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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 25, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukutomi et al. (JP Patent Application 63103776 A), henceforth Fukutomi.
PNG
media_image1.png
233
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 from Fukutomi
Regarding claim 11, Fukutomi discloses
a vehicle active air skirt (front spoiler 7, in provided annotated Fig. 1 above) comprising:
first and second guide frames (guide plates 4 on the left and right in provided annotated Fig. 1 above) each including one guide hole (guide groove 6, in provided annotated Fig. 1 above) and installed inside a front bumper (front bumper 2, as seen in provided annotated Fig. 1 above);
a skirt (front spoiler 7, in provided annotated Fig. 1 above) connected to the one guide hole of the first guide frame and the one guide hole of the second guide frame and supported by the guide frames (Pg. 4 of the provided PDF printout, last paragraph on page; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 1 above);
a first link (first link 17, in provided annotated Fig. 1 above) of which one end is rotatably connected to a rear surface of the skirt (Pg. 5 of the provided PDF printout, third paragraph from the top);
a second link (second link 16, in provided annotated Fig. 1 above) of which one end is rotatably connected to the other end of the first link and the other end is connected to a vehicle body (Pg. 5 of the provided PDF printout, third paragraph from the top; and Pg. 6, first paragraph);
and an actuator (motor 12, in provided annotated Fig. 1 above) configured to rotate the second link (Pg. 5 of the provided PDF printout, fourth and fifth paragraph from the top),
wherein the skirt (front spoiler 7, in provided annotated Fig. 1 above) is configured to reciprocate upwardly and downwardly along a trajectory provided by the one guide hole of the first guide frame and the one guide hole of the second guide frame, as the second link rotates around the other end of the second link as a rotation shaft (Pg. 5 of the provided PDF printout, sixth paragraph from the top; Pg. 6, first paragraph),
and the skirt (front spoiler 7, in provided annotated Fig. 1 above) includes a first pair of coupling bosses (guide pins 8 and 9, in provided annotated Fig. 3 below) inserted into the one guide hole of the first guide frame and a second pair of coupling bosses (guide pins 8 and 9, in provided annotated Fig. 3 below) inserted into the one guide hole of the second guide frame (as can be seen in provided annotated Fig. 3 below and would be reflected on the other side as in Fig. 1; Pg. 4 of the provided PDF printout, last paragraph on the page).
PNG
media_image2.png
184
239
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 from Fukutomi
Regarding claim 12, Fukutomi discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
a loader (loader, as shown in provided annotated Fig. 2 below) which connects the actuator and
the second link (Pg. 5 of the provided PDF printout, second and fourth paragraphs from the top),
wherein one end of the loader is connected to a driving shaft (worm gear 13, in provided
annotated Fig. 2 below) of the actuator (Pg. 5 of the provided PDF printout, second paragraph
from the top), and the other end of the loader passes through and is connected to the second
link to transmit power of the actuator to the second link (Pg. 5 of the provided PDF printout,
fifth paragraph from the top, pin can be seen connecting to second link in provided annotated
Fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
182
216
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 from Fukutomi
Regarding claim 16, Fukutomi discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
a length of the second link (second link 16, in provided annotated Fig. 1 above) is greater than a
length of the loader (as can be seen in provided annotated Fig. 2 above, where the link length is
longer than the diameter of the loader).
Regarding claim 17, Fukutomi discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
the first and second guide frames (guide plate 4, in provided annotated Fig. 1 above) extends in a vertical direction of the front bumper to be parallel to each other and spaced apart from each other in a width direction of the front bumper (as can be seen in provided annotated Figs. 1 and 3 above; Pg. 4 of the provided PDF printout, fourth paragraph from top);
and each of the one guide hole of the first guide frame and the one guide hole of the second guide frame (guide grooves 5 and 6, in provided annotated Fig. 3 below) has a slot shape having a predetermined width and a predetermined length (as can be seen in
provided annotated Fig. 3 below; Pg. 4 of the provided PDF printout, fourth paragraph from the
top).
The “predetermined width and a predetermined length” of the guide grooves is not explicitly
taught by Fukutomi, but it is an inherent part of the design of the guide grooves.
Regarding claim 18, Fukutomi discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
the first pair of coupling bosses and the second pair of coupling bosses (guide pins 8 and 9, in provided annotated Fig. 3 above; from both guide frames as in provided annotated Fig. 1 above) protrude in opposite side directions from a rear surface of the skirt (as can be seen in provided annotated Fig. 3 above; Pg. 4 of the provided PDF printout, last paragraph on the page).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukutomi et al. (JP Patent Application 63103776 A), henceforth Fukutomi.
Regarding claim 19, Fukutomi discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
the first pair of coupling bosses (guide pins 8 and 9, in provided annotated Fig. 3 above) are spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction of the front bumper,
and the second pair of coupling bosses (guide pins 8 and 9, in provided annotated Fig. 3 above) are spaced apart from each other in the vertical direction.
Fukutomi does not disclose that the first or second pair of coupling bosses are “spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make one of the coupling bosses of each pair to be positioned higher than the other coupling bosses in the vertical direction, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have rearranged the coupling bosses from Fukutomi to have one of the coupling bosses higher than the other of each pair so that the guide frame can be moveable along the grooves without interfering with the bumper (Pg. 6 of the provided PDF printout, first paragraph discusses how the front spoiler swings within the bumper, and any measure to help avoid interference could be implemented by one or ordinary skill in the art).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, and 3-10 are allowed.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 1 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of the connecting groove where the connecting protrusion is configured to slide along the connecting groove. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Fukutomi et al. (JP Patent Application 63103776 A), henceforth Fukutomi, which teaches all the limitations of the claim, including a connecting hole, but not a groove that the connecting protrusion can slide along. These deficiencies in Fukutomi are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
Claims 13-15 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 primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 13 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of connecting groove extending in a longitudinal direction of the second link. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Fukutomi et al. (JP Patent Application 63103776 A), henceforth Fukutomi, which teaches all the limitations of the claim, but does not teach the connecting groove extending in a longitudinal direction. These deficiencies in Fukutomi are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art. Claims 14 and 15 depend on claim 13 are also indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 2 of the applicant's remarks regarding the prior art rejections, filed June 25, 2026, with respect to original claims 1-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these prior art rejections of amended claims 1, and 3-10, which were set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed April 23, 2026, has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Regarding new claims 11-19, there has been a general allegation of patentability without pointing out how Fukutomi, as applied to original claims 8 and 9 from which the added limitations originate from, does not teach nor suggest one or more claimed features in claims 8 and 9.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Regarding new claims 11-19, the patentable novelty has not been pointed out over the teaching of the prior art Fukutomi.
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 Daniel G Chen whose telephone number is (571)272-9669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/D.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights