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 Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: all limitations including the first securing mechanism and second securing mechanism, beginning in independent claims 21 and 36, and in the succeeding dependent claims where these elements are claimed.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. These structures are disclosed in paragraphs [0073], [0088]-[0089], [0098], [0100], [0106]-[0109] of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 21-40 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. The limitation in independent claim 21 regarding the “low-front portion of the mounting face of the skirt panel” is not consistent or understood in view of the Drawings provided in the application, particularly Figs. 5-7, and 9. The Drawings appear to show the skirt panel is mounted to the securing mechanisms beginning close to the top of the mounting face, not what would generally be considered a “low-front” portion, but rather a top portion. With no support in the specification or drawings for the particular structure of this claim limitation, the claim and the depending claims 22-35 are indefinite.
Further, in claim 25, it is claimed that the “top-front portion of the mounting face of the skirt panel is mounted to the first securing mechanism”, which seems to be contradictory to the previous limitation from claim 21. Thus, the scope of these limitations is further unclear and indefinite.
Regarding claim 36, the limitation “Two rear aerodynamic skirt assemblies configured to be mounted to a vehicle on each side” from Ln. 1-2 of the claim only positively recites the two rear aerodynamic skirt assemblies. Later, in Ln. 2 of the claim the “the vehicle having an underfloor and a rear axle” is positively reciting the vehicle. The claimed structure is unclear and indefinite as to what is actually intended to be claimed as part of the structure. Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite. Claims 37-40 are dependent on claim 36 and thus are also further unclear and indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 33 states that the front edge of the skirt panel is designed to extend lower than the rear edge, which is just a rewording of the limitation from claim 21, "the rear edge is shorter than the front edge". Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 21-26, 28-30, 32, 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (US Patent Application 20150259014 A1), henceforth Baker, in view of Boivin et al. (US Patent Application 2017066487 A1), henceforth Boivin.
Regarding claim 21, Baker discloses
PNG
media_image1.png
431
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 from Baker
a vehicle (trailer 10, Fig. 2) comprising an underfloor (floor assembly 26, Fig. 2), a rear axle (rear wheel assembly 22, Fig. 2; axle not explicitly taught but is inherently a part of the rear wheel assembly), and a pair of rear aerodynamic skirt assemblies (rear panel assembly as circled in annotated Fig. 5 above) mounted on each side of the vehicle (Paragraph [0077]),
each of the rear aerodynamic skirt assemblies (rear panel assembly as circled in red in annotated Fig. 5 above) comprising:
a skirt panel (rearward-most panel 43, Figs. 2 and 5) comprising a mounting face (inside surface 57, Fig. 5), a planar air-deflecting face (outside surface 59, Fig. 8) opposed to the mounting face, a front edge (front edge 75, Fig. 8) and a rear edge (rear edge 77, Fig. 8), wherein the rear edge is shorter than the front edge (Paragraph [0100]; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 8 below);
a resilient first securing mechanism (spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52; Fig. 5 illustrates rigid mounting bracket assembly 54 attached to the rearward-most panel 43, but Paragraphs [0079] and [0081] teaches any number of either 52 or 54 can be used on any of the wall panels, including 43),
the resilient first securing mechanism (spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5) being secured to the underfloor of the vehicle, rear to the rear axle, with a low-front portion of the mounting face of the skirt panel mounted thereto (Paragraphs [0079]-[0082] teach the mounting bracket assemblies secure the panels to the floor assembly 26, rearward of the rear wheel 22, and it can be seen in Fig. 5 that the mounting brackets are mounted on the inside surface 57 of the rearward-most panel 43),
and a second securing mechanism (either rigid mounting bracket assemblies 54 or spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5),
wherein a first section of the skirt panel (as shown in annotated Fig. 5 above) is mounted to the resilient first securing mechanism (spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5) and a second section of the skirt panel (as shown in annotated Fig. 5 above) rearwards to the first section is mounted to the second securing mechanism (either rigid mounting bracket assemblies 54 or spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 5 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
283
495
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 from Baker
Baker does not explicitly teach
wherein the resilient first securing mechanism is adapted to move between a default position and a flexed position when the resilient first securing mechanism undergoes a first force varying from being zero or under a first threshold value and over the first threshold value.
Boivin teaches a similar side skirt (skirt panel 38, Fig. 1) for a trailer and teaches this missing limitation
wherein the resilient first securing mechanism (securing mechanism 42, Fig. 4) is adapted to move between a default position and a flexed position when the resilient first securing mechanism undergoes a first force varying from being zero or under a first threshold value and over the first threshold value (Paragraphs [0081], [0085], and [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spring-biased bracket mounting assemblies of Baker to be replaced with the strut structure taught by Boivin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to have a strut structure that can self-reposition after a force bends it (Boivin; Paragraphs [0014] and [0015]).
Regarding claim 22, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the first securing mechanism (Boivin; securing mechanism 42, Fig. 4) is designed to resiliently buckle when undergoing a center-ward external force over the first threshold value (Boivin; Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 23, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the first securing mechanism (Boivin; securing mechanism 42, Fig. 4) is designed to resiliently buckle when undergoing an outward external force over a second threshold value (Boivin; Paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 24, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Figs. 2 and 5) is made of a sheet of material that has a generally uniform thickness (Baker; Paragraph [0090]).
PNG
media_image3.png
563
367
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 from Boivin
Regarding claim 25, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein a top-front portion of the mounting face (Baker; inside surface 57, Fig. 5) of the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 5) is mounted to the first securing mechanism (Baker; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 5 above),
with a portion of the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 5) attachment-free between the low-front portion and the top-front portion (Boivin Fig. 4 shows that the securing mechanism 42, which has been used to modify the first securing mechanism of Baker, has a gap in between the top and bottom attachment regions).
PNG
media_image4.png
297
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 from Baker
Regarding claim 26, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
further comprising a centerline (Baker; as shown in red in annotated Fig. 4 above),
wherein the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 5) has a top edge (Baker; top edge 70, Fig. 5) and a bottom edge (Baker; bottom edge 73, Fig. 5),
wherein the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 5) is mounted parallel to the centerline with the top edge and the bottom edge equidistant to the centerline (Baker; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 4 above that the panel is mounted vertically parallel, so it would also mean that the top and bottom edge are equidistant to the centerline; Paragraph [0103]).
PNG
media_image5.png
232
557
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 from Baker
Regarding claim 28, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
further comprising a rear underride guard (Baker; as circled in red in annotated Fig. 2 above),
wherein the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 2) is mounted front to the rear underride guard (Baker; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2 above, the rear underride guard is behind the rearward-most panel 43).
Regarding claim 29, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
further comprising a rear underride guard (Baker; as circled in red in annotated Fig. 2 above), wherein the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 2) is mounted with the rear edge distant to the rear underride guard (Baker; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2 above).
PNG
media_image6.png
205
561
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 from Baker
Regarding claim 30, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the planar air-deflecting face (Baker; outside surface 59, Fig. 8) extends in a plane outward to an outer extremity of the rear underride guard (Baker; Fig. 1 appears to show the rear underride guard extends to the edge of the sidewall, which the skirt panel is mounted flush to, but it is shown in annotated Fig. 3 above that there are ribs that extend outwardly from the skirt panel and would thus extend further than an extremity of the rear underride guard; Paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 32, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the first securing mechanism (Baker; spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5) and the second securing mechanism (Baker; either rigid mounting bracket assemblies 54 or spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5) are not identical (Baker; Paragraphs [0079] and [0104]) disclose that any number of either 52 or 54 could be used to mount the rearward-most panel 43, thus they do not have to be identical).
Regarding claim 34, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
side walls (Baker; sidewalls 14, Fig. 2),
wherein each of the skirt panels (Baker; both sides of rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 5) has a top edge (Baker; top edge 70, Fig. 5) and wherein the top edge of each of the skirt panels adjoins extends parallel and about one of the side walls (Baker; as can be seen in Fig. 2; Paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claim 35, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the planar air-deflecting face (Baker; outside surface 59, Fig. 8) extends in a vertical direction from a top edge (Baker; top edge 70, Fig. 5) to a bottom edge (Baker; bottom edge 73, Fig. 5) without presence of a protrusion, a rift, or a recess in-between (Baker; Paragraph [0092] teaches that there can be ribs but there can also be no ribs; Paragraph [0100] teaches the vertical extension of the panel).
Regarding claim 36, Baker discloses
two rear aerodynamic skirt assemblies (rear panel assembly as circled in red in annotated Fig. 5 above, one on each side of the trailer) configured to be mounted to a vehicle on each side,
the vehicle (trailer 10, Fig. 2) having an underfloor (floor assembly 26, Fig. 2) and a rear axle (rear wheel assembly 22, Fig. 2; axle not explicitly taught but is inherently a part of the rear wheel assembly),
each of the rear aerodynamic skirt assemblies (rear panel assembly as circled in red in annotated Fig. 5 above, one on each side of the trailer) comprising:
a skirt panel (rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 5) comprising a mounting face (inside surface 57, Fig. 5), a planar air-deflecting face (outside surface 59, Fig. 8) opposed to the mounting face, a front edge (front edge 75, Fig. 5) and a rear edge (rear edge 77, Fig. 5), wherein the rear edge is shorter than the front edge (Paragraph [0100]; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 8 above);
a resilient first securing mechanism (spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5; where Paragraph [0104] discloses 52 or 54 can be used with any panel 52 would be substituted for 54, which is presently shown in Fig. 5) comprising:
and a second securing mechanism (either rigid mounting bracket assemblies 54 or spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5),
and wherein the first resilient securing mechanism (spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5) and the second securing mechanism (either rigid mounting bracket assemblies 54 or spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5) are secured independently to the vehicle (as can be seen in Fig. 5).
Baker does not disclose
an underfloor mounting means to be secured to the underfloor of the vehicle rear to the rear axle;
and a skirt securing face to mount a low-front portion of the mounting face of the skirt panel thereto;
wherein the resilient first securing mechanism is adapted to move between a default position and a flexed position when the resilient first securing mechanism undergoes a first force varying from being zero or under a first threshold value and over the first threshold value,
Boivin teaches a similar side skirt (skirt panel 38, Fig. 1) for a trailer and teaches this missing limitation
an underfloor mounting means (connector portion 80, Fig. 4) to be secured to the underfloor of the vehicle rear to the rear axle (Paragraph [0076]);
and a skirt securing face (planar section 98, Fig. 4) to mount a low-front portion of the mounting face of the skirt panel (lower portion 94 of skirt panel 38) thereto (Paragraph [0076]);
wherein the resilient first securing mechanism (securing mechanism 42, Fig. 4) is adapted to move between a default position and a flexed position when the resilient first securing mechanism undergoes a first force varying from being zero or under a first threshold value and over the first threshold value (Paragraphs [0081], [0085], and [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spring-biased bracket mounting assemblies of Baker to be replaced with the strut structure taught by Boivin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to have a strut structure that can self-reposition after a force bends it (Boivin; Paragraphs [0014] and [0015]).
Regarding claim 37, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the first securing mechanism (Boivin; securing mechanism 42, Fig. 4) is designed to resiliently buckle when undergoing a center-ward external force over the first threshold value (Boivin; Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 38, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the first securing mechanism (Boivin; securing mechanism 42, Fig. 4) is designed to resiliently buckle when undergoing an outward external force over a second threshold value (Boivin; Paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 39, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 5) is made of a sheet of material that has a generally uniform thickness (Baker; Paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 40, Baker, as modified by Boivin, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the first securing mechanism (Boivin; securing mechanism 42, Fig. 4) comprises a top sheet securing face (Boivin; skirt panel contacting portion 118, Fig. 4) to mount a top-front portion of the mounting face of the skirt panel (Baker; inside surface 57 of rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 5) thereto (Boivin; Paragraph [0076]),
with a portion of the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 5) attachment-free between the low-front portion and the top-front portion (Boivin Fig. 4 shows that the securing mechanism 42, which has been used to modify the first securing mechanism of Baker, has a gap in between the top and bottom attachment regions).
