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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Stemmler fails to disclose that the drive cable is wound around the drive drum and is driven by the drive drum.
Examiner respectfully disagree. As shown in fig. 1, cable 541 extends around and is wrapped about the circumference of pulley/drive drum 542, such that rotation of the pulley engages the cable and causes the cable to be displaced. Pulley 542 functions as the claimed drive drum. The claim does not require any minimum number of windings. A cable that is wrapped around a portion of the circumference of a rotating drive drum sufficiently to transmit motion is reasonably considered to be “wound around” the drive drum under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Thus, cable 541 is wound around the drive drum and is driven by the drive drum.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Stemmler’s drum is a passive element and that the spoiler is actually driven by a separate cable 6 that is not wound about a drive drum.
Examiner respectfully disagree. the claim does not require that the drive drum be the original power source or an actively powered component. Rather, the claim only requires that the drive cable be wound around the drive drum and be driven by the drive drum. As shown in figs. 1 and 2, cable 541 is wrapped around the drive drum (pulley) 542 by virtue of their engagement. Thus, cable 541 is driven by drive drum 542, regardless of whether drive drum 542 itself receives motion from another component, such as cable 6. Examiner also notes that “driven by” describes the kinematic relationship, not necessarily the ultimate source of power. A component may be “driven by” another component even where the latter is itself driven by an upstream element. The claim language does not exclude intermediate transmission members or require the drive drum to be directly motor-driven.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urs Stemmler (FR 2816906), in view of Kishima (U.S. 2016/0318560A1).
Regarding claim 1, Urs Stemmler discloses a lateral rear region of a motor vehicle (refer to page 2, lines 2-5) comprising:
a rear body member (21, 22; see figs. 1-2 and refer to page 2, lines 40-41) extending at least behind a rear of the motor vehicle (refer to page 2, lines 40-41); and
an air directing device including an air guidance element (1, 50) that is displaceable relative to the rear body member (21, 22) between a rest position retracted into the rear body member (21, 22; as shown in fig. 1) and an operating position extended out of the rear body member (21, 22; as shown in fig. 2),
wherein, in the rest position, a flow guide surface (outer surface of holding 50 and including spoiler 1) of the air guidance element (1, 50) is covered by the rear body member (21, 22; see fig. 1) and, in the operating position, the flow guide surface (outer surface of holding 50 and including spoiler 1) of the air guidance element (50) is displaced rearward relative to the rear body member (21, 22), at least in a longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle (see fig. 2),
wherein the air directing device (1, 50) comprises a guide and drive unit (4, 6, 7, 8, 11) which guides and drives the air guidance element (1, 50) during the displacement relative to the rear body member (21, 22),
wherein a drive (4, 6) of the guide and drive unit (4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 541, 542) comprises a cable pull drive (541, 542) including a drive cable (541), which is wound around a drive drum (542) of the cable pull drive (541, 542) and is driven by the drive drum (452; refer to page 4, lines 1-17. As shown in fig. 1, cable 541 extends around and is wrapped about the circumference of pulley (drive drum) 542, such that rotation of the pulley engages the cable and causes the cable to be displaced).
However, while Urs Stemmler teaches that the air directing device is on the rear of the motor vehicle, Urs Stemmler is silent to the full structure of the vehicle and the exact location on the rear side, thus fails to teach that the air directing device is located on a rear wheel housing of the motor vehicle.
Kishima teaches the use of an air directive device (42, see figs. 1-4 and 4) on a rear wheel housing (14, 15) of a motor vehicle (10, see fig. 1) comprising two lateral rear regions (as shown in fig. 1).
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 Urs Stemmler to include air directing device located on a rear wheel housing of the motor vehicle, as taught by Kishima, for the purpose of regulating air flow and improve visibility of a light-emitting portion of the motor vehicle (refer to para 0007).
Also, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Urs Stemmler and Kishima teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Urs Stemmler further disclose wherein the guide and drive unit (4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 541, 542) comprises at least one fixed guide rail (groove section shown in annotated fig. 2 below) and at least one sliding block (see annotated fig. 2 below) displaceable relative to the fixed guide rail (see figs. 1-2), wherein the drive drum of the cable pull drive (541, 542) displaces the at at least one sliding block relative to the at least one fixed guide rail and displaces the air guidance element via the at least one sliding block relative to the rear body member (as shown in figs. 1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Urs Stemmler and Kishima teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 3 above; Urs Stemmler further disclose wherein the drive cable (541) engages into the at least one sliding block (engages the sliding block at drum 542) and displaces the at least one sliding block relative to the at least one fixed guide rail (as shown in figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Urs Stemmler and Kishima teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Urs Stemmler further disclose wherein the flow guide surface (outer surface of holding 50 and including spoiler 1) of the air guidance element (1, 50) is displaced rearward in the operating position from the rest position when viewed on the one hand in the longitudinal direction of the motor vehicle and, on the other hand, outwardly when viewed in a transverse direction of the motor vehicle (as shown in figs. 1-2; also see figs. 1 and 6 of Kishima), such that in the operating position, the flow guide surface of the air guidance element is flush with an outer surface of the rear body member (as shown in figs. 1-2; also see figs. 1 and 6 of Kishima).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Urs Stemmler and Kishima teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 1 above; Urs Stemmler, as modified by Kishima further teaches a motor vehicle (10, fig. 1) comprising two lateral rear regions (see fig. 1) according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6 and 8-11 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (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 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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights