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 .
Interview Practice
Beginning October 2025, the USPTO is implementing an updated interview practice for patent examination: One interview per new application or RCE (Request for Continued Examination, see 37 CFR 1.114 and MPEP 706.07(h)) will generally be granted. Additional interview(s) which serve to advance prosecution may be granted with supervisory approval.
To request an interview, Applicant may, preferably, contact the Examiner at the telephone number provided at the end of this Office Action and/or Applicant may file an Applicant Initiated Interview Request (AIR) form (PTOL-413A), which may be found here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms.
It may be useful to also file an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439, also found at the link provided above), which would allow the Examiner to substantively respond to Applicant using electronic communication (i.e., via email).
If an interview is desired, it is advisable to request the interview sufficiently ahead of the due date of any response to an outstanding Office Action, to allow adequate time to schedule, prepare for, and hold the interview. Submission of an Interview Agenda by Applicant is also generally required (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Requests for interviews after final rejection may be denied and generally will be denied in cases where the interview is merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search (see MPEP 713.09).
Preliminary Formalities
Previously-pending claims 13-22 have been canceled in the Response filed 07/18/2025.
New claim 23 is presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/18/2025 with respect to now-canceled claims 13-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the cancellation of those claims and the new ground(s) of rejection for newly-presented claim 23.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 23, Applicant is reminded that each element and/or step should be separated by a line indentation. See 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m). This applies to sub-elements as well. It appears that one or more of the ambiguities noted in the relevant section below may be resolved by appropriate line indentation and/or appropriate punctuation.
Regarding claim 23, line 18, the limitation “wherein each of the first and second chutes include a plurality of vanes” (emphasis added) is grammatically incorrect. It would be more clearly written as: —wherein each […] includes […]—.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 23, line 3, the limitation “a front grille attached to the body that is configured to receive a flow of air” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The referent for the pronoun “that” has not been made clear by the claim language. It is recommended that Applicant avoid the use of pronouns (e.g., “that,” “which,” etc.) in favor of explicit recitation of the element(s) which are being described, so as to clearly and definitely set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought. Here, the claim appears to indicate that it is the “body that is configured to receive a flow of air” whereas it seems that the invention, as disclosed, provides a “front grille” to “receive” a “flow of air”.
Regarding claim 23, line 4, the limitation “and includes a first headlight and a second headlight” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what element(s) (e.g., the “grille” and/or the “body”) is/are intended to “include[]” the “headlight” features.
Regarding claim 23, lines 5-6, the limitation “a first chute provided in the front grille at a location beneath the first headlight in a direction towards a roadway beneath the vehicle” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The emphasized phrase is generally narrative and unclear: it comprises a run-on phrase lacking appropriate punctuation, thereby failing to clearly set forth the intended scope. The phrase also employs the proposition “beneath” twice without making clear the structural relationships between the various claim elements. It should also be noted that the term “beneath” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; here, the point and/or frame of reference is not clearly defined.
Regarding claim 23, lines 7-8, the limitation “and a first outlet end” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. This fragmentary phrase is lacking a connector to the preceding portion of the claim and, consequently, fails to make clear either how the “first outlet end” may be related to any of the preceding claim features and/or what is being done with/to the “first outlet end”. If the “first outlet end” is comprised by one of the other claim features, such should be made clear.
Regarding claim 23, lines 9-10, the limitation “a second chute provided in the front grille at a location beneath the second headlight in the direction towards a roadway beneath the vehicle” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, as discussed above, the emphasized phrase is generally narrative and unclear: it comprises a run-on phrase lacking appropriate punctuation, thereby failing to clearly set forth the intended scope. The phrase also employs the proposition “beneath” twice without making clear the structural relationships between the various claim elements. It should also be noted that the term “beneath” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; here, the point and/or frame of reference is not clearly defined.
Second, the claim fails to make clear whether the feature of “a roadway beneath the vehicle” is intended to be separate and distinct from, or the same as, the previously-recited “a roadway beneath the vehicle” (line 6).
Regarding claim 23, lines 10-12, the limitation “the second chute having a second inlet end configured to receive and direct the flow of air while the vehicle is in” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The limitation appears to require “the flow of air” to be “receive[d] and direct[ed]” by the “second inlet end” of the “second chute”. However, as required previously in the limitation at lines 5-8, “the flow of air” was already “receive[d] and direct[ed]” by the “first inlet end” of the “first chute”. Here, the claim is rendered indefinite as it appears to be requiring “the” same “flow of air” to be “receive[d] and direct[ed]” by two separate and distinct features. Since these “chute” features would appear to be parallel and non-intersecting (see, e.g., Fig. 1), the claim appears to require something which is not physically possible and, also, which does not appear to have been disclosed in the application as originally filed.
Regarding claim 23, line 12, the limitation “and a second outlet end” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. This fragmentary phrase is lacking a connector to the preceding portion of the claim and, consequently, fails to make clear either how the “second outlet end” may be related to any of the preceding claim features and/or what is being done with/to the “second outlet end”. If the “second outlet end” is comprised by one of the other claim features, such should be made clear.
Regarding claim 23, line 13, the limitation “the first outlet end of the first chute” is recited. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 23, line 14, the limitation “the second outlet end of the second chute” is recited. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 23, lines 15-16, the limitation “the flow of air that is received and directed by the first and second chutes, respectively, to generate electricity for the vehicle” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 23, lines 18-24, the limitation “wherein each of the first and second chutes include a plurality of vanes, each vane including a blunt end positioned at a respective inlet end of the first and second chute, an upper surface that faces in an upward direction away from the roadway beneath the vehicle, a lower surface that faces the roadway beneath the vehicle and extends in parallel with the upper surface, and a tapered nozzle end at a respective outlet end of the first and second chute that is formed by a portion of the upper surface tapering in a direction toward and connecting to the lower surface” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation is generally narrative and unclear: it appears to concatenate several limitations in a run-on phrase without appropriately distinguishing the individual limitations or making clear the connections therebetween. A few of the issues are discussed below to assist Applicant in resolving the ambiguities.
Second, and relatedly, the phrase “a blunt end positioned at a respective inlet end of the first and second chute” appears to require the “respective inlet end” to belong to both “the first and second chute” and, by extension, to also require “a” single “blunt end” to be “positioned at” an “end” of both “the first and second chute”. The claim fails to make clear the structural relationships between the “blunt end,” the “inlet end” (or “ends”) and the “first and second chute” element(s).
Third, and relatedly, the phrase “an upper surface that faces in an upward direction away from the roadway beneath the vehicle” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
A connector/linking phrase appears to be missing and, thus, the claim fails to make clear what is being done with/to the “upper surface” and to what element(s) the “upper surface” may belong.
Also, the combined use of “in an upward direction […] beneath the vehicle” renders unclear what direction is being referred to and for what element(s) that direction is intended to be applied. The terms “beneath” and “upward” are relative terms which render the limitation unclear, especially as no point or frame of reference has been clearly set forth.
Also, the limitation “the roadway” is recited. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as two separate “a roadway” features have been set forth (at lines 6, 10).
Fourth, the phrase “a lower surface that faces the roadway beneath the vehicle and extends in parallel with the upper surface” is vague and indefinite. A connector/linking phrase appears to be missing and, thus, the claim fails to make clear what is being done with/to the “lower surface” and to what element(s) the “lower surface” may belong.
Fifth, the phrase “and a tapered nozzle end at a respective outlet end of the first and second chute that is formed by a portion of the upper surface tapering in a direction toward and connecting to the lower surface” is vague and indefinite.
A connector/linking phrase appears to be missing and, thus, the claim fails to make clear what is being done with/to the “tapered nozzle end” and to what element(s) the “tapered nozzle end” may belong.
The phrase “a respective outlet end of the first and second chute that is formed by a portion of the upper surface tapering in a direction toward and connecting to the lower surface” is generally narrative and unclear. It comprises a run-on phrase and appears to concatenate several limitations together, without clearly delineating each separate requirement. For example, the claim fails to make clear what element(s) is/are “formed by a portion […]”—the “respective outlet end” of the “first and second chute”. Relatedly, the limitation appears to refer to “the first and second chute” as a single element, whereas it appears the intended claim scope includes two separate—i.e., a “first” and a “second”—“chute” elements.
Regarding claim 23, lines 25-29, the limitations “the upper surface of one of the vanes,” “the lower surface of an immediately adjacent vane,” “the respective inlet end of the first and second chute,” “the respective outlet end of the first and second chute” are recited. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The Examiner requests, in response to this Office Action, that support be shown for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, to specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or drawing figure(s) where support for newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. MIKAILOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 10am - 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, T.C. PATEL can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/S. MIKAILOFF/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
December 10, 2025
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834