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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the supporting structural center portion and deflectable material attached to the outer edge of the center portion (claim 18) and inset (claim 28) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the rearward angle is parallel to the ground” (lines 1-2) lacks proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter.
In paragraph [0158], arm 3410 may extend parallel to the ground. In paragraph [0179], embodiments of an aerodynamic system may direct airflow parallel with the ground, in a downward direction or an upward direction as desired.
Regarding claim 18, “supporting structural center portion and deflectable material attached to the outer edge of the center portion” (lines 1-2) lacks proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. In paragraph [0074], a structural center portion for support with deflectable material attached to the outer edges of the center portion.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 23, “a first farming” (line 1) should be changed to
--a first fairing-- (reason for change: “a second fairing” (line 2).
Regarding claim 28, “or middle portion of the one or more fairings” (line 3) should be changed to --of middle portion of the one or more fairings-- (support for the change is found in paragraph [0162]).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.\
Claim(s) 7, 9 and 13-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2707550 A1.
Regarding claim 7, CA 2707550 A1 discloses a system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4), comprising: an arm (support 20 shown in Figure 4) adapted to be coupled to a vehicle (I-beam 15 of the frame 14 on page 6, shown in Figures 1a and 4), wherein the arm (support 20 shown in Figure 4) is adapted to couple to one or more fairings (side skirt 22 shown in Figures 1b and 4); and one or more fairings (side skirt 22 on page 10 shown in Figures 1b and 4) adapted to couple to the arm (support 20 shown in Figure 4), wherein the one or more fairings (side skirt 22 on page 10 shown in Figures 1b and 4) have an inboard surface (inside surface of side skirt 22 shown in Figure 4) and an outboard surface (outside surface of side skirt 22 shown in Figure 4), and the outboard surface (outside surface of side skirt 22 shown in Figure 4) of the one or more fairings (side skirt 22 shown in Figures 1b and 4) comprises an aerodynamic surface to direct longitudinal air flow in a downward angle.
Regarding claim 9, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 7, wherein the one or more fairings (side skirt 22 on page 10 shown in Figures 1b and 4) is positioned on an outboard side (shown in Figures 1a and 1b) of the vehicle (10 on page 5 last paragraph shown in Figure 1a).
Regarding claim 13, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 7, wherein the arm (support 20 shown in Figure 4) is fixed (via fasteners 210 and 40 shown in Figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 7, wherein the arm (support 20 shown in Figure 4) comprises a mechanism (compression spring 500 on page 9 shown in Figure 5) to allow deflection of the one or more fairings (side skirt 22 on page 10 shown in Figures 1b and 4).
Regarding claim 15, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 14, wherein the mechanism comprises a spring attachment (compression spring 500 on page 9 shown in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 16, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 15, wherein the spring attachment (compression spring 500 on page 9 shown in Figure 5) is a one-sided attachment (shown in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 17, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 7, wherein the one or more fairings (side skirt 22 on page 10 shown in Figures 1b and 4) are formed as a single body (one strip on page 10, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 18, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 7, wherein the one or more fairings (side skirt 22 on page 10 shown in Figures 2) comprise a supporting structural center portion (bracket 21 on page 10 shown in Figure 2) and deflectable material (“one or more strips” on page 10, lines 10-20) attached to an outer edge of the center portion (bracket 21 on page 10 shown in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 18, wherein edges of the one or more fairings
(side skirt 22 on page 10 shown in Figures 2) may differ in one or more of a shape, size, curvature or stiffness (on page 10).
Regarding claim 20, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 7, wherein a shape of the one or more fairings
(side skirt 22 on page 10 shown in Figures 2) comprises a curve or a stepped area (on page 10, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 21, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 20, wherein the curve (on page 10, lines 5-10) may be a compound or simple curve.
Regarding claim 22, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 20, wherein the stepped area (“jagged protrusion” on page 10, lines 5-10) but does not show multiple steps.
Regarding caim 22, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make stepped area of CA 2707550 A1 with multiple steps, with a reasonable expectation of success is a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 23, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 7, wherein the one or more fairings (side skirt 22 on page 10 shown in Figures 1a and 1b) comprise a first fairing (shown in Figures 1a) adapted for use on one side of the vehicle and a second fairing (shown in Figures 1a) adapted for use on another side of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 24, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 7, wherein the one or more of the fairings (side skirt 22 on page 10 shown in Figures 1a and 1b) may be coupled to the arm (support 20 shown in Figure 4) in a position such that the one or more fairings (side skirt 22 on page 10 shown in Figures 1a and 1b) is angled (concavely or convexly curved on page 10, lines 5-10) relative to the ground.
Claim(s) 8, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2707550 A1 in view of PROHL et al. US 3401953 A.
Regarding claim 8, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 7 but does not show wherein the rearward angle is parallel to the ground.
PROHL et al. US 3401953 A teaches a supporting arm (12 as shown in Figure 2) for mudflap (40 shown in Figure 2) hangs vertically (corresponds to the rearward angle is parallel to the ground).
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the arm of CA 2707550 A1 with a mudflap, as taught by PROHL US 3401953 A, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide protection from road debris, reduced paint damage, prevention of undercarriage corrosion and improved visibility for following vehicles.
Regarding claim 10, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 9 but does not show wherein the one or more fairings is a mud flap fairing.
PROHL et al. US 3401953 A teaches a supporting arm (12 as shown in Figure 2) for mudflap (40 shown in Figure 2) hangs vertically.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the arm of CA 2707550 A1 with a mudflap, as taught by PROHL US 3401953 A, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide protection from road debris, reduced paint damage, prevention of undercarriage corrosion and improved visibility for following vehicles.
Regarding claim 11, CA 2707550 A1, as modified, discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4 of CA 2707550 A1) of claim 10, wherein the feature of the vehicle is a mud flap (40 shown in Figure 2 of PROHL et al.
US 3401953 A).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2707550 A1 in view of PROHL et al. US 3401953 A as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Whittington US 5509690 A.
Regarding claim 12, CA 2707550 A1, as modified, discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4 of CA 2707550 A1) of claim 11 but does not show wherein the mud flap fairing is shaped or sized to overlap a tire of the vehicle.
Whittington US 5509690 A teaches elongate rigid stiffening device comprising a generally vertical elongate main wall portion extending forwardly from said flap to overlap a portion of the vehicle tire (claims 1 and 10); and elongate relatively rigid stiffening device (20) is attached along the outer vertical edge (15b) of the mud flap (15) shown in Figure 3 in column 3, lines 25-30.
Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the make the system of with CA 2707550 A1, as modified, with the mud flap fairing is shaped or sized to overlap a tire of the vehicle, as taught by Whittington US 5509690 A, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to direct air currents and roadway fluids to the inside of the truck and also obstructs fluids from passing around the outer edge of the flap.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2707550 A1 in view of Whittington US 5509690 A.
Regarding claim 25, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 7, wherein the one or more of the fairings (side skirt 22 shown in Figures 1b and 4) are adapted to be coupled to the arm (support 20 shown in Figure 4) but does not show in a position such that the one or more fairings extends further rearward than a feature of the vehicle.
Whittington US 5509690 A teaches elongate rigid stiffening device comprising a generally vertical elongate main wall portion extending forwardly from said flap to overlap a portion of the vehicle tire (claims 1 and 10); and elongate relatively rigid stiffening device (20) is attached along the outer vertical edge (15b) of the mud flap (15) shown in Figure 3 in column 3, lines 25-30.
Regarding claim 25, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the make one or more of the fairings are adapted to be coupled to the arm of with CA 2707550 A1 in a position such that the one or more fairings extends further rearward than a feature of the vehicle, as taught by Whittington US 5509690 A, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to direct air currents and roadway fluids to the inside of the truck and also obstructs fluids from passing around the outer edge of the flap.
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2707550 A1 in view of RINARD US 5280990 A.
Regarding claim 26, CA 2707550 A1 discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4) of claim 7 but does not show wherein the one or more of the fairings comprises a middle fairing adapted to direct air flow outboard of tires on a rear axle of the vehicle.
RINARD US 5280990 A teaches the one or more fairings (47 and 48 shown in Figure 2) comprises a middle fairing (48 shown in Figure 2) adapted to direct air flow outboard of tires (33 shown in Figure 2) on a rear axle of the vehicle (shown in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 26, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the one or more fairings of CA 2707550 A1 with a middle fairing, as taught by RINARD US 5280990 A, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to direct air flow outboard of tires on a rear axle of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 27, CA 2707550 A1, as modified, discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4 of CA 2707550 A1) of claim 26, wherein the middle fairing (48 shown in Figure 2 of RINARD US 5280990 A) comprises one or more aerodynamic features (reducing air flow in of RINARD US 5280990 A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 28 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:
Regarding claim 28, CA 2707550 A1, as modified, discloses the system (assembly 100 shown in Figure 4 of CA 2707550 A1) of claim 27, but does not show wherein the one or more fairings comprise an upper portion or lower portion having an outboard surface that in the same plane as, inset from, or more outboard from an outboard surface of middle portion of the one or more fairings.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2605119 A discloses a splash guard for vehicles.
US 3954281 A discloses a mudflap mounting assembly.
US 4205861 A discloses sectional spray collector arched shields are mounted
above a vehicle wheel.
US 6443492 B1 discloses an adjustable spring load mud flap hanger apparatus.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Lori Lyjak whose telephone number is
571-272-6658. The Examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. EST Monday through Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
/Lori Lyjak/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B
