DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borghi et al. (US 20020093220) and Onishi et al. (US 20240359752)
Regarding claims 1, 6, Borghi discloses a vehicle (1) comprising: a first aerodynamic device (2) extending from a body of the vehicle and movable between an extended position and a retracted position (abstract, figs 1-5); and an aerodynamic control module (6) configured to determine speed during forward movement of the vehicle and to move the first aerodynamic device between the extended position and the retracted position based on the determined speed. (abstract, fig 1-5)
Borghi is silent regarding the fact that control module is configured to determine wind conditions during forward movement of the vehicle and to move the first aerodynamic device between the extended position and the retracted position based on the determined wind conditions.
Onishi teaches the fact that control module (130) is configured to determine wind conditions during forward movement of the vehicle and to move the first aerodynamic device between the extended position and the retracted position based on the determined wind conditions (abstract, [0035], figs 1-5).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borghi and Onishi before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Borghi to include adjusting the aerodynamic device based on wind conditions as taught by Onishi in order to improve aerodynamic performance of the vehicle ([0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Borghi further discloses that the first aerodynamic device is a tire deflector (2) ([0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 3, Borghi further discloses that the first aerodynamic device is a spoiler (3).
Regarding claim 4, Borghi further discloses a second aerodynamic device (3) extending from the body of the vehicle and movable between an extended position and a retracted position (abstract, figs 1-5 ).
Regarding claim 5, Borghi further discloses that the second aerodynamic device is operable between the extended position and the retracted position independent of the first aerodynamic device ([0032]-[0034], figs 1-5).
Regarding claim 7, Borghi further discloses that the first aerodynamic device is movable into a plurality of positions relative to the body between the extended position and the retracted position ([0020]).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 15 Borghi discloses a vehicle (1) comprising: a first tire deflector (2, driver side, fig 2) extending from a body of the vehicle proximate to a first tire located on a driver side of the vehicle (abstract, figs 1-5, [0021]-[0023]), and movable between an extended position and a retracted position (abstract, figs 1-5, [0021]-[0023]); a second tire deflector (2, passenger side, fig 2) extending from the body of the vehicle proximate to a second tire located on a passenger side of the vehicle and movable between an extended position and a retracted position (abstract, figs 1-5, [0021]-[0023]); and an aerodynamic control module (6) (abstract, figs 1-5, [0021]-[0023]).
Borghi is silent regarding the fact that the aerodynamic control module configured to move the first tire deflector and the second tire deflector into the extended position during a headwind condition and to move one of the first tire deflector and the second tire deflector into the extended position and the other of the first tire deflector and the second tire deflector into the retracted position in a crosswind condition.
Onishi teaches the fact that the aerodynamic control module (130) configured to move the deflectors into the extended position or retracted position depending on the direction of the wind ([0036], abstract, fig 6).
Onishi further teaches at least one sensor (120) operable to detect wind conditions proximate to the vehicle during forward movement of the vehicle ([0023]).
Onishi further teaches that the aerodynamic control module (130) is configured to move the first end and the second end between the first position and the second position based on the vehicle experiencing the headwind condition or the crosswind condition (abstract, [0023]-[0024],[0036] discloses differentiating between condition where the wind angle below a predetermined angle (headwind) and when the wind angle is above the predetermined angle (crosswind)).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borghi and Onishi before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Borghi to include adjusting the aerodynamic device based on the direction of the wind as taught by Onishi in order to improve aerodynamic performance of the vehicle ([0004]).
Regarding claim 11, Borghi further discloses the at least one sensor (7) is in communication with the aerodynamic control module (fig 4),
Borghi is silent regarding the fact that the aerodynamic control module configured to differentiate between the headwind condition and the crosswind condition based on information received from the at least one sensor.
Onishi teaches that the aerodynamic control module configured to differentiate between the headwind condition and the crosswind condition based on information received from the at least one sensor ([0036] discloses differentiating between condition where the wind angle below a predetermined angle (headwind) and when the wind angle is above the predetermined angle (crosswind)).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borghi and Onishi before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Borghi to include differentiating between headwind and tailwind as taught by Onishi in order to improve aerodynamic performance of the vehicle ([0004]).
Regarding claim 12, Borghi further discloses a spoiler (3) extending from the body of the vehicle and including a first end and a second end (fig 3).
Regarding claim 13, Borghi further discloses that the aerodynamic control module is configured to move the first end and the second end between a first position extending from a surface of the body and a second position adjacent to the surface of the body (abstract, fig 3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borghi et al. (US 20020093220) and Onishi et al. (US 20240359752) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Heil (US20170088194).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Borghi and Onishi is silent regarding the fact that the at least one sensor is at least one of a radar sensor and an ultrasonic sensor.
Heil teaches the use of an ultrasonic sensor ([0025]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borghi, Heil and Onishi before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Borghi and Onishi to include the ultrasonic sensor as taught by Heil in order to acquire accurate data.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borghi et al. (US 20020093220) and Onishi et al. (US 20240359752) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Potvin et al. (US 20190054962)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Borghi and Onishi is silent regarding the fact that the aerodynamic control module is configured to move the first end and the second end independently from one another.
Potvin teaches that the aerodynamic control module (30) is configured to move the first end (124A) and the second end (124B) independently from one another (abstract, [0028],fig 2 ).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Borghi, Potvin and Onishi before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by the combination of Borghi and Onishi to include the fact that the aerodynamic control module is configured to move the first end and the second end independently from one another in order to help the underbody airflow decelerate and expand by providing pressure recovery so that it does not cause excessive flow separation and drag ([0003]).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi et al. (US 20240359752) and Demetrio et al. (US 20190111979).
Regarding claims 16 and 20 Onishi discloses a vehicle (50) with a system comprising: data processing hardware (130) ([0026]). Onishi also discloses using the data processing hardware to perform the method steps of determining wind conditions during forward movement of a vehicle (abstract, [0035], figs 1-5); and adjusting at least one aerodynamic device based on the determined wind conditions (abstract, [0035], figs 1-5).
Onishi is silent regarding the use of a memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform method steps.
Demetrio teaches the use of a memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware ([0024]), the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform method steps ([0024]).
Before the effective filling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Onishi and Demetrio before him or her, to modify the apparatus/method disclosed by Onishi to include the use of a memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware as taught by Demetrio in order to control the vehicle ([0024]).
Regarding claim 17, Onishi discloses that the at least one aerodynamic device includes a tire deflector (110) (fig 3, fig 4a-b).
Regarding claim 18, Onishi further discloses that the at least one aerodynamic device includes a spoiler (110) (fig 1).
Regarding claim 19, Onishi further discloses that the tire deflector and the spoiler are moved between an extended position extending from a body of the vehicle and a retracted position based on the determined wind conditions (abstract, [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANY E AKAKPO whose telephone number is (469)295-9255. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached on (571) 272-5405. 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.
/DANY E AKAKPO/Examiner, Art Unit 3672
12/27/2025