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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The second information disclosure statement filed 12/26/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it is essentially a duplicate of the first information disclosure statement filed on 12/26/2024. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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: actuating assembly in claims 1, 2, and 14-18. Support for the structure of this limitation is provided in Paragraph [0054] of the instant specification.
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.
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 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rear diffusor" in Ln. 1, 8, and 9 of the claim. The preamble of the claim references an “active rear diffusor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-18, and 20 depend on claim 1 and thus also are rejected.
Claims 5 and 9 recite the limitation “the width of the first/second gap is 0 cm” in Ln. 2 of each claim. The use of the term “gap” is inconsistent with its meaning in this limitation where it says the width of the gap is 0 cm. A gap implies a space between, thus the terminology should properly reflect the intended meaning in the claim limitation. The current claim language is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "an adjacent portion of the road vehicle" in Ln. of the claim. In claim 1, the road vehicle is not positively recited as part of the claimed structure. Here in claim 6 the road vehicle is positively recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "an " in Ln. 3 of the claim. In claim 1, the road vehicle is not positively recited as part of the claimed structure. Here in claim 11 the road vehicle is positively recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the rear diffusor" in Ln. 9 and 10 of the claim. The preamble of the claim references an “active rear diffusor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is further rejected due to the unclear claim language regarding the “active rear diffusor”. In Ln. 1 of the claim, it is stated “An assembly for providing an active rear diffusor”, which does not positively recite the “active rear diffusor” as part of the claimed structure. Thus, when in Ln. 9 and 10 of the claim, when the element is positively recited as part of the claim structure, it is unclear whether it is intended to be part of the claimed structure or not. Thus, the claim language is unclear and indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-2, 12, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moressee (FR Patent Application 3072640 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moressee discloses
an active rear diffusor (rear diffuser 10, Fig. 1) for a road vehicle, the rear diffusor (rear diffuser 10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a first air guiding member (primary panel 20, Fig. 1) and at least a second air guiding member (secondary panel 30, Fig. 1),
an actuating assembly (link system 22, connecting rods 32, and motor axis 62, Fig. 1),
wherein at least a section of the first air guiding member (primary panel 20, Fig. 1) and of the second air guiding member (secondary panel 30, Fig. 1) are arranged successively along a longitudinal axis of the road vehicle (as can be seen in Fig. 2 where the secondary panel 30 is behind the primary panel 20),
wherein the actuating assembly (link assembly 22, connecting rods 32, and motor axis 62, Fig. 1) is configured to move each of the first and second air guiding member (primary panel 20 and secondary panel 30, Fig. 1) into a first position in which the rear diffusor assumes a first operating state (first position is the deployed position shown in annotated Fig. 2 below) and into a second position in which the rear diffusor assumes a second operating state (second position is the retracted position shown in annotated Fig. 1 below; Pg. 7-8 of the provided English Translation PDF),
and wherein a width of a first gap (as shown in annotated Figs. 1-2 below) between the first and second air guiding members (primary panel 20 and secondary panel 30, Figs. 1-2) is smaller in the first operating state compared to the second operating state (as can be seen in annotated Figs. 1-2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
698
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figures 1 and 2 from Moressee
Regarding claim 2, Moressee discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the actuating assembly (link system 22, connecting rods 32, and motor axis 62, Fig. 1) is configured to move each of the first and second air guiding member (primary panel 20 and secondary panel 30, Fig. 1) into the first position at a first vehicle speed and into the second position at a second vehicle speed, wherein the first vehicle speed is lower than the second vehicle speed (Pg. 2 of the provided English Translation PDF discloses that in current solutions the speed of the vehicle is used to determine when the panel deploys or retracts, and the higher second vehicle speed moves the panel into the retracted position, which is the second position).
Regarding claim 12, Moressee discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein in the first operating state an angle of the first air guiding member (as shown in annotated Figs. 1 and 2 above) relative to a road surface and/or of the second air guiding member relative to the road surface is smaller compared to the second operating state (as detailed in annotated Figs. 1 and 2 above).
Regarding claim 14, Moressee discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the actuating assembly (link system 22, connecting rods 32, and motor axis 62, Fig. 1) comprises a linkage assembly (link system 22 and connecting rods 32, Fig. 1) and at least one actuator (motor axis 62, Fig. 1; as can be seen in Figs. 1-2; Pg. 7 of the provided English Translation PDF),
wherein the linkage assembly (link system 22 and connecting rods 32, Fig. 1) couples the first and second air guiding members (primary panel 20 and secondary panel 30, Fig. 1) to the actuator (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2; Pg. 7 of the provided English Translation PDF).
Regarding claim 15, Moressee discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
wherein the linkage assembly (link system 22 and connecting rods 32, Fig. 1) couples the first and the second air guiding members (primary panel 20 and secondary panel 30, Fig. 1) to one another (as can be seen in Figs. 1-2; Pg. 7 of the provided English Translation PDF).
Regarding claim 19, Moressee discloses
An assembly (rear diffuser 10, Fig. 1) for providing an active rear diffusor (rear diffuser 10, Fig. 1) of a road vehicle, wherein the assembly comprises:
a first air guiding member (primary panel 20, Fig. 1) and at least a second air guiding member (secondary panel 30, Fig. 1),
a linkage assembly (link system 22 and connecting rods 32, Fig. 1) coupled to the first air guiding member and second air guiding member (primary panel 20 and secondary panel 30, Fig. 1) and configured to be coupled to at least one actuator (motor shaft 62; as can be seen in Figs. 1-2; Pg. 7 of the provided English Translation PDF),
wherein at least a section of the first air guiding member and of the second air guiding member (primary panel 20 and secondary panel 30, Fig. 1) are arrangeable successively along a longitudinal axis of the road vehicle (as can be seen in Fig. 2 where the secondary panel 30 is behind the primary panel 20),
wherein each of the first and second air guiding member (primary panel 20 and secondary panel 30, Fig. 1) are movable into a first position in which the rear diffusor (rear diffuser 10, Fig. 1) assumes a first operating state (first position is the deployed position shown in annotated Fig. 2 above) and into a second position in which the rear diffusor (rear diffuser 10, Fig. 1) assumes a second operating state (second position is the retracted position shown in annotated Fig. 1 below; Pg. 7-8 of the provided English Translation PDF),
and wherein a width of a first gap (as shown in annotated Figs. 1-2 above) between the first and second air guiding members (primary panel 20 and secondary panel 30, Fig. 1) is smaller in the first operating state compared to the second operating state (as can be seen in annotated Figs. 1-2 above).
Regarding claim 20, Moressee discloses all the limitations of the claim and further discloses
A road vehicle (Abstract; diffuser is attached to a motor vehicle, not fully shown in Figures but the bumper 40 is shown), comprising the active rear diffusor according to claim 1 (structure as detailed above in claim 1).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moressee (FR Patent Application 3072640 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Moressee discloses all the limitations of the claim but does not explicitly disclose the full limitation
wherein in the first operating state (deployed position shown in Fig. 2), the width of the first gap (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 above) is less than 5 cm (Pg. 3 of the provided English Translation PDF discloses that the gap between the panels is effectively obstructed, which indicates a small or absent gap between the panels, which previously was present when in the retracted position).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the gap with this given range of less than 5 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent foreign bodies from entering the diffuser and to improve the aesthetics of the vehicle (Moressee; Pg. 3 of the provided English Translation PDF).
Regarding claim 4, Moressee discloses all the limitations of the claim but does not explicitly disclose the full limitation
wherein in the first operating state (deployed position shown in Fig. 2), the width of the first gap (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 above) is less than 5 cm (Pg. 3 of the provided English Translation PDF discloses that the gap between the panels is effectively obstructed, which indicates a small or absent gap between the panels, which previously was present when in the retracted position).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the gap with this given range of less than 5 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent foreign bodies from entering the diffuser and to improve the aesthetics of the vehicle (Moressee; Pg. 3 of the provided English Translation PDF).
Regarding claim 5, Moressee discloses all the limitations of the claim but does not explicitly disclose the full limitation
wherein in the first operating state (deployed position shown in Fig. 2), the width of the first gap (as shown in annotated Fig. 2 above) is 0 cm (Pg. 3 of the provided English Translation PDF discloses that the gap between the panels is effectively obstructed, which indicates a small or absent gap between the panels, which previously was present when in the retracted position).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the gap with this given range of less than 5 cm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent foreign bodies from entering the diffuser and to improve the aesthetics of the vehicle (Moressee; Pg. 3 of the provided English Translation PDF).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11, 13, and 16-18 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 claims 6-9 is the inclusion in the claims of the limitation of a width of a second gap between the first air guiding member and an adjacent portion of the road vehicle is smaller in the first operating state than in the second operating state. 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 Moressee (FR Patent Application 3072640 A1), which teaches all the limitations of the claim, including the second gap between the first air guiding member and an adjacent portion of the road vehicle, but in Moressee the second gap is not smaller in the first operating state than in the second operating state, but rather is larger. These deficiencies in Moressee are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 10-11 is the inclusion in the claims of the limitation of the first air guiding member and the second air guiding member define an outer portion of the rear diffusor that faces a road surface. 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 Moressee (FR Patent Application 3072640 A1), which teaches all the limitations of the claim, including the outer portion of the first and second air guiding member, but the outer portion of Moressee does not fully face the road surface, instead only part of it does. These deficiencies in Moressee are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 13 is the inclusion in the claim of the limitation of a difference between the first angle and the second angle is smaller in the first operating state compared to the second operating state. 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 Moressee (FR Patent Application 3072640 A1), which teaches all the limitations of the claim, including a first and second angle relative to the road surface of the first and second air guiding members, but does not disclose the relationship between the difference of the 2 angles in the first and second operating state where the difference is smaller in the first operating state than in the second operating state. These deficiencies in Moressee are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 16-18 is the inclusion in the claims of the limitation of the linkage assembly comprises a pivot joint to which both of the first and the second air guiding members are coupled. 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 Moressee (FR Patent Application 3072640 A1), which teaches all the limitations of the claim, including pivot joints between the components, but not a pivot joint that both the first and second air guiding members are both coupled to. These deficiencies in Moressee are not made up by any other teachings in the prior art.
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 teach similar rear diffusor assemblies with a link and actuator assembly.
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
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights