DETAILED ACTION
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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Specification, paragraph 0033, the component “bracket bolts 48” is absent from the drawings.
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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0031: The text “passage 87 of thefront support member” contains a grammatical error.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradley (US 20200406988 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bradley teaches “A fairing that is configured to be mounted to a surface of a trailer, the fairing comprising:
a first end (see Bradley, Figure 17, Annotation Set 1);
a second end (see Bradley, Figure 17, Annotation Set 1);
a main portion extending between the first end and the second end and defining a fairing interior, the main portion comprising:
a first end wall connected to the first end (see Bradley, Figure 17, Annotation Set 1), and
a second end wall connected to the second end (see Bradley, Figure 17, Annotation Set 1); and
a support member integrally formed within the fairing interior and extending between the first end wall and the second end wall (see Bradley, Figure 19, Annotation Set 1).”
PNG
media_image1.png
315
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bradley, Figure 17, Annotation Set 1
PNG
media_image2.png
618
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Bradley, Figure 21, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 2, Bradley teaches “The fairing of claim 1, wherein the support member is a front support member;
and the fairing further comprises:
a rear support member integrally formed within the fairing interior and extending between the first end wall and the second end wall (see Bradley, Figure 21, Annotation Set 1).”
Regarding claim 3, Bradley teaches “The fairing of claim 2, wherein the front support member and the rear support member are connected with a plurality of brace members (see Bradley, Figure 21, Annotation Set 2).”
PNG
media_image3.png
618
834
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Bradley teaches “The fairing of claim 1, wherein the support member includes:
a first end that is integrally formed with the first end wall (support rods engage the frame, which includes integral formation, Bradley, paragraph 0086), and
a second end that is integrally formed with the second end wall (support rods engage the frame, which includes integral formation, Bradley, paragraph 0086).”
Regarding claim 5, Bradely teaches “The fairing of claim 1, wherein the main portion defines a front end of the fairing that is connected to double-sided tape for attachment to the surface of the trailer (double sided tape attaches leading edge to trailer surface, see Bradley, paragraph 0085).”
Regarding claim 6, Bradley teaches “The fairing of claim 1, further comprising:
a first external bracket (see Bradley, Figure 21, Annotation Set 3); and
a second external bracket (see Bradley, Figure 21, Annotation Set 3);
wherein the fairing is configured to be attached to the surface of the trailer such that:
the first end of the fairing is between the first external bracket and the surface, and
the second end of the fairing is between the second external bracket and the surface (see Bradley, Figure 21, Annotation Set 3).”
PNG
media_image4.png
618
834
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bradley, Figure 21, Annotation Set 3
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baxter (US 20210001929 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Baxter teaches “A fairing that is configured to be mounted to a surface of a trailer, the fairing comprising:
a first end (see Baxter, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1);
a second end (see Baxter, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1);
a main portion extending between the first end and the second end and defining a fairing interior, the main portion comprising:
a first end wall connected to the first end (see Baxter, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1), and
a second end wall connected to the second end (see Baxter, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1); and
a support member integrally formed within the fairing interior and extending between the first end wall and the second end wall (see Baxter, paragraph 0032).”
PNG
media_image5.png
455
646
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Baxter, Figure 3, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 2, Baxter teaches “The fairing of claim 1, wherein the support member is a front support member;
and the fairing further comprises:
a rear support member integrally formed within the fairing interior and extending between the first end wall and the second end wall (see Baxter, Figure 7, Annotation Set 1).”
PNG
media_image6.png
281
542
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Baxter, Figure 7, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 3, Baxter teaches “The fairing of claim 2, wherein the front support member and the rear support member are connected with a plurality of brace members (see Baxter, Figure 8, Annotation Set 1).”
PNG
media_image7.png
787
512
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Baxter, Figure 8, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 4, Baxter teaches “The fairing of claim 1, wherein the support member includes:
a first end that is integrally formed with the first end wall (main portion of fairing surface includes first end wall, support members may be integrally formed with main portion of fairing surface, see Baxter, paragraph 0032), and
a second end that is integrally formed with the second end wall (main portion of fairing surface includes second end wall, support members may be integrally formed with main portion of fairing surface, see Baxter, paragraph 0032).”
Regarding claim 5, Baxter teaches “The fairing of claim 1, wherein the main portion defines a front end of the fairing that is connected to double-sided tape for attachment to the surface of the trailer (Double sided tape is connected to front end transition zone of fairing to fix the fairing to the trailer, see Baxter, paragraph 0041).”
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.
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.
Claim 7-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley (US 20200406988 A1), in view of Ragan (US 12291285 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Bradley teaches “A fairing that is configured to be mounted to a surface of a trailer, the fairing comprising:
a first end (see Bradley, Figure 17, Annotation Set 1);
a second end (see Bradley, Figure 17, Annotation Set 1);
a main portion extending between the first end and the second end and defining a fairing interior, the main portion comprising:
a first end wall connected to the first end (see Bradley, Figure 17, Annotation Set 1), and
a second end wall connected to the second end (see Bradley, Figure 17, Annotation Set 1).”
Bradley does not teach “a flexible attachment member within the fairing interior and connected to and extending between the first end wall and the second end wall.”
However, Ragan teaches “a flexible attachment member within the fairing interior and connected to and extending between the first end wall and the second end wall (see Ragan, Figure 1, Annotation Set 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the flexible retaining strap between fairing walls as taught by Ragan, into the fairing assembly taught by Bradley, to prevent the fairing outer walls from ripping away from the trailer under abnormal stress conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image8.png
734
553
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Ragan, Figure 1, Annotation Set 1
Regarding claim 8, Bradley, in view of Ragan, teaches “The fairing of claim 7, wherein the flexible attachment member is connected to the first end wall via a first attachment bracket; and
wherein the flexible attachment member is connected to the second end wall via a second attachment bracket.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the flexible retaining strap between fairing walls as taught by Ragan, into the fairing assembly by fastening the ends of the retaining strap to the end wall brackets as taught by Bradley, to prevent the fairing outer walls from ripping away from the trailer under abnormal stress conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, Bradley, in view of Ragan, teaches “The fairing of claim 8, wherein the fairing is configured to be attached to the surface of the trailer such that:
the first end of the fairing is between the first external bracket and the surface (see Bradley, Figure 21, Annotation Set 3), and
the second end of the fairing is between the second external bracket and the surface (see Bradley, Figure 21, Annotation Set 3).”
Bradley, in view of Ragan, does not teach “further comprising:
a first external bracket attached to the first end wall of the fairing such that the first end wall is between the first external bracket and the first attachment bracket; and
a second external bracket attached to the second end wall of the fairing such that the second end wall is between the second external bracket and the second attachment bracket.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a separate bracket at which the flexible strap may be attached, so that the device may be installed with or without the flexible strap, whichever is preferred, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 10, Bradley, in view of Ragan teaches “The fairing of claim 8, wherein the flexible attachment member includes: a first loop that loops around the first attachment bracket; and a second loop that loops around the second attachment bracket (strap couples to attachment rings, therefore strap may utilize a loop, see Ragan, col. 2, ln. 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the flexible retaining strap fastened between fairing wall connections via anchor loops as taught by Ragan, into the fairing assembly by fastening the ends of the retaining strap to the end wall brackets as taught by Bradley, to prevent the fairing outer walls from ripping away from the trailer under abnormal stress conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, Bradley, in view of Ragan teaches “The fairing of claim 8, wherein the first attachment bracket includes a first cavity that retains a first end of the attachment member; and
wherein the second attachment bracket includes a second cavity that retains a second end of the attachment member (strap couples to attachment rings, therefore strap may utilize a plug that can be passed through the ring to be retained on the other side, see Ragan, col. 2, ln. 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the flexible retaining strap fastened between fairing wall connections via anchor loops as taught by Ragan, into the fairing assembly by fastening the ends of the retaining strap to the end wall brackets as taught by Bradley, to prevent the fairing outer walls from ripping away from the trailer under abnormal stress conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Bradley, in view of Ragan teaches “The fairing of claim 7, wherein the flexible attachment member is at least one of a strap, a cable, a wire, or a rope (see Ragan, Figure 1, Annotation Set 1).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the flexible retaining strap (cord, strap, wire, and rope are all used interchangeably in this context) between fairing walls as taught by Ragan, into the fairing assembly taught by Bradley, to prevent the fairing outer walls from ripping away from the trailer under abnormal stress conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Bradley, in view of Ragan, teaches “The fairing of claim 7, further comprising:
a first external bracket (see Bradley, Figure 21, Annotation Set 3); and
a second external bracket (see Bradley, Figure 21, Annotation Set 3);
wherein the fairing is configured to be attached to the surface such that:
the first end of the fairing is between the first external bracket and the surface (see Bradley, Figure 21, Annotation Set 3), and
the second end of the fairing is between the second external bracket and the surface (see Bradley, Figure 21, Annotation Set 3).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the flexible retaining strap between fairing walls as taught by Ragan, into the fairing assembly taught by Bradley, to prevent the fairing outer walls from ripping away from the trailer under abnormal stress conditions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-20 allowed.
The primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter in claim 14 is the inclusion of the claim of limitations directed to “a flexible attachment member threaded through a passage of the support member and connected to and extending between the right end wall and the left end wall.” Such limitations, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claims, are not disclosed or suggested by the prior art of record, rendering claim 14 allowable.
Claims 15-20 are also allowed by virtue of dependency on claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references disclose similar aerodynamic fairing components for transport trucks.
Nelson et al. (US 20140265434 A1)
Baxter (US 20210001929 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK R CATALANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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.
/JRC/
/JASON S MORROW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights