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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 1, the claim contains subject matter drawn particularly to at least one crash structure that is “counter-shaped” and connected or integral to the aerodynamic device (see claims 1, lines 8 and 9). Applicant has failed to describe in the specification, other than the mere mentioning of the terms, the structure or details entailed by “counter-shaped”.
In regard to claim 17, the claim contains subject matter drawn particularly to at least one crash structure that is “counter-shaped” and connected or integral to the aerodynamic device (see claims 17, lines 17 and 18). Applicant has failed to describe in the specification, other than the mere mentioning of the terms, the structure or details entailed by “counter-shaped”.
Claims 1-20 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 use of such alternate language should be avoided.
In regard to claim 1, Applicant’s repeated use of alternate terminology (i.e. “and/or”) in lines 11 and 13 renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of the device defined by the claim cannot be readily ascertained; the use of such alternate language should be avoided.
In regard to claim 2, Applicant’s repeated use of alternate terminology (i.e. “and/or”) in lines 4 and 8 renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of the device defined by the claim cannot be readily ascertained; the use of such alternate language should be avoided.
In regard to claim 11, Applicant’s repeated use of alternate terminology (i.e. “and/or”) in lines 2, 4, 5 and 6 renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of the device defined by the claim cannot be readily ascertained; the use of such alternate language should be avoided.
In regard to claim 17, Applicant’s repeated use of alternate terminology (i.e. “and/or”) in lines 20 and 22 renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of the device defined by the claim cannot be readily ascertained; the use of such alternate language should be avoided.
Applicant is respectfully requested to review the entire set of claims for other similar indefinite language since the above listing may only be exemplary and not exhaustive in nature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Gaylard et al. reference pertains to a vehicle having an aerodynamic feature with associated air channeling.
The Sostaric et al. reference pertains to another vehicle having an aerodynamic feature with associated air channeling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN O DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)272-4885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30-4:00 EST.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5500. 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.
/STEVEN O DOUGLAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights