or her, to modify the rectifying body of Karsten et al to include the heating mechanism of Fukami et al because the combination allows for uniform heating of a part of a vehicle. Claim(s) 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karsten et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yokoo et al (US 2015 / 0239322 ). With regards to claim 6 , Karsten et al does not disclose wherein the heating mechanism is operated in a case in which an air temperature outside of the vehicle is lower than or equal to a first temperature . Yokoo et al teaches wherein the heating mechanism is operated in a case in which an air temperature outside of the vehicle is lower than or equal to a first temperature ( in this determination of the frosting, the outside heat exchanger 16 is determined to be frosted when the outside device temperature Tout detected by the outside heat exchanger temperature sensor 57 becomes lower than or equal to a reference temperature (e.g., -10.degree. C.) that is predetermined to be lower than or equal to 0.degree. C, paragraph 0084, lines 1-5 ) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Karsten et al and Yokoo et al before him or her, to modify the rectifying body of Karsten et al to include the heating mechanism function of Yokoo et al because the combination allows for operating a heating element when temperature are freezing to extend the life of the apparatus. With regards to claim 10 , Karsten et al does not disclose wherein the heating mechanism is operated in a case in which an ignition of the vehicle is turned ON . Yokoo et al teaches wherein the heating mechanism is operated in a case in which an ignition of the vehicle is turned ON ( t he supply of the electric power from the battery B to the air-conditioning controller 50 starts when an ignition switch of the vehicle is turned on , paragraph 0066, lines 3-5 ) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Karsten et al and Yokoo et al before him or her, to modify the rectifying body of Karsten et al to include the heating mechanism function of Yokoo et al because the combination allows for operating a heating element efficiently when power is supplied. Conclusio n Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1786 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT STEVEN CRABB can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712705095 . 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. /THOMAS J WARD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761