DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 roof
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (US 20240239423) in view of Edwards (US 3797879).
Regarding claim 1: Bender discloses a shelter structure 108 coupled to a vehicle propulsion system comprising a vehicle cockpit 104 having a roof 114 (Fig. 1; [0020], [0021]). Bender discloses a body having a contact surface 112, 116, 200, a first lateral side 118A, and a second lateral side 118B, that the contact surface extends between the first lateral side and the second lateral side, such that the contact surface meets the first lateral side at a first abutment and the contact surface meets the second lateral side at a second abutment (Fig. 1; [0021]). Bender discloses a first airfoil 200 having a first leading edge, a first trailing edge, and a first airfoil intermediate section extending from the first leading edge to the first trailing edge and that the first leading edge is disposed along the contact surface proximate the first abutment and the first trailing edge is disposed along the first lateral side downstream from the first leading edge proximate the first abutment (Figs. 1, 3; [0026] – fairing 200 is interpreted as having two lateral sides that disclose the recited fairing). Bender discloses a second airfoil (other lateral side of 200) having a second leading edge, a second trailing edge, and a second airfoil intermediate section extending from the second leading edge to the second trailing edge and that the second leading edge is disposed along the contact surface proximate the second abutment and the second trailing edge is disposed on the second lateral side downstream from the second leading edge proximate the second abutment(Figs. 1, 3; [0026] – fairing 200 is interpreted as having two lateral sides that disclose the recited fairing).
Bender discloses that the front of the vehicle is designed to be aerodynamically efficient during transit ([0019]) but does not discuss the details of the airflow or the vehicle movement. Edwards discloses an airfoil (air deflector) 16 that when the vehicle is propelled in a first direction air moves in a second direction along an airflow path and meets the contact surface that the first airfoil (18) and the second airfoil (18) 3redirect the airflow path from the contact surface along the respective lateral sides in a third direction thereby reducing an aerodynamic drag force on the contact surface (Fig. 1; col. 1, lines 21-27; col. 2, lines 4-15). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art and the benefit of the cited art to have understood that Benders’ aerodynamic design provides that when the vehicle is propelled in a first direction air moves in a second direction along an airflow path and meets the contact surface, and wherein the first airfoil and the second airfoil redirect the airflow path from the contact surface along the respective lateral sides in a third direction thereby reducing an aerodynamic drag force on the contact surface as taught by Edwards. As both Bender and Edwards are concerned with air flow around the protruding body above the vehicle roof, as structures such as fairings and other air deflectors are very well known in the art, and as Edwards explicitly explains the airflow function, it would have been within routine skill to have selected an aerodynamic design as taught by Bender (fairings) and understood their function as taught by Edwards. Such a configuration would have been predictable with a reasonable expectation for success and with no unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2: Bender, as modified by Edwards discloses that the second direction is substantially opposite of the first direction and that the third direction is non-linear and different than the first direction and the second direction (Bender – [0019]; Edwards – col. 1, lines 5-27; col. 2, lines 61-63).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Claims 3-15 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
It is very well known that the front end of vehicles such as recreational vehicles, including camper trailers and truck campers are designed to be aerodynamically efficient during transit. Further, these designs are known to include various aerodynamic shapes and structures such as fairings and airfoils. Representative art which appears close to the claimed invention includes Bender et al. (US 20240239423), Edwards (US 3797879), Nadeau (US 20080211259), Haddon (US 4106806), Girski (US 3325205), Hathaway (US 3767252), Cook (US 11512492), Hiles (US 4025102), Bjork et al. (US 3844603), Shoop (US 5180205), and Hurlock (US 4890879). See also the article posted in TruckCamper (see Notice of References Cited). In general, this art, alone or in combination, discloses various recited features, including but not limited to, a shelter structure coupled to a vehicle propulsion system, a vehicle cockpit having a roof, the shelter structure comprising a body having a contact surface, a first lateral side, a second lateral side, that the contact surface extends between the first lateral side and the second lateral side, such that the contact surface meets the first lateral side at a first abutment and the contact surface meets the second lateral side at a second abutment, a first and second airfoil each having a first leading edge, a first trailing edge, and a first airfoil intermediate section extending from the first leading edge to the first trailing edge, that the first leading edge is disposed along the contact surface proximate the first abutment and the first trailing edge is disposed along the first lateral side downstream from the first leading edge proximate the first abutment, and that the first airfoil and the second airfoil redirect the airflow path from the contact surface along the respective lateral sides in a third direction thereby reducing an aerodynamic drag force on the contact surface. Thus, upon reviewing these cited publications, their included references, and the various pictures and descriptions (TruckCamper article), it appears that the claimed subject matter might teach a generally known concept. However, this art fails to disclose or fairly suggest the specifically recited structural components and steps. Specifically, the art does not disclose the various detailed structures, designs, and interactions of the airfoils and the positional relationships between the airfoils and the recited vehicle, as well as the combination of the independent limitations. It could be argued that the individual structure is generally known in the art and thus, could just be assembled to disclose the claimed invention. However, the instant invention clearly and specifically recites structural relationships, steps, and combinations, which require a greater effort than just cobbling together known structures. Further, the claimed structures are sufficiently detailed to be distinguishable when configured as claimed. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the references which would define a fully functioning apparatus as claimed in the instant application. Thus, it would not have been within routine skill to glean the specifically combined limitations of the instant invention, from the art, without the benefit of hindsight reasoning or extensive experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARAS P BEMKO whose telephone number is (571)270-1830. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 (EDT/EST).
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/Taras P Bemko/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
6/22/2026
Prosecution Insights