DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 15 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 1-2 recite “providing cooling, thrust and drag reduction in the vehicle“. This limitation is indefinite as it is not understood whether the system provides both thrust and drag resistance or if the system provides thrust and provides a drag reduction (it should be noted that a comma after thrust can change the intended meaning.
Further, claim 1 lines 11-12 recite ”providing directional thrust or drag reduction”. This limitation is indefinite as it appears to be in conflict with the recitation of line 1-2 as lines 11-12 provide for an alternative and not for both directional thrust and drag reduction.
Claim 2, 6, 11, and 15 end with the recited phrase “or the like”. This limitation/phrase renders the claims indefinite because the claims can include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Dependent claims 3-5 and 7-9 do not act to cure the deficiencies of parent claim 1 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-3, 7, 10-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slight (US 20190176908) in view of Marmo et al. (US 9994267).
Regarding claim 1: Slight discloses an air flow inducer system in a vehicle (Figs. 1-3). Slight discloses a source for generating a pressurized air flow (Figs 1-3; [0025]). Slight discloses an air inducer for receiving the pressurized air flow (Figs 1-3; [0025]). Slight discloses a chamber coupled with the air inducer such that the air inducer creates a low pressure in the chamber during flow of the pressurized air (Figs 1-3; abstr.; [0002], [0025], [0028] – the examiner finds that the chamber is formed between the bottom of vehicle 1 and the road 36). Slight discloses that the low pressure chamber is coupled with an underside of a vehicle such that the low pressure creates a downward force on the vehicle (Figs 1-3; abstr.; [0002], [0025], [0028] – the examiner finds that the chamber is formed between the bottom of vehicle 1 and the road 36 and therefore is “coupled” to the underside of the vehicle). Slight discloses an entrainment nozzle coupled with the air inducer for directing air flow toward heated elements that require cooling ([0009], [0024]).
Slight does not explicitly disclose an exhaust for directing air flow exiting the system for providing directional thrust or drag reduction. Marmo discloses an exhaust for directing air flow exiting the system for providing directional thrust or drag reduction (col. 1, lines 8-31; col. 6, line 51-col. 7, line 14). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Slight so as to include an exhaust for directing air flow exiting the system for providing directional thrust or drag reduction as taught by Marmo. As both Slight and Marmo are directed to air flow in and around vehicles to improve aerodynamic characteristics, as maintaining/controlling aerodynamic forces on vehicles is well known in the art, as Slight is silent regarding the exhaust air affecting drag, and as Marmo explicitly discloses that disclose an exhaust for directing air flow exiting the system for providing drag reduction, it would have been within routine skill to select a specific air flow configuration from a finite selection of air flow configurations (i.e. a desired exhaust flow providing a desired drag reduction). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2: Slight, as modified by Marmo, discloses that the source for generating pressurized air flow is a compressor, storage tank, accumulator or the like (Slight and Marmo discloses ambient air flow (i.e. forced air flow due to moving of the vehicle) which the examiner finds as being encompassed by “or the like”).
Regarding claim 3: Slight, as modified by Marmo, discloses that the chamber is defined by a closed skirt (Marmo – 30, 32, 34) extending toward the ground from the underside of the vehicle (Marmo – Figs. 1, 2; col. 3, line 52-col. 4, line 11).
Regarding claim 7: Slight, as modified by Marmo, discloses a purge valve (Slight – 50) coupled with the air inducer for restricting flow through the air inducer (Slight – Fig. 4; [0033]).
Regarding claim 10: Slight, as modified by Marmo, discloses a vehicle having a body with an underside (see above; Slight – Figs. 1-3; Marmo – Figs. 1, 2). Slight, as modified by Marmo, discloses a source for generating a pressurized air flow (see above; Slight - Figs 1-3; [0025]). Slight, as modified by Marmo, discloses an air inducer for receiving the pressurized air flow (see above; Slight - Figs 1-3; [0025]). Slight, as modified by Marmo, discloses a chamber coupled with the air inducer such that the air inducer creates a low pressure in the chamber during flow of the pressurized air (see above; Slight - Figs 1-3; abstr.; [0002], [0025], [0028] – the examiner finds that the chamber is formed between the bottom of vehicle 1 and the road 36). Slight, as modified by Marmo, discloses that the low pressure chamber is coupled with the underside of the vehicle such that the low pressure creates a downward force on the vehicle (see above; Slight - Figs 1-3; abstr.; [0002], [0025], [0028] – the examiner finds that the chamber is formed between the bottom of vehicle 1 and the road 36 and therefore is “coupled” to the underside of the vehicle). Slight, as modified by Marmo, discloses an entrainment nozzle coupled with the air inducer for directing air flow toward heated elements that require cooling (see above; Slight - [0009], [0024]). Slight, as modified by Marmo, discloses an exhaust for directing air flow exiting the system for providing directional thrust or drag reduction (see above; Marmo - col. 1, lines 8-31; col. 6, line 51-col. 7, line 14).
Regarding claim 11: Slight, as modified by Marmo, discloses that the source for generating pressurized air flow is a compressor, storage tank, accumulator or the like (Slight and Marmo discloses ambient air flow (i.e. forced air flow due to moving of the vehicle) which the examiner finds as being encompassed by “or the like”).
Regarding claim 12: Slight, as modified by Marmo, discloses that the chamber is defined by a closed skirt (Marmo – 30, 32, 34) extending toward the ground from the underside of the vehicle (Marmo – Figs. 1, 2; col. 3, line 52-col. 4, line 11).
Regarding claim 16: Slight, as modified by Marmo, discloses a purge valve (Slight – 50) coupled with the air inducer for restricting flow through the air inducer (Slight – Fig. 4; [0033]).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slight (US 20190176908) and Marmo et al. (US 9994267), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Padial et al. (US 20230399062).
Slight and Marmo discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 6: Slight, as modified by Marmo, does not explicitly disclose that the exhaust directs the air flow to a spoiler, body panel, scoop or the like. Padial discloses directing the air flow to a spoiler, body panel, scoop or the like ([0002]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Slight, as modified by Marmo, so that the exhaust directs the air flow to a spoiler, body panel, scoop or the like as taught by Padial. As Slight, Marmo, and Padial are directed to air flow in and around vehicles to improve aerodynamic characteristics, as maintaining/controlling aerodynamic forces on vehicles is well known in the art, as Slight, as modified by Marmo, is silent regarding that the exhaust directs the air flow to a spoiler, body panel, scoop or the like, and as Padial explicitly discloses directing the air flow to a spoiler, body panel, scoop or the like, it would have been within routine skill to have selected an exhaust configuration so that the exhaust directs the air flow to a spoiler, body panel, scoop or the like from a finite selection of exhaust air flow configurations (i.e. flow towards a spoiler, body panel, scoop or the like or another exhaust flow avenue). Such a selection and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15: Slight, as modified by Marmo and Padial, discloses that the exhaust directs the air flow to a spoiler, body panel, scoop or the like (see above; Padial – [0002]).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slight (US 20190176908) and Marmo et al. (US 9994267), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scholz (US 20240286689).
Slight and Marmo discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 8: Slight, as modified by Marmo, does not explicitly disclose a filter screen between the air inducer and chamber for filtering air flow into the air inducer. Scholz a filter screen between the air inducer and chamber for filtering air flow into the air inducer ([0093]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Slight, as modified by Marmo, so as to include a filter screen between the air inducer and chamber for filtering air flow into the air inducer, as taught by Scholz, in order to capture any dust or debris travelling along the air flow path to avoid dust or debris from being ejected from the downforce system via the outlet. As Slight, Marmo, and Scholz are directed to air flow in and around vehicles to improve aerodynamic characteristics, as maintaining/controlling aerodynamic forces on vehicles is well known in the art, as Slight, as modified by Marmo, is silent regarding filters, as filters in flow systems are well known in the art, and as Scholz explicitly discloses a filter screen between the air inducer and chamber for filtering air flow into the air inducer, it would have been within routine skill to have selected an air flow configuration utilizing filters from a finite selection of air flow configurations (i.e. having filters or not having filters). Such a simple addition and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 17: Slight, as modified by Marmo and Scholz, discloses a filter screen between the air inducer and chamber for filtering air flow into the air inducer (see above; Scholz – [0093]).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slight (US 20190176908) and Marmo et al. (US 9994267), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoshi et al. (US 20240017567).
Slight and Marmo discloses the invention substantially as claimed and as discussed above.
Regarding claim 9: Slight discloses that the air flow is used to cool vehicle components ([0024]) but is silent regarding which components and thus, Slight, as modified by Marmo, does not explicitly disclose that the heated element may be brakes, motors, batteries, suspension components or the like. Hoshi discloses air flow for cooling brakes ([0006]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have configured Slight, as modified by Marmo, so that the heated element (that is being air cooled) may be brakes, motors, batteries, suspension components or the like as taught by Hoshi. As Slight, Marmo, and Hoshi are directed to air flow in and around vehicles, as cooling vehicle components is very well known in the art, as Slight discloses cooling components but is silent as to a list of components, and as Hoshi explicitly discloses air cooling breaks, it would have been within routine skill to have selected an air flow configuration to cool vehicle components from a finite selection of air flow configurations (i.e. configurations that cool brakes). Such a simple addition or substitution and configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 18: Slight, as modified by Marmo and Hoshi, discloses a filter screen between the air inducer and chamber for filtering air flow into the air inducer (see above; Slight – [0024]; Hoshi – [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 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.
Controlling vehicle aerodynamics including downward forces for traction, air flow for drag reduction, and air flow for directional thrust as well as structure to enable such aerodynamic control are really well known in the art. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Slight (US 20190176908), Marmo et al. (US 9994267), Scholz (US 20240286689), Hoshi et al. (US 20240017567), Padial et al. (US 20230399062), Sikoria et al. (US 10500963), Boardman et al. (US 11286884), Sullivan (US 4611847), Gaylord et al. (US 10293870), Bidwell (US 5313797), and Perry (US 7086224). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a vehicle, a vehicle body and underside, an air flow inducer system, a source for pressurized air, an air inducer that receives the pressurized air, a chamber coupled with the air inducer such that the air inducer creates a low pressure in the chamber during flow of the pressurized air, the low pressure chamber coupled with an underside of a vehicle such that the low pressure creates a downward force on the vehicle, an entrainment nozzle coupled with the air inducer for directing air flow toward heated elements that require cooling, and an exhaust for directing air flow exiting the system for providing directional thrust or drag reduction. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically combined structure as being claimed in the instant application. Specifically, the detailed structure of the entrainment nozzle together with the specific positional relationships of the structures, and together with the limitations of the independent claim are not disclosed or fairly suggested. As various aerodynamic air flow systems are known, it could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural and positional relationships and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
4/8/2026
Prosecution Insights