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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 3, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed March 3, 2026 has been entered with the RCE filed on the same day. Claims 21, 22, 27, 33, and 34 are presently amended. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 21-40 are pending in the application. Claims 21, 27, and 34 are the independent claims.
The applicant’s Remarks, filed March 3, 2026, has been fully considered. The applicant argues, under the heading “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §102,” that Bennemann (DE10 2020 213261 A1) does not anticipate the independent claims as the examiner argued in the last detailed action, which was the Final Rejection dated September 3, 2025. The applicant argues that the current independent claims 21, 27, and 34 teach converting between three distinct configurations, each optimized for a specific operational role. These include a first configuration, as recited in claim 21,
a first configuration optimized for operating as a lead vehicle in a platoon,
a second configuration optimized for operating as a following vehicle in a platoon, and
a third configuration optimized for operating as a solitary traveling vehicle;
The examiner respectfully does not find the argument that Bennemann does not teach this persuasive.
In the Agenda the applicant cited paragraphs 0062-0064 of the filed specification (which has the same paragraph numbering as the published specification) as providing support for the present amendments. Paragraph 0062 teaches that “aerodynamic aids” can be used that “optimize the airflow for the convoy mode.” Paragraph 0063 gives examples, such as a good that deploys or slides, a “cone” that can be “dynamically reconfigured depending on vehicular speed and weather conditions.” This sounds less like a static configuration based on vehicle position and more like a real-time continuously adjusting system.
Paragraph 0064 teaches that “This aerodynamic design may be to specifically function as a lead vehicle 1710, specifically function as a following vehicle 1720, or an optimized combination of the two. It may also be adjustable in some way, either automatically or manually, to convert between optimized configurations to be a lead vehicle, a following vehicle, or both, or to be optimized for solitary travel.” That is the paragraph in its entirety.
The examiner is a bit skeptical that paragraph 0064 really teaches that there is a single specific configuration that is the one best configuration for operating as a lead vehicle versus a following vehicle. Rather, a vehicle may realize that it is the lead vehicle and then be commanded to adjust its fairings to specifically function in the optimized way when that vehicle is in that position.
How does this relate to Bennemann? On page 4 when Bennemann discuses that vehicles can adjust their adaptive spoilers or, in some cases, the vehicles can just change their “sequence.” This teaching seems to explicitly build on the teaching of Reiff (DE102016010293A1) summarized on page 2 of Bennemann in which vehicles fairings are adjusted depending on their order “leading, in the middle, at the end”. Bennemann is just adding to that by teaching that, yes, the fairings can be adjusted based on the order and furthermore, the efficiency of the entire convoy can be considered. The discussion of Bennemann about adjusting fairings and about adjusting the order of the vehicles reasonably means that the system of Bennemann is doing basically the same thing as Reiff, except additionally making those adjustments based on what is best for the entire convoy’s fuel efficiency. So in Bennemann, as in Reiff, there are configurations that are used depending on if the vehicle is “leading” or following.
In the examiner’s view, that means that Bennemann teaches, as claim 21 now does, at least:
a first configuration optimized for operating as a lead vehicle in a platoon,
a second configuration optimized for operating as a following vehicle in a platoon,
The examiner also notes that while the phrase in the Bennemann disclosure of “a position of the motor vehicle in the column (leading, in the middle, at the end)” was recited to summarize Reiff, Bennemann later recites on page 5 “a position of the vehicle in the vehicle convoy”. The same page recites having a particular vehicle with a particular performance “at the front of the vehicle column.” Thus, it is reasonable to interpret Bennemann as considering a front vehicle and a following vehicle.
Does Bennemann teach a configuration that is optimized for a solitary vehicle that is not traveling in a convoy? It seems to the examiner that it would be hard to believe that a system that adjusts the fairings of a vehicle when it enters a convoy in order to maximize efficiency, does not also recognize that a vehicle is not in a convoy and then command it to adjust its fairings for efficiency in that situation as well. But that does not mean that such a teaching is explicitly in Bennemann. But the examiner finds that this teaching is in Bennemann.
As mentioned in the last detailed action, page 5 of Bennemann teaches that a vehicle can adjust its adaptive spoiler individually “without being merged into a platoon”. It would be unreasonable to think that this adjustment is for increasing fuel consumption. Rather, this adjustment is obviously for increasing efficiency. See page 2 for an operating parameter “before operation of the vehicle convoy”. See page 3 for determining that in some cases “no change in the aerodynamic properties of a vehicle needs to be made” when joining a convoy.
Page 7 of Bennemann also teaches that the system can integrate into a platoon “known vehicles of a given form”. See page 3 for teaching adjusting the overall airflow of a convoy be determining the air flow values measured “before operation of the vehicle convoy based on the (changed and/or set) operating parameter”. An “operating parameter,” according to page 3 can be something that “causes a change in and in particular a reduction in the overall flow resistance of the vehicle”. A reasonable interpretation of this section is that the system determines the best fairing settings “before” the vehicle joins a caravan, records that number, and then adjusts the fairings after the vehicle joins the convoy.
The applicant further argues that “B. Bennemann Teaches Aware from Per-Role Optimization.” In support of this argument the applicant quotes a one-sentence paragraph (which is in the middle of page 2 of the English translation). The paragraph is not the clearest one the examiner has ever encountered, but it seems to either be stating that the prior art related to configuring vehicles in a platoon for aerodynamic purposes teaches that the optimization is “only related to the individual vehicle,” implying that the aerodynamics and fuel savings of the entire platoon is not considered in the prior art. This would not teach away from configuring vehicles into one of three configurations because such configuring could either still be based on individual fuel savings or be based on collective fuel savings. The other interpretation of this paragraph of Bennemann is that there could be more than one type of vehicle in the platoon, such as a truck and a car, and that the prior art only considers optimizing platoons with all one type of vehicle. This would also not teach away from the present claims either in the examiner’s view. This is a less likely interpretation because Bennemann page 6 teaches that various types of vehicles can be in a single platoon even though “preferably” a platoon is made up of all the same type of vehicle.
When looking for more context for this paragraph, one finds the previous paragraph which cites the prior art of Reiff (DE102016010293A1) that teaches that adjusting an aerodynamic element of a vehicle “depending on a position of the motor vehicle in the column (leading, in the middle, at the end)”. This seems to explicitly teach the present claim.
Based on this context, it seems that what the one-sentence paragraph of Bennemann is teaching is that even in this prior art that teaches adjusting the aerodynamics of a vehicle based on its position in a platoon, that art is still based on what is best for the vehicle and not necessarily what is best for the entire platoon and the fuel efficiency of the entire platoon. That is why Bennemann teaches at the top of page 3 that the present invention is related to using a flow sensor to determine “the total flow resistance of the vehicle convoy” and adjusting the individual aerodynamic elements on each vehicle to reduce this total flow resistance.
Therefore, the examiner does not agree that the cited paragraph in Bennemann teaches away from the present claims.
The applicant further argues in the Remarks that “C. Bennemann Fails to Disclose a Computerized Convoying Controller Directing Conversion Between Configurations”. The applicant states on page 10 of the Remarks that “Bennemann’s control system (10) determines operating parameters for colony-wide flow resistance optimization using flow sensor data and AI/ML algorithms. It does not ‘direct the conversion’ of aerodynamic accessories ‘between the first configuration, the second configuration, and the third configuration based on a determined convoy status.’” Rather, the applicant argues “Bennemann’s system optimizes continuously—it does not determine a convoy status (lead, following, or solitary) and then direct the aerodynamic aids to convert to a corresponding pre-defined configuration.”
The idea of “continuous” optimization does not seem as rigidly required in Bennemann as the applicant seems to imply, nor does the present disclosure seem to exclude such real-time adjustments to vehicle fairings. Paragraph 0063 of the present filed specification, for example, which the applicant has cited in the Remarks for support for the present amendments, teaches that aerodynamics elements can be “dynamically reconfigured.” But it seems to the examiner that if Reiff, cited on page 2 of Bennemann teaches that the “outer shell of a motor vehicle” can “be changed depending on a position of the motor vehicle in the column (leading, in the middle, at the end),” and Bennemann teaches a system that can command aerodynamic fairings to be adjusted based on the entire aerodynamic flow, then the disclosure of Bennemann, which includes a summary of the teachings of Reiff, teaches at least the beginning of present claim 1, which teaches three configurations based on three vehicle positions, front, following, and solitary.
This interpretation is supported by Bennemann page 4 which teaches that to optimize efficiency of the convey operating parameters such as “an aerodynamic property of a vehicle” including its “adaptive spoilers” and its “sequence or arrangement of the vehicle convoy” can be taken into consideration. Thus, reasonably, a vehicle with a particular “adaptive spoilers and/or a vehicle body [shape]” can be selected to lead or follow. In some cases, as taught lower down on page 4 “no change in the aerodynamic properties of a vehicle needs to be made but on a sequence…in the vehicle convoy, in particular depending on the vehicle and / or structure” needs to be made. “In this way, either an (optimal) position in the convoy without changing the contour of the vehicle or the like can be determined”. So in some cases, the fairings are adjusted and the vehicles put into a specific order and in some cases the vehicles are put into a specific order without adjusting their fairings.
In terms of a controller commanding these configurations, this relates to the last clause of present claim 21 which recites:
a connector configured to allow connection to a computerized convoying controller, the computerized convoying controller configured to direct the conversion of the one or more accessories between the first configuration, the second configuration, and the third configuration based on a determined convoy status of the tractor trailer truck.
This clause is discussed in the present disclosure in Fig. 13 and paragraph 0045 that teaches that a control box 1230 can, “via connection (a), typically a CAN interface,” be connected to various sensors and actuators. The examiner does not see why the rejection of claim 22 in the last detailed action, which is substantially similar to the above-quoted clause of present claim 21 did not teaching the limitations. The examiner continues to believe that Bennemann teaches these limitations as indicated by the rejection of claim 22 in the last detailed action.
Please see the rejections below.