Claims 21, 24, 26-30, 32, 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al. (US Patent Application 20150259014 A1), henceforth Baker, in view of Macherel et al. (US Patent 10710648 B2), henceforth Macherel.
PNG
media_image1.png
431
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 from Baker
Regarding claim 21, Baker discloses
a vehicle (trailer 10, Fig. 2) comprising an underfloor (floor assembly 26, Fig. 2), a rear axle (rear wheel assembly 22, Fig. 2; axle not explicitly taught but is inherently a part of the rear wheel assembly), and a pair of rear aerodynamic skirt assemblies (rear panel assembly as circled in red in annotated Fig. 5 above) mounted on each side of the vehicle (Paragraph [0077]),
each of the rear aerodynamic skirt assemblies (rear panel assembly as circled in annotated Fig. 5 above) comprising:
a skirt panel (rearward-most panel 43, Figs. 2 and 5) comprising a mounting face (inside surface 57, Fig. 5), a planar air-deflecting face (outside surface 59, Fig. 8) opposed to the mounting face, a front edge (front edge 75, Fig. 8) and a rear edge (rear edge 77, Fig. 8), wherein the rear edge is shorter than the front edge (Paragraph [0100]; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 8 below);
a resilient first securing mechanism (spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52; Fig. 5 illustrates rigid mounting bracket assembly 54 attached to the rearward-most panel 43, but Paragraphs [0079] and [0081] teaches any number of either 52 or 54 can be used on any of the wall panels, including 43),
the resilient first securing mechanism (spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5) being secured to the underfloor of the vehicle, rear to the rear axle, with a low-front portion of the mounting face of the skirt panel mounted thereto (Paragraphs [0079]-[0082] teach the mounting bracket assemblies secure the panels to the floor assembly 26, rearward of the rear wheel 22, and it can be seen in Fig. 5 that the mounting brackets are mounted on the inside surface 57 of the rearward-most panel 43),
and a second securing mechanism (either rigid mounting bracket assemblies 54 or spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5),
wherein a first section of the skirt panel (as shown in annotated Fig. 5 above) is mounted to the resilient first securing mechanism (spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5) and a second section of the skirt panel (as shown in annotated Fig. 5 above) rearwards to the first section is mounted to the second securing mechanism (either rigid mounting bracket assemblies 54 or spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 5 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
283
495
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 from Baker
Baker does not explicitly teach
wherein the resilient first securing mechanism is adapted to move between a default position and a flexed position when the resilient first securing mechanism undergoes a first force varying from being zero or under a first threshold value and over the first threshold value.
Macherel teaches a similar side skirt (trailer skirt 300) for a trailer and teaches this missing limitation
wherein the resilient first securing mechanism (skirt-supporting member 220, Fig. 4A) is adapted to move between a default position and a flexed position when the resilient first securing mechanism undergoes a first force varying from being zero or under a first threshold value and over the first threshold value (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 4A above; Col. 10, Ln. 45-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spring-biased bracket mounting assemblies of Baker to be resilient under an applied force and to be able to move between a default and flexed position, as taught by Macherel, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to make the skirt assembly resilient and not either too flexible or too rigid (Macherel; Col. 1, Ln. 36-41).
Regarding claim 24, Baker, as modified by Macherel, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Figs. 2 and 5) is made of a sheet of material that has a generally uniform thickness (Baker; Paragraph [0090]).
PNG
media_image4.png
297
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 from Baker
Regarding claim 26, Baker, as modified by Macherel, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
further comprising a centerline (Baker; as shown in red in annotated Fig. 4 above),
wherein the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 5) has a top edge (Baker; top edge 70, Fig. 5) and a bottom edge (Baker; bottom edge 73, Fig. 5),
wherein the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 5) is mounted parallel to the centerline with the top edge and the bottom edge equidistant to the centerline (Baker; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 4 above that the panel is mounted vertically parallel, so it would also mean that the top and bottom edge are equidistant to the centerline; Paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claim 27, Baker as modified by Macherel, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
further comprises side walls (Baker; sidewall 14, Fig. 2),
But does not disclose
and wherein the skirt panel is mounted flush to the side walls.
PNG
media_image7.png
463
607
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 from Macherel
Macherel also teaches this missing limitation about the skirt panel and the side walls
and wherein the skirt panel (trailer skirt 300, Fig. 1) is mounted flush to the side walls (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 1 above; Col. 8, Ln. 56-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the skirt panel of Baker to be configured like the skirt panel taught by Macherel with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have made these modifications in order to make the skirt panel flush with the skirt-supporting member when it is unbent (Macherel; Col. 8, Ln. 56-63).
PNG
media_image5.png
232
557
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 from Baker
Regarding claim 28, Baker, as modified by Macherel, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
further comprising a rear underride guard (Baker; as circled in red in annotated Fig. 2 above),
wherein the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 2) is mounted front to the rear underride guard (Baker; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2 above, the rear underride guard is behind the rearward-most panel 43).
Regarding claim 29, Baker, as modified by Macherel, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
further comprising a rear underride guard (Baker; as circled in red in annotated Fig. 2 above), wherein the skirt panel (Baker; rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 2) is mounted with the rear edge distant to the rear underride guard (Baker; as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2 above).
PNG
media_image6.png
205
561
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 from Baker
Regarding claim 30, Baker, as modified by Macherel, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the planar air-deflecting face (Baker; outside surface 59, Fig. 8) extends in a plane outward to an outer extremity of the rear underride guard (Baker; Fig. 1 appears to show the rear underride guard extends to the edge of the sidewall, which the skirt panel is mounted flush to, but it is shown in annotated Fig. 3 above that there are ribs that extend outwardly from the skirt panel and would thus extend further than an extremity of the rear underride guard; Paragraph [0092]).
Regarding claim 32, Baker, as modified by Macherel, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the first securing mechanism (Baker; spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5) and the second securing mechanism (Baker; either rigid mounting bracket assemblies 54 or spring-biased mounting bracket assemblies 52, Fig. 5) are not identical (Baker; Paragraphs [0079] and [0104]) disclose that any number of either 52 or 54 could be used to mount the rearward-most panel 43, thus they do not have to be identical).
Regarding claim 34, Baker, as modified by Macherel, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
side walls (Baker; sidewalls 14, Fig. 2),
wherein each of the skirt panels (Baker; both sides of rearward-most panel 43, Fig. 5) has a top edge (Baker; top edge 70, Fig. 5) and wherein the top edge of each of the skirt panels adjoins extends parallel and about one of the side walls (Baker; as can be seen in Fig. 2; Paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claim 35, Baker, as modified by Macherel, discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the planar air-deflecting face (Baker; outside surface 59, Fig. 8) extends in a vertical direction from a top edge (Baker; top edge 70, Fig. 5) to a bottom edge (Baker; bottom edge 73, Fig. 5) without presence of a protrusion, a rift, or a recess in-between (Baker; Paragraph [0092] teaches that there can be ribs but there can also be no ribs; Paragraph [0100] teaches the vertical extension of the panel).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31 and 33 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.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 31 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of wherein the second securing mechanism is secured to the rear underride guard. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is Baker et al. (US Patent Application 20150259014 A1), henceforth Baker, as modified by Boivin et al. (US Patent Application 2017066487 A1), henceforth Boivin, which in combination teaches all the limitations of the claim including the second securing mechanism, but not where it is secured to the rear underride guard. These deficiencies in Baker, as modified by Boivin, are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art. Claim 33 is dependent on claim 31, so it is also indicated as having allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited but not relied upon teaches similar truck trailer side skirts with most of the claimed structure.
Bradley et al. (US Patent 11292536 B2) discloses a rear skirt panel, but only teaches a single securing mechanism.
Gerst (US Patent 9272741 B2) discloses a side skirt panel with a plurality of flexible mounts, but does not disclose a rear side skirt panel.
Mancina et al. (US Patent Application 20140072364) discloses a flexible clamp assembly for mounting a side skirt, but does not teach the overall structure of the skirt and truck trailer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel G Chen whose telephone number is (571)272-9669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. 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.
/D.G.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
August 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights