EXAMINER’S COMMENT
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 § 102
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 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 1-4, 8, 10, 20-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boyles (US 3,628625).
With respect to claim 1, Boyles discloses a skirt for an underside of a vehicle, the skirt comprising:
a barrier 20 configured to extend downwards from an upper surface 18 of the skirt (as shown in Fig. 1 of Boyles);
a rim 21 disposed at a lower end of the barrier 20, wherein the barrier 20 is configured to allow relative movement between the rim 21 and the upper surface 18 of the skirt (Boyles, col. 2, lines 34-37;
an actuation mechanism 29/30 for controlling a height of the rim above a ground surface 17 on which the vehicle is disposed (Boyles, col. 2, lines 48-67), wherein the actuation mechanism 29/30 comprises:
an actuator 29 configured to cause a motion of a movable element along a first axis (the rotary motion of actuator 29 comprises a component of motion that lies along a horizontal axis), the first axis being in a first plane that is substantially parallel to the upper surface 18 of the skirt; and
a converting mechanism (slotted, angled lever at bottom of lever 29 and rod 30) configured to convert the motion along the first axis into a motion (vertical movement of the rim 21 along a second axis (perpendicular axis), the second axis being substantially perpendicular to the first plane such that the second axis extends towards the ground surface (the second axis is a vertical axis that extends towards the ground), wherein a first end of the converting mechanism is connected to the movable element (shaft of actuator 29) and a second end of the converting mechanism 30 is connected to the rim21 (through framework 19).
With respect to claim 2, Boyles discloses that the actuation mechanism 29/30 is further configured to apply a force to the rim 21 to press the rim towards the ground surface 17 (as shown in Fig. 1 of Boyles).
With respect to claim 3, Boyles discloses that the actuator 29 is capable of being operable to vary the force applied to the rim 21 (a user exerting a stronger force on lever 29 will ultimately vary the force applied to the rim).
With respect to claim 4, Boyles disclose that the actuator 29 is capable of being operable to set the force applied to the rim to one of a first force and a second force, wherein the first force has a magnitude that is greater than a magnitude of the second force (user could move the lever to apply a first force or move the lever further to apply a second force).
With respect to claim 8, barring any disclosure indicating otherwise, the skirt of Boyles is interpreted as being symmetrical in a width direction of the vehicle. Thus, the barrier 20 comprises a first section disposed on a first side of a centerline of the skirt (for example, the portion of the barrier on the driver’s side of the vehicle), and a second section disposed on a second side of the centerline (for example, the portion of the barrier on the passenger’s side of the vehicle) , the centerline being a line that is centered about a width of the upper surface of the skirt (and centered about a width of the overall vehicle); and
a first section of the rim 21 (on the driver’s side) is disposed at a lower end of the first section of the barrier 20, and a second section of the rim 21 (on the passenger’s side) is disposed at a lower end of the second section of the barrier 20.
With respect to claim 10, while not explicitly shown, it is presumed that the rim 21 disclosed by Boyles forms an enclosed space about the entire periphery of the barrier 20 since the apparatus is functional to create subambient pressure beneath the vehicle (Boyles, abstract). Thus, the rim 21 comprises a connection portion that extends between the first section of the rim and the second section of the rim, such that the connection portion crosses the centerline of the skirt (as previously mentioned, it is presumed that the rim 21 forms an unbroken shape around the bottom of barrier 20).
With respect to claim 20, Boyles discloses a base (floor of vehicle) disposed on the upper surface 18 of the skirt, wherein the actuator 29 and the converting mechanism are mounted on the base (as shown in Fig. 1 of Boyles).
With respect to claim 21, while, Boyles only discloses one actuator 29, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP§ 2144.04, part VI, B). In this instance, there has been no unexpected result disclosed in the provision of two actuators mounted in parallel. A second actuator 29 would simply provide and additional for lifting a portion of the weight of the skirt. Note, any two elements can be considered to be parallel.
With respect to claim 22, Boyles discloses that the actuation mechanism 29 is configured to move the rim 21 between a deployed position (as shown in Fig. 1 of Boyles) where the rim 21 is at a first height above the ground surface, and a stowed position (“end position,” Boyles, col. 2, lines 61-62) where the rim is at a second height above the ground surface, the second height being greater than the first height.