Information Disclosure Statement Missing
Foreign references have been filed with the present application by the applicant but no information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed, so far as the applicant can tell.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 27 and 34, along with their dependents, claims 28-22 and 25-40, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 27 recites:
A method for optimizing the airflow over a first vehicle while the first vehicle is engaged in a convoy with a second vehicle, comprising:
determining, by a computerized convoying controller, the convoy status of the first vehicle to be one of: a lead vehicle in a platoon, a following vehicle in a platoon, or a solitary traveling vehicle; and
adjusting, by the computerized convoying controller, an adjustable aerodynamic aid to a configuration corresponding to the determined convoy status,
the configuration selected from a first configuration optimized for operating as the lead vehicle in the platoon, a second configuration optimized for operating as the following vehicle in the platoon, and a third configuration optimized for operating as the solitary traveling vehicle.
Claim 34 recites:
A system for managing a platoonable tractor trailer truck comprising:
one or more aerodynamic aids for optimizing airflow that include one or more accessories on the top, bottom, sides, front, and back of the tractor trailer truck;
a computer processor; and a platoon control module executing on the computer processor and configured to enable the computer processor to:
determine the convoy status of the tractor trailer truck to be one of: a lead vehicle in a platoon, a following vehicle in a platoon, or a solitary traveling vehicle; and
adjust the one or more aerodynamic aids to convert to a configuration corresponding to the determined convoy status,
the configuration selected from a first configuration optimized for operating as the lead vehicle in the platoon, a second configuration optimized for operating as the following vehicle in the platoon, and a third configuration optimized for operating as the solitary traveling vehicle.
Both claims recites “the configuration selected from”. This makes it sound like there are three specific configurations that the system selects from. That does not have written description and is new matter. Paragraph 0064 in the present disclosure, which is the closest the spec comes to teaching this as far as the examiner can tell, teaches that an aerodynamic fairing, such as a cone, can be adjusted to function as a lead vehicle, or a following vehicle, or the system can be configured to operate for solitary travel. It seems to the examiner that depending on what fairings a vehicle has, those can be adjusted depending on if the vehicle is in the lead, a follower, or solitary traveling. But there are not three specific configurations that are set in stone, so to speak. Rather, the fairings are “adjustable in some way” so that the vehicle can “be a lead vehicle” or following vehicle, or solitary vehicle.
For examination purposes, the claims will be interpreted as follows, with the examiner’s double-strike throughs in bold:
adjust the one or more aerodynamic aids to convert to a configuration corresponding to the determined convoy status,
the configuration optimized for operating as the lead vehicle in the platoon, optimized for operating as the following vehicle in the platoon, and optimized for operating as the solitary traveling vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 21-23, 27, 30, and 32-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bennemann (DE10 2020 213261 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Bennemann discloses:
An aerodynamic aid for optimizing airflow over a tractor trailer truck comprising (see Fig. 2 and page 7 of the attached English translation for “a control system 10” that is being used on a tractor trailer as seen in Fig. 2.):
one or more accessories on one or more of:
the top, bottom, sides, front, and back of the tractor trailer truck (see page 4 for “it can be helpful that adaptive spoilers of the individual vehicles have to be turned on in relation to the optimization of the entire flow guidance in the vehicle convoy”. See page 5 for a vehicle “switching on the spoiler is advantageous for the overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy”. The paragraph goes on to say that in some cases, for another vehicle, “the convoy effect is negative (from the individual point of view of the vehicle) because this individual vehicle has to spend more energy hiring the spoiler compared to a trip outside the vehicle convoy.” This paragraph teaches an adaptive spoiler that is adjusted for the “overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy”. And furthermore, the paragraph teaches that the vehicle can adjust its adaptive spoiler individually without being part of a convoy and determine if doing so will improve fuel consumption. See the top of page 2 for “in real time…a vehicle shape, an aerodynamic property of a vehicle, for example…a vehicle shape and/or spoilers and/or a vehicle body….can be set and/or changed.”);
[[ and]] said one or more accessories being adjustable to convert between (see page 2 for air flow sensors used to permit “an aerodynamic property of the vehicle” to “be changed.” And the “outer shell of a motor vehicle” can “be changed depending on a position of the motor vehicle in the column (leading, in the middle, at the end)”.)
a first configuration optimized for operating as a lead vehicle in a platoon, a second configuration optimized for operating as a following vehicle in a platoon, and a third configuration optimized for operating as a solitary traveling vehicle (see page 2 for the “outer shell of a motor vehicle” can “be changed depending on a position of the motor vehicle in the column (leading, in the middle, at the end)”. See page 4 when Bennemann discuses that vehicles can adjust their adaptive spoilers or, in some cases, the vehicles can just change their “sequence.” See page 2 for Bennemann building on the prior art and teaching that vehicles fairings are adjusted depending on their order “leading, in the middle, at the end”. Bennemann later recites on page 5 that the system considers “a position of the vehicle in the vehicle convoy”. The same page recites having a particular vehicle with a particular performance “at the front of the vehicle column.” Thus, it is reasonable to interpret Bennemann as considering a front vehicle and a following vehicle. Page 5 of Bennemann teaches that a vehicle can adjust its adaptive spoiler individually “without being merged into a platoon”. See page 2 for an operating parameter “before operation of the vehicle convoy”. See page 3 for determining that in some cases “no change in the aerodynamic properties of a vehicle needs to be made” when joining a convoy. Page 7 of Bennemann also teaches that the system can integrate into a platoon “known vehicles of a given form”. See page 3 for teaching adjusting the overall airflow of a convoy be determining the air flow values measured “before operation of the vehicle convoy based on the (changed and/or set) operating parameter”. An “operating parameter,” according to page 3 can be something that “causes a change in and in particular a reduction in the overall flow resistance of the vehicle”. A reasonable interpretation of this section is that the system determines the best fairing settings “before” the vehicle joins a caravan, records that number, and then adjusts the fairings after the vehicle joins the convoy. See Bennemann page 4 which teaches that to optimize efficiency of the convey operating parameters such as “an aerodynamic property of a vehicle” including its “adaptive spoilers” and its “sequence or arrangement of the vehicle convoy” can be taken into consideration. Thus, reasonably, a vehicle with a particular “adaptive spoilers and/or a vehicle body [shape]” can be selected to lead or follow. In some cases, as taught lower down on page 4 “no change in the aerodynamic properties of a vehicle needs to be made but on a sequence…in the vehicle convoy, in particular depending on the vehicle and / or structure” needs to be made. “In this way, either an (optimal) position in the convoy without changing the contour of the vehicle or the like can be determined”. So in some cases, the fairings are adjusted and the vehicles put into a specific order and in some cases the vehicles are put into a specific order without adjusting their fairings.); and
a connector configured to allow connection to a computerized convoying controller, the computerized convoying controller configured to direct the conversion of the one or more accessories between the first configuration, the second configuration, and the third configuration based on a determined convoy status of the tractor trailer truck (see Fig. 2 and page 7 for “a control system 10” in which the vehicles of the convoy use “communication device 2 to transmit” various sensor data. See Fig. 2 and page 7 for “a control system 10” in which the vehicles of the convoy use “communication device 2 to transmit” various sensor data. The “control system 10, which can be arranged in a vehicle or outside the vehicle (externally), can determine an operating parameter for operating the vehicle convoy, through which the fuel consumption efficiency of the entire convoy can be increased.” Operating parameters can include the position of the vehicle in the convoy. Items 2 and 10 are shown in Fig. 2. See page 6 for the invention “executed by a processor device” with a “computer program” and is “stored”. See page 4 for the “deliberately reducing the speed of the convoy of vehicles”. See page 4 for “a speed” of a vehicle can be “changed.” See page 4 for “The operating parameter is preferably selected from a group which includes a setting of a vehicle….speed, vehicle spacing”. See also Fig. 2 items 2 and 10.).
Regarding claim 22, Bennemann discloses the aerodynamic aid of Claim 21.
Bennemann further discloses:
The aerodynamic aid of Claim 21, wherein:
the computerized convoying controller is further configured to be coupled to one or more electronic control units (ECUs) and configured to monitor and control acceleration and deceleration of the tractor trailer truck (see page 6 for the invention “executed by a processor device” with a “computer program” and is “stored”. See page 4 for the “deliberately reducing the speed of the convoy of vehicles”. See page 4 for “a speed” of a vehicle can be “changed.” See page 4 for “The operating parameter is preferably selected from a group which includes a setting of a vehicle….speed, vehicle spacing”. See also Fig. 2 items 2 and 10).
Regarding claim 23, Bennemann discloses the aerodynamic aid of Claim 21.
Bennemann further discloses:
The aerodynamic aid of Claim 21, wherein:
the aerodynamic aid can be adjusted to optimize airflow over the tractor trailer truck while following in a platoon (see page 4 for “it can be helpful that adaptive spoilers of the individual vehicles have to be turned on in relation to the optimization of the entire flow guidance in the vehicle convoy”. See page 5 for a vehicle “switching on the spoiler is advantageous for the overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy”.).
