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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (4987542) in view of Lee et al. (2015/0166130).
For claim 1, Tran discloses a vehicle control system, comprising:
an aerodynamic device (Col 2, lines 37-42) installed on a vehicle and configured to be influenced;
a natural wind detecting device (1 to 6) installed on the vehicle to detect a direction of the natural wind relative to the vehicle; and
a control device (computer) arranged on the vehicle and controlling movement of the aerodynamic device in response to the direction of the natural wind (the computer influences the device in order to compensate for the effect of the cross wind or to make it more manageable for the driver).
PNG
media_image1.png
425
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee et al. lack the specific diffuser device recited installed on a rear bumper of a vehicle and configured to be movable between a storing position stored in the rear bumper and an extending position protruding from the rear bumper toward the rear of the vehicle.
This feature is known from at least Lee et al. which provides a diffuser device arranged at the rear end (the rear bumper) of the vehicle to improve aerodynamic performance based on vehicle speed. The diffuser is movable to change position where the movable part moves in a front-rear direction of the vehicle between a storing position (FIG.3) and an extending position (FIG.4).
PNG
media_image2.png
766
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
716
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided as the aerodynamic device of Tran a bumper diffuser device as taught by Lee et al. and to have adapted the device of Lee et al. to be influenced based on the direction of the natural wind detected or determined by Tran as an obvious expedient in order to aid in compensating for the effect of the cross wind and to make driving the vehicle more manageable.
For claim 2, Tram, as modified, discloses (Col 2, lines 20-23) the natural wind detecting device detects an angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to a straight direction of the vehicle.
For claim 3, the natural wind detecting device detects a pressure value (ram pressure via probes 1 to 6) of the natural wind, and the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle is calculated (Col 2, lines 20-25) by calculating the pressure value.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (4987542), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ishiba (2016/0244107).
For claim 4, Tran, as modified, now discloses the control device controlling the diffuser device to move between the extending position and storing position.
Tran, as modified, lacks the movement being based on the angle of direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle relative a predetermined angle.
Specifically, Tran, as modified, when the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle is less than a predetermined angle, the control device controls the diffuser device to move to the extending position, and when the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle is greater than the predetermined angle, the control device controls the diffuser device to move to the storing position.
Ishiba teaches a device with this functionality and the desirability of vehicle stabilization. As seen in [0012], Ishiba teaches control devices (14,24) and a shielding member (16, 26) which is capable of moving (in response to a CPU; [0040]) between an extending position and a storing position. Ishiba provides the vehicle with a wind direction sensor ([0041]) to determine the wind direction.
When the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle is less than a predetermined angle (that is, when the vehicle body does not receive a substantial side wind (absence of a side wind), the control device controls the diffuser device to move to the extending (expanding) position (making the air flow pass along the outer surface of the body and preventing air flow to the under floor of the body, [0012]), and when the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle is greater than the predetermined angle (that is, when the vehicle body receives a substantial side wind), the control device controls the diffuser device to move to the storing (contracted) position ([0013]).
PNG
media_image4.png
185
443
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to control the diffuser device of Tran, as modified, to extend when the angle of the direction of the natural wind relative to the straight direction of the vehicle is less than a predetermined angle and retract when greater than a predetermined angle as taught by Ishiba in order to improve the aerodynamic characteristics of the vehicle body and reduce unwanted effects of cross wind to make it more manageable for the driver.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. 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 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. Should you have questions, 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.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B