DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 30 May 2024. Claims 1-24 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 21 are independent claims.
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 Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations of claims 1, 10, and 21 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “a receiving unit” coupled with functional language “to receive” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1, 10, and 21 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 21 recite “a receiving unit configured to receive”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The function of receiving be performed in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-5, 21, 23, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda (JP 2007126088A) hereinafter known as Oda.
Regarding independent claim 1, Oda teaches:
A control device of a variable wheel, the control device comprising: a receiving unit configured to receive internal driving information of a vehicle; and (Oda: pg. 3, fifth paragraph from the bottom; Oda teaches a receiving unit by teaching the air flow control ECU 26, which receives vehicle speed and brake temperature measurements. Pg. 4, eleventh paragraph from the top, teaches ECU 32 which detects vehicle speed and height. Pg. 5, third paragraph from the bottom, teaches ECU 38 which detects vehicle speed and roll rate.)
…
An embodiment of Oda does not explicitly teach but another embodiment of Oda teaches:
a controller operatively connected to the receiving unit and configured to control a flap of the variable wheel provided on each wheel of the vehicle to rotate in a first direction or a second direction, based on the internal driving information, wherein the controller is further configured to individually control a rotation direction or a rotation angle of the flap of the variable wheel. (Oda: pg. 2, second paragraph from the bottom; Oda teaches using the determinations from the ECU to control the wheel fin drive unit 22. Further, pg. 2, eleventh paragraph from the bottom, teaches fins 12 which are rotatable around the wheel center portion 10A in the direction opposite to the wheel rotation direction. Further, pg. 6, second paragraph from the bottom, teaches moving fin 12 of the vehicle wheel on the left side of the vehicle in the forward rotation direction and moving the fin 12 of the vehicle wheel on the right side in the reverse rotation direction.)
Oda is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to controlling wheel fins based on vehicle parameters. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine receiving various vehicle parameters with further controlling fins on each wheel based on those parameters. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow improving vehicle traveling performance, as suggested by Oda: pg. 1, third paragraph from the top.
Regarding claim 2, Oda further teaches the control device of claim 1.
Oda further teaches:
wherein the first direction is a direction of rotation of the flap of the variable wheel to allow air to flow from an outside of the wheel to an inside thereof, and wherein the second direction is a direction of rotation of the flap of the variable wheel to allow air to flow from the inside of the wheel to the outside (Oda: Figs. 2A and 2B, pg. 2, thirteenth paragraph and fourteenth paragraph from the top, and pg. 6, second paragraph from the bottom; Oda teaches air flow in both directions.)
Regarding claim 3, Oda further teaches the control device of claim 1.
Oda further teaches:
wherein the internal driving information includes information on a ground clearance of the vehicle, and wherein the controller is further configured to control the flap of the variable wheel by comparing the ground clearance with a predetermined reference ground clearance. (Oda: pg. 4, tenth paragraph from the bottom; Oda teaches a vehicle height sensor that detects a vehicle height at a position corresponding to each wheel. Further, pg. 5, sixth paragraph from the top, teaches determining whether or not the vehicle height is higher than a predetermined standard vehicle height and controlling the fins based on the determination result.)
Regarding claim 4, Oda further teaches the control device of claim 3.
Oda further teaches:
wherein in response that the ground clearance is lower than the reference ground clearance, and wherein the controller is further configured to control the flap of the variable wheel to reduce air flow passing through the variable wheel. (Oda: pg. 1, last paragraph to pg. 2, first paragraph, and pg. 3, tenth paragraph from the bottom; Oda teaches a reduced flow state by storing the fins.)
Oda is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to controlling wheel fins based on vehicle parameters. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine receiving various vehicle parameters and comparing the ground clearance with a reference with further controlling fins on each wheel to reduce air flow. Oda already performs the check of ground clearance against a reference in step 254. However, if the ground clearance is lower, Oda does not provide a further step. Yet, Oda teaches two states for the fins, deployed or stored. Selecting a flow suppressing state is within the known options for one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success, the results being fully predictable from Oda’s own teachings. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow improving vehicle fuel efficiency, as suggested by Oda: pg. 2, third paragraph from the top.
Regarding claim 5, Oda further teaches the control device of claim 3.
Oda further teaches:
wherein in response that the ground clearance is higher than the reference ground clearance, and wherein the controller is further configured to control the flap to reduce air flow passing through the variable wheel provided on a front wheel of the vehicle, and to control the flap of the variable wheel provided on a rear wheel of the vehicle to rotate in the first direction. (Oda: pg. 5, eleventh paragraph from the bottom; Oda teaches step 254 which determines whether the wheels are higher than the standard vehicle height. pg. 3, fifth paragraph and pg. 5, ninth paragraph, teaches step 258 where the flaps respond to lower the vehicle height, which includes suppressing the flow through the fins. Further, the fins 12 are rotated.)
Regarding independent claim 21, Oda teaches:
A control device of a variable wheel, the control device comprising: a receiving unit configured to receive temperature information of a braking device; and (Oda: pg. 3, fifth paragraph from the bottom; Oda teaches a receiving unit by teaching the air flow control ECU 26, which receives brake temperature information.)
…
An embodiment of Oda does not explicitly teach but another embodiment of Oda teaches:
a controller operatively connected to the receiving unit and configured to control a flap of the variable wheel to open or close an opening of the variable wheel provided to allow air to pass through a wheel, based on the temperature information of the braking device. (Oda: pg. 3, third paragraph from the bottom; Oda teaches determining whether or not the brake is hot and then controlling the fin drive unit 22. Pg. 4, fifth paragraph from the top, further teach controlling the fins based on the brake temperature.)
Oda is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to controlling wheel fins based on vehicle parameters. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine receiving various vehicle parameters with further controlling fins on each wheel based on those parameters. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow improving cooling efficiency of the brakes, as suggested by Oda: pg. 4, fifth paragraph from the top.
Regarding claim 23, Oda further teaches the control device of claim 21.
Oda further teaches:
wherein in response that a temperature of the braking device exceeds a predetermined reference temperature, the controller is further configured to control the flap of the variable wheel to open an opening of the variable wheel provided to allow air to pass through the wheel. (Oda: pg. 3, third paragraph from the bottom; Oda teaches determining whether or not the brake is hot and then controlling the fin drive unit 22. Pg. 4, fifth paragraph from the top, further teach controlling the fins based on the brake temperature.)
Regarding claim 24, Oda further teaches the control device of claim 23.
Oda further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to control the flap of the variable wheel so that the air passes from an inside to an outside of the wheel. (Oda: pg. 3, third paragraph from the bottom; Oda teaches determining whether or not the brake is hot and then controlling the fin drive unit 22. Pg. 4, fifth paragraph from the top, further teach controlling the fins based on the brake temperature so tha the air flow passes through the vehicle wheel from the vehicle inner side to the outer side.)
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda in view of Watanabe (US 2021/0094631 A1) hereinafter known as Watanabe.
Regarding claim 6, Oda further teaches the control device of claim 1.
Oda does not explicitly teach but Watanabe teaches:
wherein the internal driving information includes information on occurrence of understeer or oversteer of the vehicle, and wherein in response that the understeer or the oversteer occurs, the controller is further configured to control the flap so that air flow formed by the variable wheel provided on a front wheel of the vehicle and air flow formed by the variable wheel provided on a rear wheel of the vehicle are formed in opposition to each other. (Watanabe: ¶[0049] and ¶[0149]; Watanabe teaches determining whether the vehicle is oversteer or understeer state. Further, Figs. 13 and 15 and ¶[0174] and ¶[0184] teach generating air flow towards the outside of the vehicle for yawing promotion control.)
Watanabe is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling aero on each wheel based on different vehicle parameters. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine controlling the flaps of each wheel based on received vehicle parameters as taught in Oda with further controlling aero on the front and back wheels to correct for oversteer/understeer as taught in Watanabe. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Oda to include teachings of Watanabe, because the combination would allow correcting oversteer/understeer, as suggested by Watanabe: ¶[0049].
Regarding claim 7, Oda in view of Watanabe further teaches the control device of claim 6.
Oda teaches rotating the fins in opposing directions. (Oda: pg. 6, second paragraph from the bottom)
Watanabe further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to: control the variable wheel provided on a right front wheel of the vehicle and the flap of the variable wheel provided on a left rear wheel of the vehicle to rotate in a same direction, and control the variable wheel provided on a left front wheel of the vehicle and the flap of the variable wheel provided on a right rear wheel of the vehicle to rotate in a same direction, and control the variable wheel provided on the right front wheel and the flap of the variable wheel provided on the left rear wheel to rotate in different directions from the variable wheel provided on the left front wheel and the flap of the variable wheel provided on the right rear wheel. (Watanabe: Figs. 14 and 16 and ¶[0178] and ¶[0189]; Watanabe further teaches the pairs of wheel operating identically and oppositely.)
Regarding claim 8, Oda further teaches the control device of claim 1.
Oda does not explicitly teach but Watanabe teaches:
wherein the internal driving information includes lateral acceleration information and steering angle information, and wherein the controller is further configured to control the flap of the variable wheel by comparing the lateral acceleration with reference lateral acceleration determined based on a steering angle of the vehicle. (Watanabe: ¶[0044] and ¶[0049]; Watanabe teaches correcting yaw rate based on factors such as steering angle and detecting lateral acceleration. Further, Figs. 13 and 15 and ¶[0174] and ¶[0184] teach generating air flow towards the outside of the vehicle for yawing promotion control.)
Watanabe is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling aero on each wheel based on different vehicle parameters. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine controlling the flaps of each wheel based on received vehicle parameters as taught in Oda with further controlling aero on the front and back wheels to correct for yaw rates based on steering angle and lateral acceleration as taught in Watanabe. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Oda to include teachings of Watanabe, because the combination would allow correcting vehicle behavior, as suggested by Watanabe: ¶[0049].
Regarding claim 9, Oda in view of Watanabe further teaches the control device of claim 8.
Oda teaches rotating the fins in opposing directions. (Oda: pg. 6, second paragraph from the bottom)
Oda does not explicitly teach but Watanabe teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to control the variable wheel so that the flap of the variable wheel provided on a left side of a front wheel and a rear wheel of the vehicle and the flap of the variable wheel provided on a right side of the front wheel and the rear wheel rotate in different directions. (Watanabe: Figs. 14 and 16 and ¶[0178] and ¶[0189]; Watanabe further teaches the pairs of wheel operating identically and oppositely.)
Claims 10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP 6684136B2) hereinafter known as Kobayashi.
Regarding independent claim 10, Kobayashi teaches:
A control device of a variable wheel, the control device comprising: a receiving unit configured to receive external driving information of a driving vehicle; and (Kobayashi: pg. 2, last paragraph to pg. 3 first paragraph; Kobayashi teaches external environment detection sensor 33 that detects surrounding vehicles, buildings, terrain, wind direction, etc…)
…
An embodiment of Kobayashi does not explicitly teach but another embodiment of Kobayashi teaches:
a controller operatively connected to the receiving unit and configured to control a flap of the variable wheel provided on each wheel of the vehicle to rotate in a first direction or a second direction, based on the external driving information, wherein the controller is further configured to individually control a rotation direction or a rotation angle of the flap of the variable wheel. (Kobayashi: pg. 3, fourth paragraph from the top; Kobayashi teaches moving shutter 20 by an actuator between open and closed positions. Pg. 3, eight paragraph, teaches the shutter rotation in different directions.)
Kobayashi is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to controlling vehicle airflow through shutters. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine receiving various external vehicle parameters with further controlling shutters on each wheel based on those parameters. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow stabilizing vehicle posture, as suggested by Kobayashi: pg. 1, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 12, Kobayashi further teaches the control device of claim 10.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein the external driving information includes relative position information of a surrounding vehicle driving close to the driving vehicle, and wherein the controller is further configured to control the flap of the variable wheel by dividing a relative position into a plurality of sections, based on the relative position information of the surrounding vehicle. (Kobayashi: pg. 4, eight paragraph from the top; Kobayashi teaches detecting a position of a target vehicle, such as a large truck. Pg. 4, ninth paragraph from the top, further teaches partitioning the distance and actuating the shutters based on position.)
Regarding claim 13, Kobayashi further teaches the control device of claim 12.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein the plurality of sections are distinguished according to changes in a magnitude or a direction of force and moment acting on the driving vehicle which change depending on a relative position of the driving vehicle and the surrounding vehicle. (Kobayashi: Fig. 6 and pg. 4, second paragraph from the bottom; Kobayashi teaches moment M2 generated from vehicle X as it is traveling.)
Regarding claim 14, Kobayashi further teaches the control device of claim 12.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein in a section in which a front end portion of the surrounding vehicle begins to overlap a rear end portion of the driving vehicle, among the plurality of sections, the controller is further configured to, control the flap of the variable wheel provided on a rear wheel of the driving vehicle, or the flap of the variable wheel provided on front and rear wheels of the driving vehicle, and control a flap of the variable wheel disposed close to a side of the surrounding vehicle to rotate in the first direction, and control a flap of the variable wheel disposed away from a side of the surrounding vehicle to rotate in the second direction. (Kobayashi: pg. 5, paragraph eight to ten from the top; Kobayashi teaches when the L1 = 0, i.e. being overtaken. The shutters 20 are moved, in the front and back, in different directions.)
Regarding claim 15, Kobayashi further teaches the control device of claim 12.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein in a section in which a front end portion of the surrounding vehicle overlaps a rear end portion of the driving vehicle, and a rear end portion of the surrounding vehicle does not overlap the rear end portion of the driving vehicle, among the plurality of sections, the controller is further configured to: control the flap of the variable wheel provided on a front wheel of the vehicle, and among flaps of the variable wheel provided on the front wheel, control a flap of the variable wheel disposed close to a side of the surrounding vehicle to rotate in the first direction, and control a flap of the variable wheel disposed away from a side of the surrounding vehicle to rotate in the second direction. (Kobayashi: pg. 5, paragraph eight to ten from the top; Kobayashi teaches when the L1 = 0, i.e. being overtaken. The shutters 20 are moved, in the front and back, in different directions.)
Regarding claim 16, Kobayashi further teaches the control device of claim 15.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to control a rotation angle of the flap of the variable wheel to be reduced as an overlapping section between the driving vehicle and the surrounding vehicle increases. (Kobayashi: pg. 5, paragraph eight to ten from the top; Kobayashi teaches when the L1 = 0, i.e. being overtaken. The shutters 20 are moved, in the front and back, in different directions.)
Regarding claim 17, Kobayashi further teaches the control device of claim 12.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein in a section in which each of a front end portion and a rear end portion of the surrounding vehicles is disposed between a front end portion and a rear end portion of the driving vehicle, among the plurality of sections, the controller is further configured to, control the flap of the variable wheel provided on a rear wheel of the driving vehicle, and among flaps of the variable wheel provided on the rear wheel, control a flap disposed close to a side of the surrounding vehicle to rotate in the second direction, and control a flap disposed away from a side of the surrounding vehicle to rotate in the first direction. (Kobayashi: pg. 5, paragraph eight to ten from the top; Kobayashi teaches being overtaken and when the target vehicle is alongside; and controlling the shutters 20, in the front and back, in different directions.)
