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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rose et al. (U.S. 2023/0069045A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rose et al. disclose a variable spoiler lighting apparatus (10, fig. 1 and para 0024. Examiner is using the embodiment of fig. 6) for a vehicle (20), the variable spoiler lighting apparatus (10) comprising:
a rear lamp (18 or 14b, 18; see fig. 1 and refer to para 0024), which is movably mounted on a rear portion (12) of the vehicle (see figs. 2-6) and protrudable toward a rear of the vehicle (see figs. 2-6) depending on a driving mode (when it is desired to reduce drag on the vehicle; see figs. 2-6 and refer to para 0030 “based on vehicle speed”, etc.), and to which a rack (24; see figs. 6A-6C) is coupled (see figs. 6A-6C and refer to para 0028); and
a spoiler (14a or 14a, 14b; see figs. 6A-6. Also refer to para 0028 and 0029), which is movably mounted on the rear portion (12; see figs. 1 and 6A-6C), configured to move along with the rear lamp (18 or 14b, 18; see figs. 6A-6C), and tiltable (as shown in figs. 6A-6C, the spoiler is tilting downward as it expands rearwardly) depending on the driving mode (para 0030: “based on vehicle speed” etc.),
wherein the rear portion (12) includes a rear body (as shown in figs. 1 and 6A-6C) accommodating the rear lamp (18 or 14b, 18; see figs. 1 and 6A-6C) and the spoiler (14a or 14a, 14b) and including a rail (as broadly claimed, the “rail” can be the “groove” sections of 24b-24e that connect them as shown in fig. 8. Also see fig. 9), to which the rack (24) is movably coupled, to guide a movement of the rear lamp (18 or 14b, 18).
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 2, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al. (U.S. 2023/0069045A1) alone.
Regarding claim 2, Rose et al. disclose is silent to an actuator for actuating the rack 24.
Figs. 11A-11B further describes the rear portion further includes: a first actuator (48; refer to para 0030. Examiner notes that since this is not described in figs. 6A-6C, figs. 11A-11B are used for the description) mounted on the rear body and meshing with the rack (54) to move the rack linearly; and a second actuator (48; two are shown in figs. 11A-11B) mounted on the rear lamp (as it would be mounted to the rear lamp 14b, 18 at attachment location 32; as shown in fig. 6C) and connected to the spoiler to vary a tilting angle of the spoiler (as shown in fig. 6C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of figs. 6A-6C to include a first and second actuator connected to the rack and the rear lamp, for moving the rear spoiler and rear lamp, for reducing drag to the vehicle, as taught by the embodiment of figs. 11A-11B.
Regarding claim 9, Rose et al. disclose a controller (para 0030: “onboard computer or other electronics”) operatively connected to the first actuator (refer to para 0030), the second actuator, and the rear lamp and configured to separately control operations of the first actuator, the second actuator, and the rear lamp (refer to para 0030).
Regarding claim 12, Rose et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 2 above; however, Rose fail to teach multiple lamps. Specifically, Rose fail to teach that the rear lamp includes: one or more first lamps on which the spoiler is seated; and second lamps arranged on first and second sides of the first lamp, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rear lamp of Rose to include one or more first lamps on which the spoiler is seated; and second lamps arranged on first and second sides of the first lamp, respectively, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 13, Rose et al. disclose wherein the driving mode includes a first mode, and wherein in the first mode, the controller (para 0030: “onboard computer or other electronics”) is configured to: control operation of the first actuator (48; refer to para 0030) to expose the rear lamp inserted into an inner side of the rear body (12; see fig. 6A), from the rear body so that the rear lamp protrudes toward the rear of the vehicle (see fig. 6B), the spoiler (14a or 14a, 14b) moving along with the rear lamp to protrude along with the rear lamp toward the rear of the vehicle (see fig. 6B-6C); and control operation of the second actuator so that the tilting angle of the spoiler is maintained at 0 degrees (as shown in fig. 6A; when the spoiler retracts back to fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 14, Rose et al. disclose wherein the driving mode includes a second mode, and wherein in the second mode, the controller (para 0030: “onboard computer or other electronics”) is configured to: control operation of the second actuator (48; refer to para 0030) so that the tilting angle of the spoiler becomes a predetermined angle (see fig. 6C); control operation of the first actuator so that the rear lamp, which has moved toward the rear of the vehicle, remains protruding toward the rear of the vehicle (see fig. 6C).
Regarding claim 15, Rose et al. disclose wherein the driving mode includes a third mode, and wherein in the third mode, the controller para 0030: “onboard computer or other electronics”) is further configured to: control operation of the second actuator (48; refer to para 0030) so that the tilting angle of the spoiler (14a or 14a, 14b) becomes higher than the predetermined angle (see figs. 6A-6C); and control operation of the first actuator so that the rear lamp (18 or 14b, 18), which has moved toward the rear of the vehicle, remains protruding toward the rear of the vehicle (see figs. 6A-6C).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al. (U.S. 2023/0069045A1), in view of Suda (U.S. 2024/0217431A1).
Regarding claim 10, Rose et al. teach all the features of this claim as applied to claim 9 above; however, Rose et al. fail to teach a pattern portion, illuminated with a light pattern, is mounted on an outer surface of the rear lamp so that whether the rear lamp is in operation is externally recognizable.
Suda teaches a rear lamp (104, fig. 1) of a vehicle comprising a pattern portion (108, 110, 112), illuminated with a light pattern (refer to para 0020, 0026, 0035, 0042, and 0053), is mounted on an outer surface of the rear lamp so that whether the rear lamp is in operation is externally recognizable (see fig. 1 and refer to para 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rear lamp of Rose to include a pattern portion, illuminated with a light pattern, mounted on an outer surface of the rear lamp so that whether the rear lamp is in operation is externally recognizable, as taught by Suda, for the purpose of indicating a state of the vehicle (refer to para 0020).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (U.S. 2024/0391539A1), Kim (U.S. 2024/0017665A1), Nakamura et al. (U.S. 2023/0264761A1), and Rose et al. (U.S. 2022/0402564A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YANICK A AKARAGWE whose telephone number is (469)295-9298. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30-5:30.
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 at (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.
/YANICK A AKARAGWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672
Prosecution Insights