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) 1-4, 8, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long et al. (Patent No. 6,644,720 B2) in view of Lecuir et al. (EP 3670308 A1).
Re: claim 1, Long teaches a fairing assembly for a commercial vehicle (Fig. 4), the fairing assembly comprising: at least one fairing (46, 48); and a mounting device (Fig. 7) for mounting the fairing to a frame of the commercial vehicle (Col 4 – lines 1-4), the mounting device comprising at least one four bar linkage (Fig. 7 – 58, 62, 64) including: a first arm (Annotated Fig. 6 – first arm) which is, at least indirectly, pivotably connected with the fairing (See Figs. 6 & 7 for pivoting), the first arm being configured to be, at least indirectly, pivotably connected with the frame (See Figs. 6 & 7 for pivoting); and a second arm (Annotated Fig. 6 – second arm) which is, at least indirectly, pivotably connected with the fairing (See Figs. 6 & 7 for pivoting), the second arm being configured to be, at least indirectly, pivotably connected with the frame (See Figs. 6 & 7 for pivoting) such that the mounting device (Fig. 7) allows the fairing (46, 48) to move between a covering position (Fig. 3) for laterally covering at least a major portion the commercial vehicle and an uncovering position (Fig. 4) for uncovering; wherein the first arm (Annotated Fig. 6 – first arm) and the second arm (Annotated Fig. 6 – second arm) are independently pivotable with respect to both the fairing (46, 48) and the frame (Col 4 – lines 1-4 - @66). Long fails to teach a wheel, covering at least a major portion of the wheel, and uncovering the wheel.
However, Lecuir teaches a wheel (Fig. 2 – 12), covering at least a major portion of the wheel (Fig. 1), and uncovering the wheel (Fig. 2).
Long and Lecuir are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of vehicle fairings. 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 the position of Long’s faring assembly with those of the position of Lecuir’s faring assembly in order to provide the advantage of a system that is more aerodynamic, reduces drag, and more energy efficient.
PNG
media_image1.png
714
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re: claim 2, Long teaches wherein the mounting device (Fig. 7) comprises at least one first base element (56, 58) attached to the fairing (46, 48), and wherein the first arm (Annotated Fig. 6 – first arm) and the second arm (Annotated Fig. 6 – second arm) are pivotably connected with the at least one first base element (See Figs. 6 & 7).
Re: claim 3, Long teaches wherein the mounting device (Fig. 7) comprises a second base element (62) configured to be attached to the frame at least indirectly (Col 4 – lines 1-4 - @66), and wherein the first arm (Annotated Fig. 6 – first arm) and the second arm (Annotated Fig. 6 – second arm) are pivotably connected with the second base element (See Figs. 6 & 7).
Re: claim 4, Long teaches wherein the mounting device (Fig. 7) comprises at least one gas strut (78) configured to: hold the fairing in the covering position (Fig. 3); and/or hold the fairing in the uncovering position (Fig. 4); and/or move the fairing in a direction of the uncovering position; and/or support a movement of the fairing to the uncovering position (Col. 4 – lines 17-25).
Re: claim 8, Long teaches wherein the first arm (Annotated Fig. 6 – first arm) is pivotably connected (56, 58) with the fairing (46, 48) about a first rotation axis (Annotated Fig. 6 – first axis) and pivotably connected with the frame (Col 4 – lines 1-4 - @66) about a second rotation axis (Annotated Fig. 6 – second axis), and the second arm (Annotated Fig. 6 – second arm) is pivotably connected (56, 58) with the fairing (46, 48) about a third rotation axis (Annotated Fig. 6 – third axis) and pivotably connected with the frame (Col 4 – lines 1-4 - @66) about a fourth rotation axis (Annotated Fig. 6 – fourth axis), wherein the first rotation axis, the second rotation axis, the third rotation axis, and the fourth rotation axis are spaced apart from each other and extend parallel to each other (See Annotated Fig. 6).
Re: claim 16, Long teaches wherein the second base element (62) is attached to the frame (Col 4 – lines 1-4 - @66) by a bracket (66), and wherein the bracket is mounted to a suspension system (40) of the commercial vehicle.
It is noted by the examiner that the rear wheel assembly is part of a suspension system for a vehicle, thus mounting to the rear wheel assembly, as disclosed by Long (Col. 3 – lines 66-67 to Col. 4 – line 1), fulfils the limitation of mounting the bracket to a suspension system of the commercial vehicle.
Re: claim 17, Long teaches wherein each of the first rotation axis (Annotated Fig. 6 – first axis), the second rotation axis (Annotated Fig. 6 – second axis), the third rotation axis (Annotated Fig. 6 – third axis), and the fourth rotation axis (Annotated Fig. 6 – fourth axis) is defined by a revolute joint, wherein the revolute joints (See Annotated Fig. 6 – 1st frame connection, 2nd frame connection, 1st fairing connection, 2nd fairing connection) are configured to allow the fairing to be pivoted upward when the fairing moves from the covering position (Fig. 3) to the uncovering position (Fig. 4), and to be pivoted downward when the fairing moves from the uncovering position (Fig. 4) to the covering position (Fig. 3).
It is noted by the examiner that the pivoting of the fairing is a lateral pivot with respect to the frame of the vehicle and not a rotational pivot.
Re: claim 20, Long teaches further comprising a locking mechanism (70) (Col. 4 – lines 7-16) configured to lock the fairing (46, 48), and thus the four bar linkage, in the covering position (Fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9-15, and 18-19 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re: claim 5, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least wherein the at least one gas strut is pivotably connected with both the first and second arms. The gas spring in the art is purposed to allow for lateral movement of the fairing and there is no obvious reason for it to be in pivoting connection with the first and second arms. It is connected to the first and second arms indirectly through the bottom linkage bar (which is pivotally connected to the arms), but not pivotally connected to the arms.
Re: claim 6, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least wherein the at least one gas strut is pivotably connected with the at least one first base element. The gas strut is located inside the first base element and there would be no reason to make it pivotably connected.
Re: claim 7, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least wherein the at least one gas strut is pivotably connected with the at least one first base element. The gas strut is located inside the first base element and there would be no reason to make it pivotably connected.
Re: claim 9, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least wherein the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis are spaced apart along the bracket in both a first direction and a second direction. Reconstruction of the arms such that the first and second rotation axis are spaced apart along the bracket in both a first direction and a second direction would be building to the specification of the application.
Re: claim 11, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least wherein the first arm and the second arm are non-overlapping in a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal length of the commercial vehicle. Reconstruction of the arms to meet this limitation would be building to the specification of the application.
Re: claim 12, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least wherein the first rotation axis and the second rotation axis are spaced apart along the first bracket in both the first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction such that the first arm and the second arm are non-overlapping in a plane parallel to the first direction. Reconstruction of the arms to meet this limitation would be building to the specification of the application.
Re: claim 15, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least wherein the first arm and the second arm are respectively arranged between one of the two first base elements and the second base element. The second base element is located between the bars, not the other way around as claimed. To meet this limitation would require rebuilding to the specification of the application.
Re: claim 18, the cited prior art whether in full or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest at the very least further comprising a first spring element mounted at a point through which the second rotation axis extends, wherein the first spring element is supported on the second base element and the first arm, and is configured to effect a first torque about the second rotation axis to support a movement of the fairing toward the uncovering position. Hindsight construction of these elements on the prior art would be required to meet this limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under U.S.C. 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 for Long et al. (Patent No. 6,644,720 B2) in view of Lecuir et al. (EP 3670308 A1). The examiner, after reviewing the arguments presented, agrees with the Applicant in that the substitution of Lecuir’s arrangement for Long’s arrangement would require substantial modification to the art and thus would not be permissible in reasonable combination. However, Long does read upon the majority of claim 1 and needs only to rely on Lecuir for teaching of a wheel of a commercial vehicle and the fairing covering and uncovering said wheel. This new combination primarily relies on Long for the teaching of claim 1 with Lecuir teaching an alternate position for the fairing assembly that would reduce drag and increase aerodynamics.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights