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 .
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) 1-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 20020040365 A) in view of Liu et al. (PCT/CN2020/094775 or WO 2021243722 A1).
*Liu et al. (EP 3789276 A1) will be referred to as Liu et al. for the duration of the office action. Liu et al. (PCT/CN2020/094775 or WO 2021243722 A1) will be referred to as Liu 2 for the duration of the office action.*
Re: claim 1, Oh teaches a motor vehicle (Fig. 2) comprising: a spoiler (10) which is displaceably attached (11) to a bearing structure (7) of the motor vehicle, a sensor device (2a) for detecting an imminent collision involving the motor vehicle (Paragraph 0020), and a translation device (6, 6a, 6b, 8, 9, 10b, 12, 13) that is configured to displace the spoiler (10) from a normal operation position (Fig. 2) to a safety position (Annotated Fig. 2 – safety position) in an event that the sensor device (2a) detects the imminent collision (Paragraph 0020). Oh fails to teach wherein the spoiler is a rear spoiler; wherein the sensor device is a camera, lidar or radar; and, a computer that communicates with both the sensor device and the translation device for controlling actuation of the translation device based on a sensed distance between the vehicle and an object approaching the vehicle, as sensed by the sensor device.
However, Liu 2 teaches a rear spoiler (Fig. 2 – 105); wherein the sensor device (Fig. 2 – 106) is a camera (Paragraph 0035 – “may alternatively be a camera device”), lidar or radar (Paragraph 0035 – “may be an ultrasonic radar sensor”); and, a computer (Fig. 6 – 630 & 640) that communicates with both the sensor device and the translation device for controlling actuation of the translation device based on a sensed distance between the vehicle and an object approaching the vehicle, as sensed by the sensor device (Fig. 4 – S305, S3071, S3073) (Refer to Figure 4 & 6).
Oh and Liu 2 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Oh’s spoiler with those of Liu 2’s positioning, sensor, and computer for the benefit of a safer system in that the spoiler and object in collision are less damaged and a more energy efficient system in that the spoiler provides aerodynamics to the rear of the vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Oh teaches wherein the translation device (6, 6a, 6b, 8, 9, 10b, 12, 13) is combined with a locking device (2, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 5) by which the spoiler (10) is rigidly held in the normal operating position (Seen in Fig. 2). Oh fails to teach wherein the spoiler is a rear spoiler.
However, Liu 2 teaches a rear spoiler (Fig. 2 – 105).
Re: claim 3, Oh teaches wherein the translation device (6, 6a, 6b, 8, 9, 10b, 12, 13) comprises a translation slide (6) that is blocked with the locking device (2, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 5) to rigidly maintain the spoiler (10) in the normal operation position (Fig. 2) and that is translationally movable (Annotated Fig. 2 – movement of slide) to allow the spoiler (10) to be moved to the safety position (Annotated Fig. 2 – safety position) in the event of the imminent collision detected by the sensor device (2a) (Paragraph 0020). Oh fails to teach wherein the spoiler is a rear spoiler.
However, Liu 2 teaches a rear spoiler (Fig. 2 – 105).
Re: claim 4, Oh teaches wherein the translation device (6, 6a, 6b, 8, 9, 10b, 12, 13) that is configured to shift the spoiler (10) from the normal operation position (Fig. 2) to the safety position (Annotated Fig. 2 – safety position) in the event of the imminent collision detected by the sensor device (2a) (Paragraph 0020). Oh fails to teach wherein the spoiler is a rear spoiler.
However, Liu 2 teaches a rear spoiler (Fig. 2 – 105).
Re: claim 5, Oh teaches wherein the translation device (6, 6a, 6b, 8, 9, 10b, 12, 13) comprises a coupling element (10b) coupled (10a) to the spoiler (10), which is translationally movable (Annotated Fig. 2 – movement of spoiler) relative to the translation slide (6) when the translation slide (6) pretensioned by a translation spring (6b, 8) is released by the locking device (2, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 5). Oh fails to teach wherein the spoiler is a rear spoiler.
However, Liu 2 teaches a rear spoiler (Fig. 2 – 105).
It is noted by the examiner that the releasing by the locking device is being interpreted as the locking device causing the translation slide to disengage from the coupling of the rear spoiler.
Re: claim 8, Oh teaches wherein the locking device (2, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 5) comprises a toggle lever kinematics mechanism (2, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 5) associated (3b & 6a) with the translation slide (6) with two toggle levers (2, 3) by which the spoiler (10) is rigidly held in the normal operation position (Fig. 2). Oh fails to teach wherein the spoiler is a rear spoiler.
However, Liu 2 teaches a rear spoiler (Fig. 2 – 105).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh (KR 20020040365 A) in view of Liu et al. (PCT/CN2020/094775 or WO 2021243722 A1) in further view of Liu et al. (EP 3789276 A1).
Re: claim 9, Oh teaches wherein the toggle lever kinematics mechanism (2, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 5) is configured to be activated via the sensor device (2a) in order to shift the spoiler (10) from the normal operation position (Fig. 2) to the safety position (Annotated Fig. 2 – safety position) in the event of the imminent collision detected by the sensor device (2a) (Paragraph 0020). Oh fails to teach wherein the spoiler is a rear spoiler; and an electromotively driven lifting spindle shaft.
However, Liu 2 teaches a rear spoiler (Fig. 2 – 105). Liu 2 fails to teach an electromotively driven lifting spindle shaft.
However, Liu et al. teaches an electromotively (Fig. 1 – electrical motor 2) driven lifting spindle shaft (Fig. 1 & 4 – motor spindle 3).
Oh, Liu 2, and Liu et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of vehicles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to the effective filing date of the given invention to modify Oh’s sensor device and toggle lever kinematics mechanism and Liu 2’s sensor and positioning with those of Liu et al.’s electric motor and spindle in order to provide for a safer and less damaging system (i.e., the addition of a motorized portion of Liu et al. to the mechanical system of Oh would allow for the system to more quickly cause the toggle lever kinematics mechanism to move the spoiler to a safety position before impact, causing the spoiler and the impacted object to be less damaged or avoid being damaged.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments toward the amended claims, see Page 2 and 3, filed 02/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 and 8-9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oh (KR 20020040365 A) in view of Liu et al. (PCT/CN2020/094775 or WO 2021243722 A1) for claims 1-5 and 8 and Oh (KR 20020040365 A) in view of Liu et al. (PCT/CN2020/094775 or WO 2021243722 A1) in further view of Liu et al. (EP 3789276 A1) for claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Re: claim 6, the claim has been made an independent claim, incorporating the subject matter of all claims it depended on. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, thus is allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PHILIP C ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 - 4:00 CT.
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 R Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/PHILIP C ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612