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 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 a claim limitation is “a moving mechanism configured to move the protruding portion, wherein the moving mechanism positions the protruding portion onto the top portion of the vehicle body in a case where the solar panel is generating electric power and a temperature of the solar panel is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature” in claim 3.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 limitation 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 to avoid it 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 recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
It is noted that the as-filed specification describes a lifting mechanism that raises an lowers each of the protruding portions 15, 16 to and from the top portion of the vehicle body in paragraph [0036]. It is further noted that paragraph [0036] of the as-filed specification describes the configuration of the protruding portion driving unit 44 is not limited to this example, and further describes wherein each of the protruding portions 15, 16 is a contractible component that expands and contracts when gas is injected thereinto or suctioned therefrom, the protruding portion driving unit 44 may include a mechanism that causes each of the protruding portions 15, 16 to expand and contract, and a gas injector that provides power to the mechanism.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandgren (US 2011/0035119) in view of Piana et al. (US 2021/0241662).
Regarding claim 1, Sandgren discloses a vehicle (abstract) comprising: a
protruding portion provided on a top portion of a vehicle body (122b in Fig. 3; [0049]).
Sandgren does not explicitly disclose a solar panel provided on a top portion of a
vehicle body.
Piana discloses a vehicle comprising: a solar panel provided on a top portion of a vehicle body (12 in Fig. 1; [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a solar panel, as disclosed by Piana, on a top portion of the vehicle body of Sandgren, because as taught by Piana, solar panels may be positioned on the top of a trailer to power the vehicle and/or the video displays used in the vehicle ([0015]).
Modified Sandgren discloses the protruding portion provided forward (Sandgren – 122b in Fig. 3) of the solar panel on the vehicle body (Piana - 12 in Fig. 1).
While Sandgren does disclose examples of shapes and sizes of eddy disrupter elements which may be employed with the invention, and further discloses that it should be readily apparent that the size, shape, amount and position of the eddy disrupters may vary ([0055]; Fig. 7); modified Sandgren does not explicitly disclose the protruding portion has an apex and a pair of outer edges in a shape in top view, the apex is located at a foremost position of the protruding portion in a front-rear direction of the vehicle body and the pair of outer edges extend from the apex and separate from each other toward a rear side of the vehicle body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the eddy disrupter elements of Sandgren such that the protruding portion has an apex and a pair of outer edges in a shape in top view, the apex is located at a foremost position of the protruding portion in a front-rear direction of the vehicle body and the pair of outer edges extend from the apex and separate from each other toward a rear side of the vehicle body, because Sandgren discloses examples of shapes and sizes of eddy disrupter elements which may be employed with the invention, and further discloses that it should be readily apparent that the size, shape, amount and position of the eddy disrupters may vary ([0055]; Fig. 7).
Such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 2, modified Sandgren discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sandgren further discloses a height of the protruding portion (Sandgren - height of 122b in Fig. 3) is higher than a height of the solar panel (Piana – 12 in Fig. 1). It is noted that if the depictions of Figures 3 of Sandgren and Figure 1 of Piana do not explicitly disclose a height of the protruding portion is higher than a height of the solar panel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the protruding portion of modified Sandgren with a height that is higher than that of the solar panel because such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sandgren discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sandgren further discloses a moving mechanism configured to move the protruding portion (Sandgren - [0050]), wherein the moving mechanism positions the protruding portion onto the top portion of the vehicle body (Sandgren – 122b in Fig. 3; [0050]).
With regard to the recitation “in a case where the solar panel is generating electric power and a temperature of the solar panel is equal to or higher than a predetermined temperature,” the limitation is directed to the manner in which the apparatus is intended to be used and it is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115.
Regarding claim 6, modified Sandgren discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Sandgren does disclose examples of shapes and sizes of eddy disrupter elements which may be employed with the invention, and further discloses that it should be readily apparent that the size, shape, amount and position of the eddy disrupters may vary ([0055]; Fig. 7); modified Sandgren does not explicitly disclose the protruding portion has, in the shape in top view, a triangular front portion including the apex and a quadrangular rear portion continuous with a rear side of the triangular front portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the eddy disrupter elements of Sandgren such that the protruding portion has, in the shape in top view, a triangular front portion including the apex and a quadrangular rear portion continuous with a rear side of the triangular front portion, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sandgren discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Sandgren does disclose examples of shapes and sizes of eddy disrupter elements which may be employed with the invention, and further discloses that it should be readily apparent that the size, shape, amount and position of the eddy disrupters may vary ([0055]; Fig. 7); modified Sandgren does not explicitly disclose the protruding portion has a triangular shape defined by the apex and the outer edges in the shape in the top view, and has, in a shape in side view, a triangular shape having a height that decreases toward a front side of the vehicle body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the eddy disrupter elements of Sandgren such that the protruding portion has, in the shape in top view, a triangular front portion including the apex and a quadrangular rear portion continuous with a rear side of the triangular front portion, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sandgren discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Sandgren does disclose examples of shapes and sizes of eddy disrupter elements which may be employed with the invention, and further discloses that it should be readily apparent that the size, shape, amount and position of the eddy disrupters may vary ([0055]; Fig. 7); modified Sandgren does not explicitly disclose the protruding portion has a triangular shape defined by the apex and the outer edges in the shape in top view, and has a quadrangular shape in a shape in side view.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the eddy disrupter elements of Sandgren such that the protruding portion has a triangular shape defined by the apex and the outer edges in the shape in top view, and has a quadrangular shape in a shape in side view, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 9, modified Sandgren discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above.
While Sandgren does disclose examples of shapes and sizes of eddy disrupter elements which may be employed with the invention, and further discloses that it should be readily apparent that the size, shape, amount and position of the eddy disrupters may vary ([0055]; Fig. 7); modified Sandgren does not explicitly disclose the protruding portion has, in both the shape in top view and a shape in side view, a triangular shape having an apex on a front side of the vehicle body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the eddy disrupter elements of Sandgren such that the protruding portion has, in both the shape in top view and a shape in side view, a triangular shape having an apex on a front side of the vehicle body, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Perlman et al. (US 2003/0095041 A1) discloses a vehicle comprising a solar panel provided on a top portion of a vehicle body (910 and 915 on 905 in Fig. 9; [0111]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues Sandgren does not teach or suggest the features “the protruding portion has an apex and a pair of outer edges in a shape in top view, the apex is located at a foremost position of the protruding portion in a front-rear direction of the vehicle body and the pair of outer edges that extend from the apex and separate from each other toward a rear side of the vehicle body.”
In response to Applicant’s argument, paragraph [0055] of Sandgren discloses
Fig. 7 illustrates, among other things, examples of shapes and sizes of eddy disrupter elements which may be employed with the invention. Paragraph [0055] of Sandgren further discloses that it should be readily apparent that the size, shape, amount and position of the eddy disrupters may vary.
Based on the teachings of Sandgren, specifically the teachings of paragraph [0055] and Figure 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the shape of the eddy disrupter elements of Sandgren such that the protruding portion has an apex and a pair of outer edges in a shape in top view, the apex is located at a foremost position of the protruding portion in a front-rear direction of the vehicle body and the pair of outer edges extend from the apex and separate from each other toward a rear side of the vehicle body, because such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 6-9 have been considered but are moot because the remaining arguments are not directed to the current rejection(s).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMIR AYAD whose telephone number is (313) 446-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/TAMIR AYAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights