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 .
This communication is in response to application No. 18/998,649, filed on 1/27/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 have been rejected as follows. Claim 12 is objected to.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
the brief description of the drawing of “Figure 3” in the specification (page 2, lines 8-9) does not match the figure labelled “Fig. 3” in the drawings; but instead, it describes what is shown in “Fig. 4” (a rear view of the active spoiler shade assembly in an exemplary stowed position).
the brief description of the drawing of “Figure 4” in the specification (page 2, lines 10-11) does not match the figure labelled “Fig. 4” in the drawings; but instead, it describes what is shown in “Fig. 3” (a cross sectional view of the active spoiler shade assembly with fabric deployed).
It appears that the descriptions for these two figures should be swapped.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11, 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ting (FR 2982568 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ting discloses an active spoiler shade assembly (26, Fig. 1-3) operably adapted for a vehicle (10, Fig. 1-3), comprising a spoiler body (12, Fig. 1-3); a soft material panel (28, Fig. 1-3) operably coupled to the spoiler body (12, Fig. 1-3); a tube (36, Fig. 1-3) that is operably biased by a predetermined member to allow the soft material panel to wind (page 4, para [0005], lines 128-133) to a stowed position (Fig. 3), and to unwind to extend said soft material panel to at least one deployed position (Fig. 2); wherein said soft material panel (28, Fig. 1-3) is selectively deployable from the spoiler body to manage airflow rearward under predetermined conditions (page 3-4, [0005], lines 111-145).
Regarding claim 3, Ting further discloses wherein the soft material panel (28, Fig. 1-3) is at least one fabric material (impregnated fabric or canvas; para. [0006], lines 155-156).
Regarding claim 4, Ting further discloses wherein the soft material panel (28, Fig. 1-3) is not plastic (para. [0006], lines 155-156).
Regarding claim 5, Ting further discloses wherein the tube (36, Fig. 1-3) includes a spring (helical spring, page 4, para [0005], line 134) inside that allows the soft material panel (28, Fig. 1-3) to wind and unwind to extended length (page 4, para [0005], lines 128-135).
Regarding claim 8, Ting further discloses further comprising a rod (bead 34, Fig. 2-3; page 4, para [0005], lines 123-127), wherein the soft material panel (28, Fig. 2-3) is operably connected to the rod operable for moving (34 via 12, Fig. 2-3) the soft material panel outward (Fig. 2) and to the stowed position (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Ting further discloses further comprising a rod (bead 34, Fig. 2-3; page 4, para [0005], lines 123-127), wherein the soft material panel (28, Fig. 2-3) is operably connected to the rod operable for moving (34 via 12, Fig. 2-3) the soft material panel between the stowed position (Fig. 3) and the at least one deployed position (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Ting further discloses an actuator (page 3, para [0005], lines 105-108) operable to drive the soft material panel (28, Fig. 1-3) between the deployed (Fig. 2) and stowed (Fig. 3) positions (page 3, para [0004]).
Regarding claim 13, Ting further discloses at least one roll-off edge (38a/b, Fig. 2-3) operably shaped to engage (page 4, para [0005], lines 135-148) the soft material panel to match a predetermined shape of the vehicle (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Ting further discloses at least one edge (i.e. edge formed by 30, Fig. 2; page 4, para [0005], lines 123-127) that is a predetermined molded shape to support the soft material panel (28, Fig. 1-3) and adapted to match predetermined vehicle contours and dimensions (16, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Ting further discloses at least one extending lattice (22, Fig. 2-3) that selectively holds the shape (page 4, para [0006], lines 165-173) of the soft material panel (28, Fig. 1-3) from wind acting upon said soft material panel.
Regarding claim 17, Ting discloses an active spoiler shade assembly (26, Fig. 1-3) operably adapted for a vehicle (10, Fig. 1-3), comprising a soft material panel (28, Fig. 1-3) operably coupled to a spoiler body (12, Fig. 1-3); a biased member (36, Fig. 1-3) that is operably biased by a coil spring (helical spring, page 4, para [0005], line 134) adapted to selectively wind (page 4, para [0005], lines 128-133) the soft material panel (28, Fig. 1-3) about the biased member (36, Fig. 1-3) to a stowed position (Fig. 3), and to selectively unwind the soft material panel from the biased member to extend said soft material panel to at least one deployed position (Fig. 2) to manage airflow under predetermined conditions (page 3-4, [0005], lines 111-145).
Regarding claim 18, Ting discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 17 above, and further discloses at least one roll-off molded edge (38a/b, Fig. 2-3) operable to support (page 4, para [0005], lines 135-148) the soft material panel (28, Fig. 1-3) to allow said soft material panel to be taunt during retraction (Fig. 3) and deployment (Fig. 2) and operably adapted to provide said soft material panel with a predetermined contour and angle (36 & 38a/b support soft material panel 28 to maintain a desired shape during stowed and deployed positions).
Regarding claim 19, Ting discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 17 above, and further discloses at least one extending lattice (22, Fig. 2-3) that selectively holds the shape (page 4, para [0006], lines 165-173) of the soft material panel (28, Fig. 2-3) from wind acting upon said soft material panel.
Regarding claim 20, Ting discloses an active spoiler shade assembly (26, Fig. 1-3) operably adapted for a vehicle (10, Fig. 1-3), comprising at least one actuator (page 3, para [0005], lines 105-108); at least one rear spoiler body (12, Fig. 1-3); at least one soft material panel (28, Fig. 1-3) selectively deployable from an opening in said rear spoiler body (12, Fig. 1-2); at least one tube (36, Fig. 1-3) that is operably biased by a corresponding predetermined biasing member (helical spring, page 4, para [0005], line 134) to allow the soft material panel (28, Fig. 1-3) to move to a stowed position (Fig. 3), and that allows said actuator to selectively (control unit, page 3, para [0005], lines 107-108) operably extend said soft material panel to at least one deployed position (Fig. 2) to manage airflow under predetermined conditions (page 3-4, [0005], lines 111-145).
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Moradnia et al (2022/0315134).
Regarding claim 1, Moradnia et al discloses an active spoiler shade assembly (102/202, Fig. 1-2; para. [0038], lines 6-12; [0039], lines 1-5) operably adapted for a vehicle (100, 150; Fig. 1-2), comprising a spoiler body (160/260, Fig. 1-2); a soft material panel (106/206, Fig. 1-2) operably coupled to the spoiler body (160/260, Fig. 1-2); a tube (104/204, Fig. 1-2) that is operably biased by a predetermined member to allow the soft material panel to wind to a stowed position (203, Fig. 2 top diagram; [0039], lines 5-12), and to unwind to extend said soft material panel to at least one deployed position (207, Fig. 2 bottom diagram; para. [0042]); wherein said soft material panel (106/206, Fig. 1-2) is selectively deployable from the spoiler body to manage airflow rearward under predetermined conditions (controller; para. [0045], lines 3-12).
Regarding claim 3, Moradnia et al further discloses wherein the soft material panel is at least one fabric material (“may include a fabric, other textiles”; para. [0050], lines 9-17).
Regarding claim 4, Moradnia et al further discloses wherein the soft material panel is not plastic (para. [0050], lines 9-17).
Regarding claim 6, Moradnia et al further discloses an exterior trim (rod serves as a trim) operably adapted to close out to the outside of the vehicle (i.e. see 970/910, Fig. 9; 1021/1010, Fig. 10; 1410, Fig. 14; 1610, Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 8, Moradnia et al further discloses a rod (110/210, Fig. 1-3; para. [0035]), wherein the soft material panel (106/206, Fig. 1-2) is operably connected (para. [0036]) to the rod operable for moving the soft material panel outward (207, Fig. 2 bottom diagram, Fig. 3 diagram on right) and to the stowed position (203, Fig. 2 top diagram, Fig. 3 diagram on left).
Regarding claim 9, Moradnia et al further discloses further comprising a rod (110/210, Fig. 1-2; para. [0035]), wherein the soft material panel (106/206, Fig. 1-2) is operably connected to the rod (110/210, Fig. 1-2) operable for moving the soft material panel between the stowed position (203, Fig. 2 top diagram, Fig. 3 diagram on left) and the at least one deployed position (207, Fig. 2 bottom diagram, Fig. 3 diagram on right).
Regarding claim 11, Moradnia et al further discloses an actuator (112/212, Fig. 1-2; para. [0036], lines 7-9; para. [0044], lines 5-7) operable to drive the soft material panel (106/206, Fig. 1-2) between the deployed (207, Fig. 2 bottom diagram) and stowed positions (203, Fig. 2 top diagram).
Regarding claim 13, Moradnia et al further discloses at least one roll-off edge (108/208, Fig. 1-2; para. [0038], lines 9-12; para. [0040], lines 7-9) operably shaped to engage the soft material panel (106/206, Fig. 1-2) to match a predetermined shape of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, Moradnia et al further discloses at least one edge (i.e. edge formed by 110, Fig. 1 or 210, Fig. 3) that is a predetermined molded shape to support the soft material panel (106/206, Fig. 1-3) and adapted to match predetermined vehicle contours and dimensions.
Regarding claim 16, Moradnia et al further discloses at least one cover (114/118, 232, Fig. 1-2; para. [0036], lines 3-4; para. [0041], lines 6-9; para. [0043]) that operably deploys to cover a predetermined corner area with predetermined soft material (232, Fig. 2-3) to be deployed with the soft material panel (206, 228, Fig. 2-3) to block the corner air flow (para. [0043], lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 20, Moradnia et al discloses an active spoiler shade assembly (102/202, Fig. 1-2; para. [0038], lines 6-12; para. [0039], lines 1-5) operably adapted for a vehicle (100, 150; Fig. 1-2), comprising at least one actuator (112/212, Fig. 1-2; para. [0036], lines 7-9; para. [0044], lines 5-7); at least one rear spoiler body (160/260, Fig. 1-2); at least one soft material panel (106/206, Fig. 1-2) selectively deployable from an opening in said rear spoiler body; at least one tube (104/204, Fig. 1-2) that is operably biased by a corresponding predetermined biasing member to allow the soft material panel to move to a stowed position (203, Fig. 2 top diagram; para. [0039], lines 5-12), and that allows said actuator to selectively (controller; para. [0045], lines 3-12) operably extend said soft material panel to at least one deployed position (207, Fig. 2 bottom diagram; para. [0042]) to manage airflow under predetermined conditions (para. [0044], lines 12-19.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradnia et al (2022/0315134).
Regarding claim 2, Moradnia et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, and Moradnia et al. further discloses predetermined conditions related to vehicle speed (para. [0045], lines 7-12) controlling deployment of the fabric panel (106/206, Fig. 1-2). However, Moradnia et al does not expressly disclose the vehicle speed of at least about 30 miles per hour.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to have a predetermined condition being a vehicle speed of at least about 30 miles per hour with a reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Moradnia et al would not operate differently with a speed of at least 30 mph and since Moradnia et al discloses a device that controls a soft material panel selectively deployable from a spoiler body based on vehicle speeds the device would function appropriately at a speed of at least 30 miles per hour. Further, any predetermined speeds could be utilized as the selected speed at which the panel is deployed based upon design, size, configuration and other factors of a particular vehicle.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradnia et al (2022/0315134) in view of Rose et al (US 2022/0402564).
Regarding claim 7, Moradnia et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. However, Moradnia et al does not expressly disclose an exterior trim that closes out to the outside of the vehicle, said exterior trim operably attaches to a rod coupled to the soft material panel operable to extend the soft material panel.
Rose et al teaches an exterior trim (brake light 18, Fig. 5) that closes out to the outside of the vehicle (V, Fig. 1-2), said exterior trim operably attaches to a rod (moving portion 14, Fig. 2 & 5) coupled to the soft material panel (24, Fig. 2 & 5) operable to extend the soft material panel in the analogous field of the claimed invention of vehicle aerodynamic active spoilers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spoiler of Moradnia et al by reconstructing the rod of Moradnia et al to include a hollow member (rod 14) as taught by Rose et al that permits mounting a brake light (18) (where the brake light constitutes a trim), such that an exterior trim (18) closes out to the outside of the vehicle, said exterior trim operably attaches to a rod (14) coupled to the soft material panel (24) operable to extend the soft material panel. Doing so would provide an alternate way of mounting a rear brake light.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moradnia et al (2022/0315134).
Regarding claim 10, Moradnia et al discloses all of the claimed limitations of the invention as claimed in claim 9 above and further discloses the structure of a rod (rigid bar 110/210, Fig. 1-2) for moving the soft material panel between a stowed and a deployed position. However, Moradnia et al does not expressly disclose wherein the rod is an aluminum extrusion.
However, section 2144.07 of the MPEP sets forth the case of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), which held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rigid bar of Moradnia et al to be of an aluminum extrusion material which is suitable for the intended purpose of supporting the end of the soft material panel since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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: The primary reason for indication of allowable subject matter in claim 12 is the combination of a deployable fabric-based spoiler shade that can manage rear airflow while also conforming to vehicle aesthetics and contours as defined by the inclusion of the limitations “wherein the actuator is operably overmolded to an exterior trim and rod to drive the soft material panel between the deployed and stowed positions”. This helps the soft panel match the vehicle body, retain shape and vehicle contour, and resist wind distortion. The closest prior art of Moradnia et al or Ting, as described above, do not disclose an actuator operably overmolded to an exterior trim. Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rose et al (US 2022/0402564) discloses a spoiler (10) having a soft material panel (24) with actuators (16) to selectively stow or deploy the material based on vehicle speeds; for example 15 mph, 45 mph, 35 mph or more (Fig. 6, [0029]-[0031]). Rose et al (US 2023/0069045) discloses a drag reduction spoiler with extendable scissors (54, Fig. 11). Chen (US 2010/0301633) discloses a vehicle rear spoiler body (1) having a fabric shade (8) on a reel/tube (4) with restorer spring (3). Hsueh (US Patent No. 5,294,170) discloses a multi-purpose vehicle rear spoiler assembly with spoiler body (1), fabric panel (22), roller (2), spring (Fig. 1) and trim (3). Getzschman et al (US Patent No. 11,021,046) discloses a retractable overhead fabric shade (12) with aluminum extrusion tube (18) and attachment rod (14). Hacker (US 2007/0186966) discloses expandable poles (38, 41, Fig. 11) to support a flexible sheet.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise L Esquivel whose telephone number is (703)756-5825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, alternate Fridays 7:30 am-4:00 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, 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.
/D.L.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights