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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-12, 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Hardin (US 4,685,715).
As concerns claim 1, Hardin (US 4,685,715) discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a chassis comprising a front axle and a rear axle (Figure1 illustrates at least a chassis having a front and rear axle which thereon mount wheels 13);
a cab (15) mounted to the chassis, the cab having a first sidewall, a second sidewall, and a rear wall extending between the first and second sidewalls; and
a first air deflector (30) positioned proximate to the first sidewall, the first air deflector comprising a body having an outer surface and a front edge configured to be positioned proximate the cab, the outer surface of the body of the first air deflector aligned with an outer surface of the first sidewall in a deployed position, the front edge of the first air deflector offset from the rear wall to define a first gap (space visible on Figure 2 between frame section 51 and rear wall of cab 16).
As concerns claim 2, Hardin discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the vehicle comprises a cab-over engine vehicle. (Figures 1 and 2 illustrate such a vehicle)
As concerns claim 5, Hardin discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the first air deflector is mounted to the chassis of the cab. (50 is anchored to 14)
As concerns claim 6, Hardin discloses the vehicle of claim 5, wherein the first air deflector (30) is mounted to a bracket (50) attached to a frame rail (14) of the chassis.
As concerns claim 7, Hardin discloses the vehicle of claim 5, wherein the first air deflector is configured to rotate inwardly from the deployed position to a folded position. (Figure 5 illustrates such foldability)
As concerns claim 10, Hardin discloses the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a second air deflector positioned proximate to the second sidewall, the second air deflector comprising a body having an outer surface and a front edge configured to be positioned proximate the cab, the outer surface of the body of the second air deflector aligned with an outer surface of the second sidewall in a deployed position, the front edge of the second air deflector offset from the rear wall of the cab to define a second gap. (Figure 2 illustrates a second air deflector opposite the first.)
As concerns claim 11, Hardin discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a chassis comprising a front axle and a rear axle (Figure1 illustrates at least a chassis having a front and rear axle which thereon mount wheels 13);
a cab (15) mounted to the chassis, the cab having a first sidewall, a second sidewall, and a rear wall extending between the first and second sidewalls; and
a first air deflector (30) positioned proximate to the first sidewall, the first air deflector comprising a body having an outer surface and a front edge configured to be positioned proximate the cab, the outer surface of the body of the first air deflector aligned with an outer surface of the first sidewall in a deployed position, the first air deflector mounted to the chassis of the vehicle (At least Figure 8).
As concerns claim 12, Hardin discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the vehicle comprises a cab-over engine vehicle. (Figures 1 and 2 illustrate such a vehicle)
As concerns claim 14, Hardin discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the first air deflector is not attached to and is unsupported by the cab. (50 is anchored to 14)
As concerns claim 15, Hardin discloses the vehicle of claim 14, wherein the first air deflector is mounted to a bracket (50) attached to a frame rail (14) of the chassis.
As concerns claim 16, Hardin discloses the vehicle of claim 15, wherein the first air deflector is configured to rotate inwardly from the deployed position to a folded position. (Figure 5 illustrates such foldability)
As concerns claim 18 Hardin discloses the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the front edge of the first air deflector is offset from the rear wall to define a first gap. (Such a space is visible on Figure 2 between frame section 51 and rear wall of cab 16).
As concerns claim 20, Hardin discloses the vehicle of claim 11, further comprising a second air deflector positioned proximate to the second sidewall, the second air deflector comprising a body having an outer surface and a front edge configured to be positioned proximate the cab, the outer surface of the body of the second air deflector aligned with an outer surface of the second sidewall in a deployed position, the front edge of the second air deflector offset from the rear wall of the cab to define a second gap. (Figure 2 illustrates a second air deflector opposite the first.)
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 of this title, 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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardin in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Specification, Paragraph [0034]).
As concerns claims 3 and 13, Hardin discloses the vehicle of claims 1 and 11, however fails to specify wherein the front axle load is less than about 6.6 tons.
Applicant admits, in Paragraph [0034] of the Specification filed on 02/22/2024 that a common front axle limit in certain jurisdictions is 6.6 tons.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hardin to include such a front axle limit of less than 6.6 tons for the expected benefit of being able to operate a given vehicle in a variety of jurisdictions, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardin ALONE.
As concerns claim 9, Hardin discloses the vehicle of claim 1, disclosing the claimed gap, however is silent about the gap being at least 25 mm.
Hardin discloses wherein “The deployment frame, as best seen by reference to FIG. 2, has a first section 51 which is disposed in closely adjacent, substantially parallel spaced relationship to the rear wall 16 of the cab 15. As depicted in FIG. 4, the first section has vertical support members 52 and 53 and horizontal support members 54, 55 and 56. The horizontal and vertical support members are suitably joined together to create a rigid frame. As depicted in FIG. 5, the vertical support member 52 has a first edge 60 which has affixed thereto a continuous or piano hinge 61. This same continuous hinge is suitably connected by conventional fasteners to the leading edge border frame member 41.”
As shown in Figure 2 of Hardin, the gap must be substantially sized to allow the rotation illustrated in Figure 5, thereby disclosing the gap size as a result effective variable in that changing the gap size alters the amount of rotation available to the deflector.
Furthermore, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hardin to have a gap distance of at least 25mm, as it only involves adjusting the spacing of the component to provide expected functionality (i.e. optimizing drag) of the deflectors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hardin by making the gap distance at least 25mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 4, 8, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardin in view of Rogers et al (US 8,496,285).
As concerns claims 4 and 19, Hardin discloses the vehicle of claims 1 and 11, however fails to specify wherein the first sidewall of the cab further comprises a lip flaring rearward and outward from a rear edge of the first sidewall (or second, as per claim 19).
Rogers et al (US 8,496,285) teaches a flared lip on an air deflector for the purpose of corresponding to a relative trailer width (w). (Rogers - Figure 5, Element 12)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hardin as taught by Rogers to include a flared lip on the edge of the air detectors, for the expected benefit of corresponding to a relative trailer width and therefore providing better aerodynamic flow, to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
As concerns claims 8 and 17, Hardin discloses the air deflector of claims 1 and 11, however is silent as to wherein the body has a deflector length from the front edge to a rear edge of at least 0.70 meters.
Rogers teaches wherein the length of a given aerodynamic device “can be adjusted to optimize drag.” Rogers goes on to state that it was known to extend side extenders “farther rearward to correspond to a larger cab-trailer gap.” (Column 9, Lines 1-4)
As shown in Figures 1-3, the length of the deflector changes based on the distance between the back of the cab and the front of the trailer, disclosing the size of the deflector as a result effective variable in that changing the length of the deflector changes the level of drag.
Furthermore, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Hardin to have a deflector length as claimed, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment as taught by Rogers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hardin as taught by Rogers, by making the deflector length the claimed .7 meters as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 AARON L LEMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3065. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm.
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 on (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.
/AARON L LEMBO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679