Regarding claim 18, Kobayashi further teaches the control device of claim 12.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein in a section in which a front end portion of the surrounding vehicle passes by a front end portion of the driving vehicle, and a rear end portion of the surrounding vehicle is disposed between a front end portion and a rear end portion of the driving vehicle, among the plurality of sections, the controller is further configured to, control the flaps of the variable wheel provided on a front wheel and a rear wheel, and among flaps of the variable wheel provided on the front wheel and the rear wheel, control the flap disposed close to a side of the surrounding vehicle to rotate in a second direction, and control the flap disposed away from the surrounding vehicle to rotate in the first direction. (Kobayashi: pg. 5, paragraph eight to ten from the top; Kobayashi teaches being overtaken and when the target vehicle is alongside; and controlling the shutters 20, in the front and back, in different directions.)
Regarding claim 19, Kobayashi further teaches the control device of claim 12.
Kobayashi further teaches:
wherein in a section after a rear end portion of the surrounding vehicle passes by a front end portion of the driving vehicle, among the plurality of sections, the controller is further configured to: control the flap of the variable wheel provided on a rear wheel of the driving vehicle, and among flaps of the variable wheel provided on the rear wheel, control a flap disposed close to a side of the surrounding vehicle to rotate in the first direction, and control a flap disposed away from a side of the surrounding vehicle to rotate in the second direction. (Kobayashi: pg. 5, paragraph eight to ten from the top; Kobayashi teaches being overtaken and when T has passed, moving the shutter 20 to the closed position.)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view
of Oda.
Regarding claim 11, Kobayashi further teaches the control device of claim 10.
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach but Oda teaches:
A wherein the first direction is a direction of rotation of the flap of the variable wheel to allow air to flow from an outside of the wheel to an inside thereof, and wherein the second direction is a direction of rotation of the flap of the variable wheel to allow air to flow from the inside of the wheel to the outside. (Oda: Figs. 2A and 2B, pg. 2, thirteenth paragraph and fourteenth paragraph from the top, and pg. 6, second paragraph from the bottom; Oda teaches air flow in both directions.)
Oda is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling aero on each wheel based on different vehicle parameters. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine controlling the shutters of each wheel based on received external vehicle parameters as taught in Kobayashi with controlling air flow in both directions as taught in Oda. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Kobayashi to include teachings of Oda, because the combination would allow more control of air flow, as suggested by Oda: Figs. 2A and 2B, pg. 2, thirteenth paragraph and fourteenth paragraph from the top, and pg. 6, second paragraph from the bottom.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view
of Kim (US 2022/0325656 A1) hereinafter known as Kim.
Regarding claim 20, Kobayashi further teaches the control device of claim 10.
Kobayashi does not explicitly teach but Kim teaches:
wherein the external driving information includes information on an overall height of a surrounding vehicle driving close to the driving vehicle, and wherein the controller is further configured to control the rotation angle of the flap of the variable wheel to be increased as the overall height of the surrounding vehicle is higher. (Kim: Fig. 5 and ¶[0080]; Kim teaches receiving the height of the vehicle. ¶[0068], ¶[0082], and ¶[0085] further teach adjusting the AFF based on the wake (calculated from height).)
Kim is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling aero based on different vehicle parameters. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine controlling the shutters of each wheel based on received external vehicle parameters such as surrounding vehicles as taught in Kobayashi with controlling the aero based on surrounding vehicle height as taught in Kim. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Kobayashi to include teachings of Kim, because the combination would allow accounting for the influence of the wake, as suggested by Kim: ¶[0007].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda in view of Klop (US 2018/0297647 A1) hereinafter known as Klop.
Regarding claim 22, Oda further teaches the control device of claim 21.
Oda does not explicitly teach but Klop teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to control the flap of the variable wheel to close the opening of the variable wheel in response that a vehicle drives off road. (Klop: ¶[0020], ¶[0027], ¶[0029], and ¶[0030]; Klop teaches determining drive mode, indicative of drive terrain, and issuing a sliding portion up command for the air dam.)
Klop is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, since it is directed to controlling aero based on different vehicle parameters. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine controlling the flaps of each wheel based on received vehicle parameters as taught in Oda with further controlling aero based on the vehicle being off road as taught in Klop. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Oda to include teachings of Klop, because the combination would allow compensating for reduced ground clearance, as suggested by Klop: ¶[0029].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights