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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statement filed 2/29/2024 has been considered and is included in the file.
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 1-5 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 recites the limitation “toward a rear of the vehicle” in line 4. It is unclear as to the direction of the device since the device is already at the rear of the vehicle. For examination purposes, the phrase is read as “in a rearward direction relative to the vehicle”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2018/0134331) in view of McAllister et al. (US 2023/0373573).
Regarding claim 1, Yoon et al. discloses a vehicle control system, comprising: a diffuser device (750) disposed on a rear bumper of a vehicle (Fig. 2, also referred to as “RBAS”) and movably disposed between a first storage position stored in the rear bumper and a first unfolded position protruding from the rear bumper toward a rear of the vehicle (Figs. 1-2); a spoiler device (730) disposed on a roof plate of the vehicle (paragraphs [0005] and [0006] explain that the spoiler device disposed on a roof plate is a typical placement, also referred to as “ARS”) and movably disposed between a second storage position stored in the roof plate and a second unfolded position protruding from the roof plate toward the rear of the vehicle (Figs. 1-2); a detection device (200) disposed on the vehicle to detect a speed of the vehicle; and a control device (300) disposed on the vehicle and controlling the diffuser device and the spoiler device to move independently in response to the detection device output (paragraph [0032]).
Yoon et al. does not explicitly disclose the detection device is for detecting the direction of natural wind.
McAllister et al., like Yoon et al., teaches a vehicle control system, and further teaches a natural wind detection device ((185) in combination with (635)) disposed on the vehicle to detect a direction of natural wind relative to the vehicle (paragraphs [0055] and [0062]) and a control device (605), wherein the control device directs the movement in response to the direction of the natural wind (paragraphs [0055] and [0062], wind speed and direction, using anemometers among other sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Yoon et al. to modify the detection device to include a direction of natural wind as taught by McAllister et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to account for outside influences on the vehicle, i.e. weather conditions (McAllister et al.: paragraphs [0035] and [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Yoon et al. as modified by McAllister et al. teaches the system of claim 1 and teaches wherein the control device changes states of the diffuser device and the spoiler device in response to the direction of the natural wind (McAllister et al.: paragraphs [0055] and [0062]), wherein the control device controls the diffuser device to move to the first unfolded position and controls the spoiler device to move to the second unfolded position in a first state (Yoon et al.: Fig. 3, Table 1, combinations F or G), controls the diffuser device to move to the first unfolded position and controls the spoiler device to move to the second storage position in a second state (Yoon et al.: Fig. 3, Table 1, combinations C or E), and controls the diffuser device to move to the first storage position and controls the spoiler device to move to the second unfolded position in a third state (Yoon et al.: Fig. 3, Table 1, combinations B or D).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2018/0134331) in view of McAllister et al. (US 2023/0373573) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tran (US 4987542).
Regarding claim 3, Yoon et al. as modified by McAllister et al. teaches the system of claim 2 and teaches (references to McAllister et al.) the detection of the direction of the natural wind (paragraphs [0035] and [0062]). However, Yoon et al. as modified by McAllister et al. does not explicitly teach the natural wind detection device detects an angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to a straight direction of the vehicle.
Tran, like Yoon et al., teaches a vehicle control system, and further teaches the natural wind detection device detects an angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to a straight direction of the vehicle (col. 1, line 64 – col. 2, line 12, and lines 44-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Yoon et al. as modified by McAllister et al. to include the specific angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to a straight direction of the vehicle as taught by Tran, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to account for the cross winds, recognizing that they may come at different angles, which affects the calculations of the control device to provide more precise control.
Regarding claim 4, Yoon et al. as modified by McAllister et al. and Tran teaches the system of claim 3, and teaches (references to Tran) wherein the natural wind detection device detects a pressure value of the natural wind, and the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle is obtained by calculating the pressure value (col. 5, line 9 - col. 7, line 4, claim 1, pressure values are obtained and calculations are made to obtain the angle of direction).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al. (US 2018/0134331) in view of McAllister et al. (US 2023/0373573) and Tran (US 4987542) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Takagi et al. (US 4810022).
Regarding claim 5, Yoon et al. as modified by McAllister et al. and Tran teaches the system of claim 3, and teaches the control device controls the diffuser device and the spoiler device to move to a storage or unfolded position through three different stages (Yoon et al.: Fig. 3, paragraph [0032]) based on the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle (Tran: col. 1, line 64 – col. 2, line 12, and lines 44-52).
Yoon et al. as modified by McAllister et al. and Tran does not explicitly teach wherein when the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle is less than a first preset angle, the control device controls the diffuser device to move to the first unfolded position and controls the spoiler device to move to the second storage position, when the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle is greater than the first preset angle and less than a second preset angle, the control device controls the diffuser device to move to the first unfolded position and control the spoiler device to move to the second unfolded position, and when the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle is greater than the second preset angle, the control device controls the diffuser device to move to the first storage position and controls the spoiler device to move to the second unfolded position.
Takagi et al., like Yoon et al., teaches a vehicle control system, and further teaches wherein when the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle (crosswind) is less than a first preset value (Fig. 9 - for (20), col. 8, lines 65-68), the control device (40, Figs. 4, 10, 16, 25) controls (second pattern) the diffuser device (60) to move to the first unfolded position (Fig. 27B) and controls the spoiler device (20) to move to the second storage position (Fig. 27B), when the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle is greater than the first preset value and less than a second preset value (Fig. 9), the control device controls (fourth pattern) the diffuser device to move to the first unfolded position (Fig. 27E) and control the spoiler device to move to the second unfolded position (Fig. 27E), and when the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle is greater than the second preset value (Fig. 9), the control device controls (third pattern) the diffuser device to move to the first storage position (Fig. 27C) and controls the spoiler device to move to the second unfolded position (Fig. 27C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Yoon et al. as modified by McAllister et al. and Tran to provide multiple configurations for the diffuser and the spoiler as taught based on the angle of the direction of the natural wind by Takagi et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the most efficient configuration to increase the efficiency of the vehicle knowing the natural wind direction and how it affects the movement of the vehicle. Please note in the combination, the stages as taught by Takagi et al. are similar to the stages taught by Yoon et al. with the added calculations of the angle of the direction of the natural wind. Additionally, in the combination, the diffuser device is the rear diffuser device taught by Yoon et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Englar (US 5908217), Rees (US 20030075950), Anderson (US 20070257512), Lauer (US 20130300151), Yamaguchi (US 20160009323), Shimokawa (US 20160039416), Handzel, JR. (US 20160221613), Ishiba (US 20160244107), MEtka (US 20170036709), Morgan (US 20170080987), Heil (US 20170088200), Fahland (US 20180022404), Barber (US 20180043946), Cha (US 20190002039), Fahland (US 20190061837), Bray (US 20190092403), McAfee (US 20190382063), Gandhi (US 20200216121), Toki (US 11091212), Titus (US 20210253087), Rose (US 20220402564), Dauner (US 20230331317), Wiech (US 20240075994), Guyon (US 20240239424), Fasel (GB 2347903), Schulze (US DE 102011108706), Gaylard (GB 2528923), Shimokawa (JP 2016037179), Niebling (DE 102021002681), and Gilbert (FR 3146651) teach spoilers/diffusers, natural wind direction, and/or the adjustment of the spoilers/diffusers based on certain conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643