With respect to claim 23, Boyles discloses that the actuation mechanism is independent from a suspension system of the vehicle (as shown in Fig. 1 of Boyles).
With respect to claim 25, Boyles discloses that the upper surface 18 of the skirt is located on an underside of the vehicle 10 as shown in Fig. 1 of Boyles.
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 5-6 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyles (US 3,628625), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Winter (US 3,389,672).
With respect to claim 5, Boyles discloses the claimed skirt except for the actuator comprising a fluid-filled actuator. However, Winter teaches a similar skirt 4/7 including an actuator 11 wherein actuator 11 comprises a fluid-filled actuator (“hydraulic jacks 11. . . or pneumatic systems,” Winter, col. 3, lines 20-22; Fig. 3).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Winter with the skirt disclosed by Boyles for the advantage of automating the manual activity of moving the lever actuator 29.
With respect to claim 6, Winter teaches that the actuator 11 may be a pneumatic actuator (“hydraulic jacks 11. . . or pneumatic systems,” Winter, col. 3, lines 20-22; Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 24, Boyles discloses the claimed skirt except for the controller for controlling the actuation mechanism. However, Winter teaches a similar skirt 4/7 including an a fluid-filled actuator (“hydraulic jacks 11. . . or pneumatic systems,” Winter, col. 3, lines 20-22; Fig. 3) for operating the actuating mechanism. Although, not explicitly discloses, such a controller (i.e., hydraulic jack) would require some type of controller to operate the hydraulic jack).
It 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, with a reasonable expectation of success, to combine the teaching of Winter with the skirt disclosed by Boyles for the advantage of automating the manual activity of moving the lever actuator via hydraulic jacks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, and 11-19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of any error in the above rejection.
On pages 89 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that Boyle does not disclose a horizontal motion of the lever 29 but instead discloses a pivoting motion. However, it is noted that the physics of a pivotal motion includes both a tangential velocity and a radially inward acceleration as shown below in an excerpt taken from The Engineering Projects website found at
www.theengineeringprojects.com/2024/10/acceleration.html:
PNG
media_image1.png
474
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus in the case of Boyles, the movement of the lever 29 will have a tangential velocity V and a radial acceleration A, as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 4 of Boyles:
[AltContent: textbox (V)][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
397
359
media_image2.png
Greyscale
When the lever is rotated completely counterclockwise, the radial acceleration of the left arm of the lever 29 will be horizontal (as noted above). Thus, Boyles does teach a horizontal component of motion along a first axis, the first axis being in a first plane that is substantially parallel to the upper surface of the skirt.
Applicant further argues that “a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the movable element moves in a linear fashion along the first axis.” The examiner respectfully disagrees, and believes the claim could be interpreted to cover horizontal components of pivotal motion. It is suggested that Applicant put language regarding a “linear motion” in the claim to avoid any alternative interpretations.
Applicant also argues that, in the Office Action, “the lever 29 of Boyles reads on both the ‘actuator’ and ‘the moveable element’ of claim 1 even though these are clearly defined as distinct parts in the claim 1. However, there is no “movable element” recited in claim 1. Thus, it is inaccurate to state that, “Claim 1 specifies that the actuator causes motion of the movable element along the first axis.”
Applicant continues by arguing that “the rod 30 does not act to convert a motion along a first axis into a motion along a second, substantially perpendicular axis, as required by independent claim 1. The rod 30 appears to simply move up-and-down in response to the pivoting of the lever 29.” However, the examiner would like to point out that the rod 30 is constricted by the attachment mechanism at support plate 18 as shown below in the image taken from Fig. 4 of Boyles:
[AltContent: textbox (attachment mechanism)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image3.png
260
335
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This attachment mechanism restricts the rod 30 from moving in any horizontal motion. Without the attachment mechanism, the slot in the left side of lever 29 would move the rod 30 back and for the in a horizontal motion as the rod is pivoted. But due to the attachment mechanism the rod can only move in a vertical motion. Thus the rod converts the pivoting motion (including horizontal and vertical components) of the lever into a simply vertical motion of the rim.
For the above reasons, the prior art rejection is maintained.
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 J COLILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-2157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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 Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/Daniel J Colilla/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights