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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined.
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.
Claim 4 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.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3 which already defines the designated parameter making claim 4 indefinite. For the purposes of examination it is assumed that claim 4 depends on claim 1 which is consistent with similar claims 12 and 20 being dependent on a base independent claim.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8-10, 13, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heil (US 2017/0088193 A1) hereinafter Heil and Breidenbach (US 9,522,706 B1) hereinafter Breidenbach.
Claim 1:
Heil discloses a system for controlling operation of a vehicle having an aerodynamic assembly, the system comprising: one or more sensors adapted to obtain sensor data related to the aerodynamic assembly, the aerodynamic assembly having a wing; [¶20 discloses a variety of sensors 50, 52, 54, 58, 68; Figs. 1-3, Items 28 and 30 are both wings] a controller adapted to trigger the actuator to move the wing from the deployed position to retracted position based in part on the sensor data, the controller having a processor and tangible, non-transitory memory on which instructions are recorded; [¶17 describes the wing actuator 36; ¶22 describes the controller being a computer; ¶25 describes actuation based on feedback from the sensors] wherein the controller is adapted to: determine an actual value of a designated parameter based in part on the sensor data and an expected value of the designated parameter; [Fig. 5, Steps 110 and 120 produce different downforces based on different sensor data; in this case the design parameter is downforce] calculate an offset factor between the actual value and the expected value and determine whether the offset factor exceeds a first error threshold; and [¶38 discloses calculating a difference in Fig. 5, Step 122; ¶39 discloses comparing it to thresholds] control operation of the vehicle when the first error threshold is exceeded, including selectively executing a remedial action. [¶39 discloses controlling the vehicle based on the output of thresholds]
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose a passive deployment mechanism located in the aerodynamic assembly and having a gas spring and an actuator, the gas spring biasing the wing towards a deployed position;
However, Breidenbach does disclose a passive deployment mechanism located in the aerodynamic assembly and having a gas spring and an actuator, the gas spring biasing the wing towards a deployed position [Fig. 2, Items 242 as the aero assembly and 350 is a gas spring that retracts the aero assembly when extended].
Heil discloses an aerodynamic device that can be biased towards a deployed position but using an electric motor and not a gas spring. Breidenbach discloses an aerodynamic device which can be opened using a gas spring with an actuator. The substitution of one known element (an electric motor for deployment as shown in Heil) for another (gas spring for deployment as shown in Breidenbach) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the motor in Heil would have yielded predictable results, namely, the movement of aerodynamic assemblies.
Claim 2:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the gas spring is in an extended position when the wing is in the retracted position.
However, Breidenbach does disclose wherein the gas spring is in an extended position when the wing is in the retracted position. [Fig. 2, Items 242 as the aero assembly and 350 is a gas spring that retracts the aero assembly when extended]
It should be noted that retracted is being interpreted in view of the specification whereas the aerodynamic element is drawn back. See ¶9 of the instant specification and Figure 2.
Claim 6:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Heil also discloses wherein the remedial action includes limiting a maximum speed of the vehicle. [¶40]
Claim 8:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Heil also discloses wherein the controller is adapted to diagnose a first degradation level, a second degradation level and a third degradation level, respectively, for the passive deployment mechanism when the first error threshold, a second error threshold and a third error threshold is exceeded. [¶39 discloses first and second predetermined threshold deviations which cause control changes and ¶41 discloses a maximum allowable value which flags an error; the combination therefore discloses three thresholds]
Claim 9:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Heil also discloses wherein the sensor data includes a lateral acceleration, a longitudinal acceleration, a yaw rate and a speed of the vehicle. [52 can detect yaw rate; additionally ¶20 mentions velocity and acceleration sensors]
Claim 10:
Heil discloses a method of controlling operation of a vehicle having an aerodynamic assembly with a wing, and a controller with a processor and tangible, non-transitory memory on which instructions are recorded, [¶17 describes the wing actuator 36; ¶22 describes the controller being a computer; ¶25 describes actuation based on feedback from the sensors] the method comprising: obtaining sensor data via one or more sensors operatively connected to the aerodynamic assembly; [¶20 discloses a variety of sensors 50, 52, 54, 58, 68; Figs. 1-3, Items 28 and 30 are both wings] triggering the actuator to move the wing from the deployed position to a retracted position based in part on the sensor data, via the controller; [¶17 describes the wing actuator 36; ¶22 describes the controller being a computer; ¶25 describes actuation based on feedback from the sensors] determining an actual value of a designated parameter based in part on the sensor data and a predefined expected value of the designated parameter, via the controller; [Fig. 5, Steps 110 and 120 produce different downforces based on different sensor data; in this case the design parameter is downforce] determining an offset factor between the actual value and the predefined expected value and whether the offset factor exceeds a first error threshold, via the controller; and [¶38 discloses calculating a difference in Fig. 5, Step 122; ¶39 discloses comparing it to thresholds] controlling operation of the vehicle when the first error threshold is exceeded, including selectively executing a remedial action, via the controller. [¶39 discloses controlling the vehicle based on the output of thresholds]
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose embedding a passive deployment mechanism in the aerodynamic assembly for controlling a respective position of the wing, the passive deployment mechanism having a gas spring and an actuator, the gas spring biasing the wing towards a deployed position;
However, Breidenbach does disclose embedding a passive deployment mechanism in the aerodynamic assembly for controlling a respective position of the wing, the passive deployment mechanism having a gas spring and an actuator, the gas spring biasing the wing towards a deployed position [Fig. 2, Items 242 as the aero assembly and 350 is a gas spring that retracts the aero assembly when extended].
Heil discloses an aerodynamic device that can be biased towards a deployed position but using an electric motor and not a gas spring. Breidenbach discloses an aerodynamic device which can be opened using a gas spring with an actuator. The substitution of one known element (an electric motor for deployment as shown in Heil) for another (gas spring for deployment as shown in Breidenbach) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the motor in Heil would have yielded predictable results, namely, the movement of aerodynamic assemblies.
Claim 13:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: configuring the aerodynamic assembly such that the gas spring is in an extended position when the wing is in the retracted position.
However, Breidenbach discloses further comprising: configuring the aerodynamic assembly such that the gas spring is in an extended position when the wing is in the retracted position. [Fig. 2, Items 242 as the aero assembly and 350 is a gas spring that retracts the aero assembly when extended]
Claim 15:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Heil also discloses further comprising: selecting the remedial action to include limiting a maximum speed of the vehicle. [¶40]
Claim 17:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Heil also discloses further comprising: diagnosing a first degradation level, a second degradation level and a third degradation level, respectively, for the passive deployment mechanism when the first error threshold, a second error threshold and a third error threshold is exceeded. [¶39 discloses first and second predetermined threshold deviations which cause control changes and ¶41 discloses a maximum allowable value which flags an error; the combination therefore discloses three thresholds]
Claim 18:
Heil discloses a vehicle comprising: an aerodynamic assembly having a wing; one or more sensors adapted to obtain sensor data related to the aerodynamic assembly; [¶20 discloses a variety of sensors 50, 52, 54, 58, 68; Figs. 1-3, Items 28 and 30 are both wings] a controller adapted to trigger the actuator to move the wing from the deployed position to retracted position based in part on the sensor data, the controller having a processor and tangible, non-transitory memory on which instructions are recorded; [¶17 describes the wing actuator 36; ¶22 describes the controller being a computer; ¶25 describes actuation based on feedback from the sensors] wherein the controller is adapted to: determine an actual value of a designated parameter based in part on the sensor data and an expected value of the designated parameter; [Fig. 5, Steps 110 and 120 produce different downforces based on different sensor data; in this case the design parameter is downforce] determine an offset factor between the actual value and the expected value and whether the offset factor exceeds a first error threshold; and [¶38 discloses calculating a difference in Fig. 5, Step 122; ¶39 discloses comparing it to thresholds] control operation of the vehicle when the first error threshold is exceeded, including selectively executing a remedial action. [¶39 discloses controlling the vehicle based on the output of thresholds]
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose a passive deployment mechanism located in the aerodynamic assembly and having a gas spring and an actuator, the gas spring biasing the wing towards a deployed position; wherein the gas spring is in an extended position when the wing is in the retracted position.
However, Breidenbach does disclose a passive deployment mechanism located in the aerodynamic assembly and having a gas spring and an actuator, the gas spring biasing the wing towards a deployed position; [Fig. 2, Items 242 as the aero assembly and 350 is a gas spring that retracts the aero assembly when extended] wherein the gas spring is in an extended position when the wing is in the retracted position [Fig. 2, Items 242 as the aero assembly and 350 is a gas spring that retracts the aero assembly when extended].
Heil discloses an aerodynamic device that can be biased towards a deployed position but using an electric motor and not a gas spring. Breidenbach discloses an aerodynamic device which can be opened using a gas spring with an actuator. The substitution of one known element (an electric motor for deployment as shown in Heil) for another (gas spring for deployment as shown in Breidenbach) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the motor in Heil would have yielded predictable results, namely, the movement of aerodynamic assemblies.
Claim(s) 3, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heil and Breidenbach as applied to claims 1, 10, and 18 above, and further in view of Kucera et al. (US 2011/0270544 A1) hereinafter Kucera.
Claim 3:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the designated parameter is an amount of current consumed by the actuator for moving the wing from the deployed position to the retracted position.
However, Kucera discloses wherein the designated parameter is an amount of current consumed by the actuator for moving the wing from the deployed position to the retracted position. [¶19]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aerodynamic system of Heil and Breidenbach with the electrical current determination of Aki to provide an additional means of determining if the mechanical mechanism is faulted thus providing increased reliability by redundancy.
Claim 11:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: selecting the designated parameter to be an amount of current consumed by the actuator for moving the wing from the deployed position to the retracted position.
However, Kucera discloses further comprising: selecting the designated parameter to be an amount of current consumed by the actuator for moving the wing from the deployed position to the retracted position. [¶19]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aerodynamic system of Heil and Breidenbach with the electrical current determination of Aki to provide an additional means of determining if the mechanical mechanism is faulted thus providing increased reliability by redundancy.
Claim 19:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 18.
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the designated parameter is an amount of current consumed by the actuator to move the wing from the deployed position to the retracted position.
However, Kucera discloses wherein the designated parameter is an amount of current consumed by the actuator to move the wing from the deployed position to the retracted position. [¶19]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aerodynamic system of Heil and Breidenbach with the electrical current determination of Aki to provide an additional means of determining if the mechanical mechanism is faulted thus providing increased reliability by redundancy.
Claim(s) 4, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heil and Breidenbach as applied to claims 1, 10, and 18 above, and further in view of Aki (US 2015/0007713 A1) hereinafter Aki.
Claim 4:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the designated parameter is a time required for the wing to transition from the deployed position to the retracted position.
However, Aki discloses wherein the designated parameter is a time required for the wing to transition from the deployed position to the retracted position. [¶¶35-37]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aerodynamic system of Heil and Breidenbach with the time determination of Aki to provide an additional means of determining if the mechanical mechanism is faulted thus providing increased reliability by redundancy.
Claim 12:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: selecting the designated parameter to be a time for the wing to move from the deployed position to the retracted position.
However, Aki discloses further comprising: selecting the designated parameter to be a time for the wing to move from the deployed position to the retracted position. [¶¶35-37]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aerodynamic system of Heil and Breidenbach with the time determination of Aki to provide an additional means of determining if the mechanical mechanism is faulted thus providing increased reliability by redundancy.
Claim 20:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 18.
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the designated parameter is a time required for the wing to move from the deployed position to the retracted position.
However, Aki discloses wherein the designated parameter is a time required for the wing to move from the deployed position to the retracted position. [¶¶35-37]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aerodynamic system of Heil and Breidenbach with the time determination of Aki to provide an additional means of determining if the mechanical mechanism is faulted thus providing increased reliability by redundancy.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heil and Breidenbach as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Hofmann et al. (US 11,866,102 B2) hereinafter Hofmann.
Claim 5:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle includes an enhanced performance mode and a regular driving mode such that the remedial action includes blocking activation of the enhanced performance mode.
However, Hofmann does disclose wherein the vehicle includes an enhanced performance mode and a regular driving mode such that the remedial action includes blocking activation of the enhanced performance mode. [col. 8, lines 34-53]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aerodynamic system of Heil and Breidenbach with the disabling mechanism of Hofmann to prevent further damage to the system by attempting to actuate a faulted system.
Claim 7:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the remedial action includes disabling the gas spring in the passive deployment mechanism.
However, Hofmann does disclose wherein the remedial action includes disabling
Further, Breidenbach does disclose the gas spring in the passive deployment mechanism. [Fig. 2, Items 242 as the aero assembly and 350 is a gas spring that retracts the aero assembly when extended]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aerodynamic system of Heil and Breidenbach with the disabling mechanism of Hofmann to prevent further damage to the system by attempting to actuate a faulted system.
Claim 14:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle includes an enhanced performance mode and a regular driving mode, further comprising: selecting the remedial action to include blocking activation of the enhanced performance mode.
However, Hofmann does disclose wherein the vehicle includes an enhanced performance mode and a regular driving mode, further comprising: selecting the remedial action to include blocking activation of the enhanced performance mode. [col. 8, lines 34-53]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aerodynamic system of Heil and Breidenbach with the disabling mechanism of Hofmann to prevent further damage to the system by attempting to actuate a faulted system.
Claim 16:
Heil and Breidenbach, as shown in the rejection above, disclose all the limitations of claim 10.
Heil doesn’t explicitly disclose further comprising: selecting the remedial action to include disabling the gas spring in the passive deployment mechanism.
However, Hofmann does disclose further comprising: selecting the remedial action to include disabling
Further, Breidenbach does disclose the gas spring in the passive deployment mechanism. [Fig. 2, Items 242 as the aero assembly and 350 is a gas spring that retracts the aero assembly when extended]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the aerodynamic system of Heil and Breidenbach with the disabling mechanism of Hofmann to prevent further damage to the system by attempting to actuate a faulted system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Allmandinger et al. (US 2022/0363322 A1) discloses an aerodynamic control device which can be moved and is controlled with an actuator.
Nahidi et al. (US 2022/0161874 A1) discloses a controller to detect a downforce requirement and control an aero device appropriately.
Ogawa (US 2021/0284325 A1) discloses a spoiler controlling device to retract and deploy based on specific conditions.
Heil (US 2017/0088194 A1) discloses a sensor based control loop for an automotive aerodynamic device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURT P LIETHEN whose telephone number is (313)446-6596. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571)272-1196. 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.
KURT P. LIETHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/KURT PHILIP LIETHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights