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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 11-12, 15-16, 18 and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, reference numeral “100” should appear in parentheses. On line 3, the phrase ”leaving where” is awkward phraseology. On line 3 it is thought that “leaving” should be deleted.
In claims 2-6, line 1, it is thought that the first instance of “A” should be changed to –The-- and “having” should be deleted.
On lines 11, 12 and 15, it is thought that the first instance of “A” should be changed to –The—and “comprising” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 11. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-6, 11-12, 15-16, 18 and 20 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.
In claim 1, line 2, “blocking and channeling”, “air” and “cab” lacks clear antecedent basis. On line 4, “bottom” lacks clear antecedent basis. On line 4, “air flow” lacks clear antecedent basis. On lines 3 and 4 the recitation that the “wind shield extends perpendicularly straight from the bottom” is unclear. It is unclear relative to what the wind shield extends “perpendicularly”. On line 5, it is unclear whether the “removable door” is the same as or different from that recited on line 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 11-12, 15, 18 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The recitation in claim 1 of a wind protector in the form of a wind shield that blocks and channels an airflow away from a vehicle cab when a removable door has been removed, where the wind shield extends upwardly from a bottom and then angles back away from the vehicle to move air flow out and away from an open-door frame when the removable door has been removed, and having a plurality of hinge pins, where the plurality of hinge pins have a pin and a block, where each pin is placed in a vehicle hinge with the block resting on the top of the hinge, where each pin has a diameter that fits into the hinge and has a length greater than the hinge, and where
Claims drafted by Examiner
8. The following claims drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, are presented to applicant for consideration:
1. A side wind protector for a vehicle having a cab comprising: a wind shield for blocking and channeling an flow away from the cab a bottom thereof and then angles back from a vertical direction relative to a front of the vehicle, where the wind shield extends rearwardly from a front edge thereof slightly angled outward and backward from the vehicle to move the air flow out and away from an open-door frame when the removable door has been removed, and having a plurality of hinge pins, where the plurality of hinge pins have a pin and a block, where each pin is placed in a vehicle hinge with the block resting on the top of the hinge, where each pin has a diameter that fits into the hinge and has a length greater than the hinge, and where each block has a diameter greater than the hinge.
2. The side wind protector according to claim 1 comprising:
3. The side wind protector according to claim 1 comprising:
4. The side wind protector according to claim 1 comprising:
5. The side wind protector according to claim 4 comprising:
6. The side wind protector according to claim 1 comprising:
7. (cancelled)
8. (cancelled)
9. (cancelled)
10. (cancelled)
11. The side wind protector according to claim 1
12. (original) The side wind protector according to claim 1
13. (cancelled)
14. (cancelled)
15. The side wind protector according to claim 1
16. (cancel as claim 16 is a duplicate of claim11)
17. (cancelled)
18. The wind protector according to claim [[17]]4 comprising: where the hinge pins are attached to the support bar and the support bar adjusts the location of the hinge pins .
19. [[18.]] (cancelled)
20. A process to prevent wind from entering a vehicle cab comprising: using the device of claim 1.
Conclusion
9.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.
10.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph D. Pape whose telephone number is (571)272-6664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 AM-3:30 PM.
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.
/Joseph D. Pape/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612