Regarding claim 27, Bennemann discloses:
A method for optimizing the airflow over a first vehicle while the first vehicle is engaged in a convoy with a second vehicle, comprising (see Fig. 2 for a convoy):
determining, by a computerized convoying controller, the convoy status of the first vehicle to be one of (see page 2 for air flow sensors used to permit “an aerodynamic property of the vehicle” to “be changed.” And the “outer shell of a motor vehicle” can “be changed depending on a position of the motor vehicle in the column (leading, in the middle, at the end)”.):
a lead vehicle in a platoon, a following vehicle in a platoon, or a solitary traveling vehicle (see page 2 for the “outer shell of a motor vehicle” can “be changed depending on a position of the motor vehicle in the column (leading, in the middle, at the end)”. See page 4 when Bennemann discuses that vehicles can adjust their adaptive spoilers or, in some cases, the vehicles can just change their “sequence.” See page 2 for Bennemann building on the prior art and teaching that vehicles fairings are adjusted depending on their order “leading, in the middle, at the end”. Bennemann later recites on page 5 that the system considers “a position of the vehicle in the vehicle convoy”. The same page recites having a particular vehicle with a particular performance “at the front of the vehicle column.” Thus, it is reasonable to interpret Bennemann as considering a front vehicle and a following vehicle. Page 5 of Bennemann teaches that a vehicle can adjust its adaptive spoiler individually “without being merged into a platoon”. See page 2 for an operating parameter “before operation of the vehicle convoy”. See page 3 for determining that in some cases “no change in the aerodynamic properties of a vehicle needs to be made” when joining a convoy. Page 7 of Bennemann also teaches that the system can integrate into a platoon “known vehicles of a given form”. See page 3 for teaching adjusting the overall airflow of a convoy be determining the air flow values measured “before operation of the vehicle convoy based on the (changed and/or set) operating parameter”. An “operating parameter,” according to page 3 can be something that “causes a change in and in particular a reduction in the overall flow resistance of the vehicle”. A reasonable interpretation of this section is that the system determines the best fairing settings “before” the vehicle joins a caravan, records that number, and then adjusts the fairings after the vehicle joins the convoy. See Bennemann page 4 which teaches that to optimize efficiency of the convey operating parameters such as “an aerodynamic property of a vehicle” including its “adaptive spoilers” and its “sequence or arrangement of the vehicle convoy” can be taken into consideration. Thus, reasonably, a vehicle with a particular “adaptive spoilers and/or a vehicle body [shape]” can be selected to lead or follow. In some cases, as taught lower down on page 4 “no change in the aerodynamic properties of a vehicle needs to be made but on a sequence…in the vehicle convoy, in particular depending on the vehicle and / or structure” needs to be made. “In this way, either an (optimal) position in the convoy without changing the contour of the vehicle or the like can be determined”. So in some cases, the fairings are adjusted and the vehicles put into a specific order and in some cases the vehicles are put into a specific order without adjusting their fairings.); and
adjusting, by the computerized convoying controller, an adjustable aerodynamic aid to a configuration corresponding to the determined convoy status (see page 2 for air flow sensors used to permit “an aerodynamic property of the vehicle” to “be changed.” And the “outer shell of a motor vehicle” can “be changed depending on a position of the motor vehicle in the column (leading, in the middle, at the end)”.),
the configuration selected from a first configuration optimized for operating as the lead vehicle in the platoon, a second configuration optimized for operating as the following vehicle in the platoon, and a third configuration optimized for operating as the solitary traveling vehicle (see page 2 for air flow sensors used to permit “an aerodynamic property of the vehicle” to “be changed.” And the “outer shell of a motor vehicle” can “be changed depending on a position of the motor vehicle in the column (leading, in the middle, at the end)”. See Page 5 which teaches that a vehicle can adjust its adaptive spoiler individually “without being merged into a platoon”.).
Regarding claim 30, Bennemann discloses the method of Claim 27.
Bennemann further discloses:
The method of claim 27, wherein
the first vehicle is a tractor trailer truck (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 32, Bennemann discloses the method of Claim 27.
Bennemann further discloses:
The method of Claim 27, wherein
the step of adjusting the adjustable aerodynamic aid optimizes the convoy fuel economy for operating in a convoy (see page 4 for “it can be helpful that adaptive spoilers of the individual vehicles have to be turned on in relation to the optimization of the entire flow guidance in the vehicle convoy”. See page 5 for a vehicle “switching on the spoiler is advantageous for the overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy”.).
Regarding claim 33, Bennemann discloses the method of Claim 27.
Bennemann further discloses:
The method of Claim 27, wherein
the computerized convoying controller is further configured to be coupled to one or more electronic control units (ECUs) and configured to monitor and control acceleration and deceleration of the first vehicle while in a platoon (see page 6 for the invention “executed by a processor device” with a “computer program” and is “stored”. See page 4 for the “deliberately reducing the speed of the convoy of vehicles”. See page 4 for “a speed” of a vehicle can be “changed.” See page 4 for “The operating parameter is preferably selected from a group which includes a setting of a vehicle….speed, vehicle spacing”. See also Fig. 2 items 2 and 10).
Regarding claim 34, Bennemann discloses:
A system for managing a platoonable tractor trailer truck comprising (see Fig. 2 and page 7 of the attached English translation for “a control system 10” that is being used on a tractor trailer as seen in Fig. 2.):
one or more aerodynamic aids for optimizing airflow that include one or more accessories on the top, bottom, sides, front, and back of the tractor trailer truck (see page 2 for air flow sensors used to permit “an aerodynamic property of the vehicle” to “be changed.” And the “outer shell of a motor vehicle” can “be changed depending on a position of the motor vehicle in the column (leading, in the middle, at the end)”.);
a computer processor (see page 4 for “it can be helpful that adaptive spoilers of the individual vehicles have to be turned on in relation to the optimization of the entire flow guidance in the vehicle convoy”. See page 5 for a vehicle “switching on the spoiler is advantageous for the overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy”. The paragraph goes on to say that in some cases, for another vehicle, “the convoy effect is negative (from the individual point of view of the vehicle) because this individual vehicle has to spend more energy hiring the spoiler compared to a trip outside the vehicle convoy.” This paragraph teaches an adaptive spoiler that is adjusted for the “overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy”. And furthermore, the paragraph teaches that the vehicle can adjust its adaptive spoiler individually without being part of a convoy and determine if doing so will improve fuel consumption. See the top of page 2 for “in real time…a vehicle shape, an aerodynamic property of a vehicle, for example…a vehicle shape and/or spoilers and/or a vehicle body….can be set and/or changed.”); and
a platoon control module executing on the computer processor and configured to enable the computer processor to (see page 6 for the invention “executed by a processor device” with a “computer program” and is “stored”. See page 4 for the “deliberately reducing the speed of the convoy of vehicles”. See page 4 for “a speed” of a vehicle can be “changed.” See page 4 for “The operating parameter is preferably selected from a group which includes a setting of a vehicle….speed, vehicle spacing”. See also Fig. 2 items 2 and 10):
determine the convoy status of the tractor trailer truck to be one of: a lead vehicle in a platoon, a following vehicle in a platoon, or a solitary traveling vehicle (see page 2 for air flow sensors used to permit “an aerodynamic property of the vehicle” to “be changed.” And the “outer shell of a motor vehicle” can “be changed depending on a position of the motor vehicle in the column (leading, in the middle, at the end)”. See page 5 for a vehicle “switching on the spoiler is advantageous for the overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy”. The paragraph goes on to say that in some cases, for another vehicle, “the convoy effect is negative (from the individual point of view of the vehicle) because this individual vehicle has to spend more energy hiring the spoiler compared to a trip outside the vehicle convoy.” This paragraph teaches an adaptive spoiler that is adjusted for the “overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy”. And furthermore, the paragraph teaches that the vehicle can adjust its adaptive spoiler individually without being part of a convoy and determine if doing so will improve fuel consumption. See the top of page 2 for “in real time…a vehicle shape, an aerodynamic property of a vehicle, for example…a vehicle shape and/or spoilers and/or a vehicle body….can be set and/or changed.” See Fig. 3 for the teachings applying to trucks.); and
adjust the one or more aerodynamic aids to convert to a configuration corresponding to the determined convoy status, the configuration selected from a first configuration optimized for operating as the lead vehicle in the platoon, a second configuration optimized for operating as the following vehicle in the platoon, and a third configuration optimized for operating as the solitary traveling vehicle (see page 2 for the “outer shell of a motor vehicle” can “be changed depending on a position of the motor vehicle in the column (leading, in the middle, at the end)”. See page 4 when Bennemann discuses that vehicles can adjust their adaptive spoilers or, in some cases, the vehicles can just change their “sequence.” See page 2 for Bennemann building on the prior art and teaching that vehicles fairings are adjusted depending on their order “leading, in the middle, at the end”. Bennemann later recites on page 5 that the system considers “a position of the vehicle in the vehicle convoy”. The same page recites having a particular vehicle with a particular performance “at the front of the vehicle column.” Thus, it is reasonable to interpret Bennemann as considering a front vehicle and a following vehicle. Page 5 of Bennemann teaches that a vehicle can adjust its adaptive spoiler individually “without being merged into a platoon”. See page 2 for an operating parameter “before operation of the vehicle convoy”. See page 3 for determining that in some cases “no change in the aerodynamic properties of a vehicle needs to be made” when joining a convoy. Page 7 of Bennemann also teaches that the system can integrate into a platoon “known vehicles of a given form”. See page 3 for teaching adjusting the overall airflow of a convoy be determining the air flow values measured “before operation of the vehicle convoy based on the (changed and/or set) operating parameter”. An “operating parameter,” according to page 3 can be something that “causes a change in and in particular a reduction in the overall flow resistance of the vehicle”. A reasonable interpretation of this section is that the system determines the best fairing settings “before” the vehicle joins a caravan, records that number, and then adjusts the fairings after the vehicle joins the convoy. See Bennemann page 4 which teaches that to optimize efficiency of the convey operating parameters such as “an aerodynamic property of a vehicle” including its “adaptive spoilers” and its “sequence or arrangement of the vehicle convoy” can be taken into consideration. Thus, reasonably, a vehicle with a particular “adaptive spoilers and/or a vehicle body [shape]” can be selected to lead or follow. In some cases, as taught lower down on page 4 “no change in the aerodynamic properties of a vehicle needs to be made but on a sequence…in the vehicle convoy, in particular depending on the vehicle and / or structure” needs to be made. “In this way, either an (optimal) position in the convoy without changing the contour of the vehicle or the like can be determined”. So in some cases, the fairings are adjusted and the vehicles put into a specific order and in some cases the vehicles are put into a specific order without adjusting their fairings.).
Regarding claim 35, Bennemann discloses the system of Claim 34
Bennemann further discloses:
The system of Claim 34, wherein
the platoon control module is further configured to enable the computer processor to monitor and control acceleration and deceleration of the tractor trailer truck (see page 4 for the “deliberately reducing the speed of the convoy of vehicles”. See page 4 for “a speed” of a vehicle can be “changed.” See page 4 for “The operating parameter is preferably selected from a group which includes a setting of a vehicle….speed, vehicle spacing”. See also Fig. 2 items 2 and 10.).
Regarding claim 36, Bennemann discloses the system of Claim 34
Bennemann further discloses:
The system of Claim 34, wherein
one or more aerodynamic aids can be adjusted to optimize airflow over the tractor trailer truck while following in a platoon (see page 4 for “it can be helpful that adaptive spoilers of the individual vehicles have to be turned on in relation to the optimization of the entire flow guidance in the vehicle convoy”. See page 5 for a vehicle “switching on the spoiler is advantageous for the overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy”.).
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 24, 28, 29, 31, 37, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennemann in view of Wulf et al. (WO2019/068398 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Bennemann discloses the aerodynamic aid of Claim 23.
Yet Bennemann does not explicitly further disclose:
An aerodynamic aid, wherein:
the adjustable aid comprises: a hood that deploys by sliding forward from the roof of the tractor trailer truck.
However, Wulf teaches:
An aerodynamic aid, wherein:
the adjustable aid comprises: a hood that deploys by sliding forward from the roof of the tractor trailer truck (in the present published disclosure, Switkes et al. US2024/0126271 A1), paragraph 0063 teaches that “a hood may deploy, e.g., slide forward, from the roof of the follower vehicle.” No drawings are provided. That is as much written description as the present claim has, which is enough. With that in mind, see Wulf, Fig. 5b (attached below), for a roof spoiler, item 72, and an adjustable angle, δ. See page 3 of the attached English translation for “the wind effect variable” being “composed of a prevailing vehicle speed-dependent wind” and used for “adjustment of the air control systems”. See Fig. 7 and page 7 for the “adjustment angles δ” being adjusted “as a function of the wind conditions”. See claims 1-3. In claim 3, the adjustment angle δ of the air control system, including roof spoiler 72 is a “function” of a wind action variable WR and vW. In claim 4, which depends on 3, the wind action variables are “characterized” by a prevailing vehicle speed dependent wind. The overall disclosure of Wulf teaches tractor trailers with a plurality of adjustable spoilers adjusted from a centralized server for efficient driving in a convoy. This is very close and combinable with Bennemann.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Bennemann, to add the additional features of the adjustable aid comprises: a hood that deploys by sliding forward from the roof of the tractor trailer truck, as taught by Wulf. The motivation for doing so would be to “ensure safe and fuel-efficient operation of the own vehicle and the ot her vehicles in the convoy column, as recognized by Wulf (see page 2).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
This combination is especially obvious because Bennemann at least strongly teaches toward it. See page 5 for “switching on the spoiler” being “advantageous for the overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy” and especially for a vehicle “if it is moving in the slipstream of another vehicle in the convoy”.
PNG
media_image1.png
267
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 – Fig. 5b of Wulf
Regarding claim 28, Bennemann discloses the method of Claim 27.
Bennemann further discloses:
The method of Claim 27, wherein
the adjustable aerodynamic aid is a hood deployed on top of the front portion of the first vehicle (see page 4 for “it can be helpful that adaptive spoilers of the individual vehicles have to be turned on in relation to the optimization of the entire flow guidance in the vehicle convoy”. See page 5 for a vehicle “switching on the spoiler is advantageous for the overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy”. The paragraph goes on to say that in some cases, for another vehicle, “the convoy effect is negative (from the individual point of view of the vehicle) because this individual vehicle has to spend more energy hiring the spoiler compared to a trip outside the vehicle convoy.” This paragraph teaches an adaptive spoiler that is adjusted for the “overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy”. And furthermore, the paragraph teaches that the vehicle can adjust its adaptive spoiler individually without being part of a convoy and determine if doing so will improve fuel consumption. See the top of page 2 for “in real time…a vehicle shape, an aerodynamic property of a vehicle, for example…a vehicle shape and/or spoilers and/or a vehicle body….can be set and/or changed.”).
Yet Bennemann does not explicitly further teach:
the step of adjusting the settings comprises sliding the adjustable aerodynamic aid forward.
However, Wulf teaches:
the step of adjusting the settings comprises sliding the adjustable aerodynamic aid forward (see Wulf, Fig. 5b (attached below), for a roof spoiler, item 72, and an adjustable angle, δ. See page 3 of the attached English translation for “the wind effect variable” being “composed of a prevailing vehicle speed-dependent wind” and used for “adjustment of the air control systems”. See Fig. 7 and page 7 for the “adjustment angles δ” being adjusted “as a function of the wind conditions”. See claims 1-3. In claim 3, the adjustment angle δ of the air control system, including roof spoiler 72 is a “function” of a wind action variable WR and vW. In claim 4, which depends on 3, the wind action variables are “characterized” by a prevailing vehicle speed dependent wind. The overall disclosure of Wulf teaches tractor trailers with a plurality of adjustable spoilers adjusted from a centralized server for efficient driving in a convoy.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Bennemann, to add the additional features of the step of adjusting the settings comprises sliding the adjustable aerodynamic aid forward, as taught by Wulf. The motivation for doing so would be to “ensure safe and fuel-efficient operation of the own vehicle and the ot her vehicles in the convoy column, as recognized by Wulf (see page 2).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
This combination is especially obvious because Bennemann at least strongly teaches toward it. See page 5 for “switching on the spoiler” being “advantageous for the overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy” and especially for a vehicle “if it is moving in the slipstream of another vehicle in the convoy”.
Regarding claim 29, Bennemann and Wulf teaches The method of Claim 28.
Bennemann further teaches:
The method claim 28, wherein
the degree to which the hood slides forward is related to vehicle speed, and adjusted to optimize the convoy fuel economy (see Wulf, Fig. 5b (attached below), for a roof spoiler, item 72, and an adjustable angle, δ. See page 3 of the attached English translation for “the wind effect variable” being “composed of a prevailing vehicle speed-dependent wind” and used for “adjustment of the air control systems”. See Fig. 7 and page 7 for the “adjustment angles δ” being adjusted “as a function of the wind conditions”. See claims 1-3. In claim 3, the adjustment angle δ of the air control system, including roof spoiler 72 is a “function” of a wind action variable WR and vW. In claim 4, which depends on 3, the wind action variables are “characterized” by a prevailing vehicle speed dependent wind. This is done in Wulf to “ensure safe and fuel-efficient operation of the own vehicle and the ot her vehicles in the convoy column.).
Regarding claim 31, Bennemann discloses the method of Claim 30.
Yet Bennemann does not further teach:
A method, wherein:
the adjustable aerodynamic aid is a set of trailer accessories on one or more of:
the top, bottom, sides, front, and back of the trailer of the first vehicle; and
the step of adjusting the settings of the adjustable aerodynamic aid comprises:
adjusting the positions of the set of trailer accessories.
However, Wulf teaches:
A method, wherein:
the adjustable aerodynamic aid is a set of trailer accessories on one or more of:
the top, bottom, sides, front, and back of the trailer of the first vehicle (see Fig. 5a and 5b for items 70-72); and
the step of adjusting the settings of the adjustable aerodynamic aid comprises:
adjusting the positions of the set of trailer accessories (see page 6 for adjusting the aerodynamic properties, including the items 70-72. See also claims 2-4.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Bennemann, to add the additional features of the adjustable aerodynamic aid is a set of trailer accessories on one or more of: the top, bottom, sides, front, and back of the trailer of the first vehicle; and the step of adjusting the settings of the adjustable aerodynamic aid comprises: adjusting the positions of the set of trailer accessories, as taught by Wulf. The motivation for doing so would be to “ensure safe and fuel-efficient operation of the own vehicle and the ot her vehicles in the convoy column, as recognized by Wulf (see page 2).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 37, the claim is substantially similar to claim 24. Please see the rejection for that claim.
Regarding claim 39, Bennemann discloses the system of Claim 37.
Bennemann further discloses:
The system of Claim 37, wherein
the degree to which the hood slides forward is related to truck speed to optimize the airflow for operating in a platoon (see page 4 for “it can be helpful that adaptive spoilers of the individual vehicles have to be turned on in relation to the optimization of the entire flow guidance in the vehicle convoy”. See page 5 for a vehicle “switching on the spoiler is advantageous for the overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy”. The paragraph goes on to say that in some cases, for another vehicle, “the convoy effect is negative (from the individual point of view of the vehicle) because this individual vehicle has to spend more energy hiring the spoiler compared to a trip outside the vehicle convoy.” This paragraph teaches an adaptive spoiler that is adjusted for the “overall energy consumption of the vehicle convoy”. And furthermore, the paragraph teaches that the vehicle can adjust its adaptive spoiler individually without being part of a convoy and determine if doing so will improve fuel consumption. See the top of page 2 for “in real time…a vehicle shape, an aerodynamic property of a vehicle, for example…a vehicle shape and/or spoilers and/or a vehicle body….can be set and/or changed.”).
Regarding claim 40, the claim is substantially similar to claim 29. Please see the rejection for that claim.
Claims 25 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennemann in view of Wulf in further view of Switkes (US2013/0041576 A1), hereinafter Switkes ‘576.
Regarding claim 25, Bennemann and Wulf teach the aerodynamic aid of Claim 24.
Yet Bennemann and Wulf do not further explicitly teach:
An aerodynamic aid, wherein
at least a portion of the hood is transparent, and
at least a portion of the hood has a textured surface that resembles an aerodynamic golf ball surface.
However, Switkes ‘576 teaches:
at least a portion of the hood is transparent, and
at least a portion of the hood has a textured surface that resembles an aerodynamic golf ball surface (see paragraph 0063 for both bullets).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Bennemann and Wulf, to add the additional features of at least a portion of the hood is transparent, and at least a portion of the hood has a textured surface that resembles an aerodynamic golf ball surface, as taught by Switkes. The motivation for doing so would be improve aerodynamics while maintaining visibility, as recognized by Switkes (see paragraph 0063).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 38, the claim is substantially similar to claim 25. Please see the rejection for that claim.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Reiff (DE102016010293A1) teaches adjusting spoilers depending on a vehicle’s position in a platoon.
Jornod et al. (US2021/0247777) teaches at least convoys with various aerodynamics in the front and trailing vehicles as well as a “truck driving alone.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665