DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to the Amendment to Application # 18/071,405 filed on January 30, 2026 in which claims 1, 10, 11, and 20 were amended.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 11 recites a method claim including the step “adjusting a driving force output of the vehicle from a percentage of the accelerator pedal when the accelerator pedal is depressed based on the towing pedal gain.” (Emphasis added).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require the adjusting to be performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, 2013-007847 (PTAB 2016) (precedential) where the board held that when method steps are to be carried out only upon the occurrence of a condition precedent, the broadest reasonable interpretation holds that those steps are not required to be performed. (id. at *7). See, e.g., Reactive Surfaces v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914 (PTAB 2018) (“[t]he use of ‘when’ instead of ‘if’ does not change whether the method step is conditional”) (citing Ex parte Kaundinya, No. 2016-000917, 2017 WL 5510012, at *5-6 (PTAB Nov. 14, 2017) ("when" may indicate a conditional method step); Ex parte Zhou, No. 2016-004913, 2017 WL 5171533, at *2 (PTAB Nov. 1, 2017) (same); Ex parte Lee, No. 2014-009364, 2017 WL 1101681, at *2 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2017) (same)).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Szwabowski et al., US Publication 2013/0197775 (hereinafter Szwabowski) in view of Dickinson, US 2009/0271078 (hereinafter Dickinson), as cited in the Information Disclosure Statement dated November 29, 2022, and in further view of Kamioka et al., US Publication 2016/0082977 (hereinafter Kamioka).
Regarding claim 1, Szwabowski discloses a trailer detection system for a vehicle, comprising “an electronic control unit (ECU)” (Szwabowski ¶ 25) wherein the ECU is configured to “determine the vehicle is operating in a tow mode” (Szwabowski ¶ 30) by detecting the presence of a vehicle load being towed by the vehicle, which is a “tow mode” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. Additionally, Szwabowski discloses “determine a towing road load of the vehicle …” (Szwabowski ¶ 26) by determining a road grade. The present specification defines “road load” to include “resistance to acceleration” (Spec. ¶ 19), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the grade of a road is a form of “resistance to acceleration.” Szwabowski discloses an additional “towing road load” in the form of an aerodynamic drag at ¶ 47. Further, Szwabowski discloses “determine pedal gain of the vehicle based on a pedal gain mapping that correlates a degree of the accelerator pedal of the vehicle that is depressed with a vehicle speed” (Szwabowski ¶ 31 and Fig. 6) by generating a pedal gain map as shown in Fig. 6. Moreover, Szwabowski discloses “interpolate the pedal gain based on the towing road load at the vehicle speed to determine a towing pedal gain that compensates for the towing road load” (Szwabowski ¶ 39) by using a pedal gain function to supplement the base driver demand torque based on the pedal gain mapping of Fig. 6 to compensate for road grade and load conditions. Finally, Szwabowski discloses “adjust a driving force output of the vehicle from a degree of the accelerator pedal when the accelerator pedal is depressed based on the towing pedal gain” (Szwabowski ¶ 39) by supplement the torque.
Although Szwabowski discloses the detecting of a towing mode, it does not appear to disclose the specific process used for such detection and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “an image sensor configured to detect a trailering load attached to the vehicle; and an electronic control unit (ECU) coupled to the image sensor and configured to: … determine a frontal area of the trailering load; determine a category of the trailering load based on the determined frontal area; determine a towing road load of the vehicle based on the determined category of the trailering load.” Additionally, Szwabowski discloses the use of degrees in the pedal gain mapping and not percentages. Thus, Szwabowski does not appear to explicitly disclose “determine pedal gain of the vehicle based on a pedal gain mapping that correlates a percentage of the accelerator pedal of the vehicle that is depressed with a vehicle speed” or “adjust a driving force output of the vehicle from a percentage of the accelerator pedal when the accelerator pedal is depressed based on the towing pedal gain.”
However, Dickinson discloses a trailer detection system for a vehicle, comprising “an image sensor configured to detect a trailering load attached to the vehicle” (Dickinson ¶ 19) where “camara 20” is an image sensor. Additionally, Dickinson discloses “an electronic control unit (ECU) coupled to the image sensor” (Dickinson ¶ 23) in the form of ECU 40. Further, Dickinson discloses that the ECU is “configured to: determine the vehicle is operating in a tow mode” (Dickinson ¶ 21) by detecting the presence of a trailer. Moreover, Dickinson discloses “determine a frontal area of the trailering load” (Dickinson ¶ 21) by capturing an image of frontal surface 12a. Likewise, Dickinson discloses “determine a category of the trailering load based on the determined frontal area” (Dickinson ¶ 26) by identifying the trailer based on the image, which is a form of category within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Finally, Dickinson discloses “determine a towing road load of the vehicle based on the determined category of the trailering load” (Dickinson ¶ 27) by calculating the “aerodynamic drag” based on the obtained trailer type. The present specification defines “road load” to include “resistance to acceleration” (Spec. ¶ 19), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “aerodynamic drag” is a form of “resistance to acceleration.”
Szwabowski and Dickinson are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle load detection systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Szwabowski and Dickinson before him or her to modify the towing mode detection process of Szwabowski to include the specific towing mode detection process of Dickinson.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a more detailed knowledge of the towing data allows for improved vehicle performance, safety, engine efficiency, and fuel economy. (Dickinson ¶ 36).
The combination of Szwabowski and Dickinson discloses the use of degrees in the pedal gain mapping and not percentages. Thus, Szwabowski does not appear to explicitly disclose “determine pedal gain of the vehicle based on a pedal gain mapping that correlates a percentage of the accelerator pedal of the vehicle that is depressed with a vehicle speed” or “adjust a driving force output of the vehicle from a percentage of the accelerator pedal when the accelerator pedal is depressed based on the towing pedal gain.”
However, Kamioka discloses that it is well-known in the art of vehicle controls to measure the movement of a pedal in degrees and then convert that into a percentage value. (Kamioka ¶ 43). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Kamioka was combined with Szwabowski and Dickinson, the degree conversion process of Kamioka would be used with the pedal measurement of Szwabowski and Dickinson. Therefore, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitations “determine pedal gain of the vehicle based on a pedal gain mapping that correlates a percentage of the accelerator pedal of the vehicle that is depressed with a vehicle speed” and “adjust a driving force output of the vehicle from a percentage of the accelerator pedal when the accelerator pedal is depressed based on the towing pedal gain,” rendering them obvious.
Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle control systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka before him or her to convert the degrees of Szwabowski and Dickinson into percentages, as taught by Kamioka.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Szwabowski and Dickinson teaches the “base device” for measuring the movement of a pedal in degrees. Further, Kamioka teaches the “known technique” of converting the measured degrees of movement of a pedal into a percentage that is applicable to the base device of Szwabowski and Dickinson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “wherein the vehicle is a towing vehicle is configured to tow a towed vehicle, the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle being coupled together” (Szwabowski ¶ 39) where a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a “trailer” to be coupled to the towing vehicle.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “wherein the category of the trailering load is at least one of a boat, a flat bed trailer, or a box trailer” (Dickinson ¶ 35) where the trailering load includes at least a boat.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “wherein the image sensor is located on at least one of a cab of the vehicle or a tailgate of the vehicle” (Dickinson ¶ 21 and Fig. 1) where camera 20 is shown to be mounted on the tailgate of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “further comprising a memory coupled to the ECU, wherein the memory is configured to store the towing pedal gain.” (Szwabowski ¶ 28).
Regarding claim 11, Szwabowski discloses a method for adjusting a pedal gain of a vehicle based on trailer size detection, the method comprising “detecting a trailering load attached to the vehicle; determining the vehicle is operating in a tow mode; determining a frontal area of the trailering load” (Szwabowski ¶ 30) by detecting the presence of a vehicle load being towed by the vehicle, which is a “tow mode” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term. Additionally, Szwabowski discloses “determining a towing road load of the vehicle …” (Szwabowski ¶ 26) by determining a road grade. The present specification defines “road load” to include “resistance to acceleration” (Spec. ¶ 19), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the grade of a road is a form of “resistance to acceleration.” Szwabowski discloses an additional “towing road load” in the form of an aerodynamic drag at ¶ 47. Further, Szwabowski discloses “determining a pedal gain of the vehicle based on a pedal gain mapping that correlates a percentage of the accelerator pedal of the vehicle that is depressed with a vehicle speed” (Szwabowski ¶ 31 and Fig. 6) by generating a pedal gain map as shown in Fig. 6. Moreover, Szwabowski discloses “interpolating the pedal gain based on the towing road load at the vehicle speed to determine a towing pedal gain that compensates for the towing road load” (Szwabowski ¶ 39) by using a pedal gain function to supplement the base driver demand torque based on the pedal gain mapping of Fig. 6 to compensate for road grade and load conditions. Finally, Szwabowski discloses “adjusting a driving force output of the vehicle from a percentage the accelerator pedal when the accelerator pedal is depressed based on the towing pedal gain” (Szwabowski ¶ 39) by supplement the torque.
Although Szwabowski discloses the detecting of a towing mode, it does not appear to disclose the specific process used for such detection and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “determining a frontal area of the trailering load; determining a category of the trailering load based on the frontal area; determining a towing road load of the vehicle based on the determined category of the trailering load.” Additionally, Szwabowski discloses the use of degrees in the pedal gain mapping and not percentages. Thus, Szwabowski does not appear to explicitly disclose “determining a pedal gain of the vehicle based on a pedal gain mapping that correlates a percentage of the accelerator pedal of the vehicle that is depressed with a vehicle speed” or “adjusting a driving force output of the vehicle from a percentage the accelerator pedal when the accelerator pedal is depressed based on the towing pedal gain.”
However, Dickinson discloses a method for adjusting a pedal gain of a vehicle based on a trailer size detection, the method comprising “detecting a trailering load attached to the vehicle” (Dickinson ¶ 19) where “camara 20” is an image sensor. Additionally, Dickinson discloses “determining the vehicle is operating in a tow mode” (Dickinson ¶ 21) by detecting the presence of a trailer. Further, Dickinson discloses “determining a frontal area of the trailering load” (Dickinson ¶ 21) by capturing an image of frontal surface 12a. Moreover, Dickinson discloses “determining a category of the trailering load based on the frontal area” (Dickinson ¶ 26) by identifying the trailer based on the image, which is a form of category within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Finally, Dickinson discloses “determining a towing road load of the vehicle based on the determined category of the trailering load” (Dickinson ¶ 27) by calculating the “aerodynamic drag” based on the obtained trailer type. The present specification defines “road load” to include “resistance to acceleration” (Spec. ¶ 19), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “aerodynamic drag” is a form of “resistance to acceleration.”
Szwabowski and Dickinson are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle load detection systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Szwabowski and Dickinson before him or her to modify the towing mode detection process of Szwabowski to include the specific towing mode detection process of Dickinson.
The motivation for doing so would have been that a more detailed knowledge of the towing data allows for improved vehicle performance, safety, engine efficiency, and fuel economy. (Dickinson ¶ 36).
The combination of Szwabowski and Dickinson discloses the use of degrees in the pedal gain mapping and not percentages. Thus, Szwabowski does not appear to explicitly disclose “determining a pedal gain of the vehicle based on a pedal gain mapping that correlates a percentage of the accelerator pedal of the vehicle that is depressed with a vehicle speed” or “adjusting a driving force output of the vehicle from a percentage the accelerator pedal when the accelerator pedal is depressed based on the towing pedal gain.”
However, Kamioka discloses that it is well-known in the art of vehicle controls to measure the movement of a pedal in degrees and then convert that into a percentage value. (Kamioka ¶ 43). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Kamioka was combined with Szwabowski and Dickinson, the degree conversion process of Kamioka would be used with the pedal measurement of Szwabowski and Dickinson. Therefore, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitations “determining a pedal gain of the vehicle based on a pedal gain mapping that correlates a percentage of the accelerator pedal of the vehicle that is depressed with a vehicle speed” and “adjusting a driving force output of the vehicle from a percentage the accelerator pedal when the accelerator pedal is depressed based on the towing pedal gain,” rendering them obvious.
Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of vehicle control systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka before him or her to convert the degrees of Szwabowski and Dickinson into percentages, as taught by Kamioka.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of applying a known technique to a known device. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(D). The combination of Szwabowski and Dickinson teaches the “base device” for measuring the movement of a pedal in degrees. Further, Kamioka teaches the “known technique” of converting the measured degrees of movement of a pedal into a percentage that is applicable to the base device of Szwabowski and Dickinson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “wherein the vehicle is a towing vehicle configured to tow a towed vehicle, the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle being coupled together” (Szwabowski ¶ 39) where a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a “trailer” to be coupled to the towing vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “wherein the category of the trailering load is at least one of a boat, a flat bed trailer, or a box trailer” (Dickinson ¶ 35) where the trailering load includes at least a boat.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “wherein determining the frontal area of the trailering load includes detecting a height of the trailering load” (Dickinson ¶ 25) by detecting the frontal area, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to include both a height and a width. Further, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “a width of the trailering load via a plurality of image sensors” (Dickinson Abstract) by disclosing that an image from a camera is used to detect the frontal area.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 14 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “wherein the plurality of image sensors is located on at least one of a cab of the vehicle or a tailgate of the vehicle” (Dickinson ¶ 21, Figs. 1,3) where camera 20 is shown to be mounted on the tailgate of the vehicle and Fig. 3 shows a plurality of image sensors.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “further comprising storing, via a memory, the towing pedal gain.” (Szwabowski ¶ 28).
Claims 4, 7, 8, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Szwabowski in view of Dickinson and Kamioka, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of Biberstein et al., US Publication 2022/0237952 (hereinafter Biberstein), as cited on the Notice of References Cited dated September 6, 2024.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka does not appear to explicitly disclose “further comprising a plurality of image sensors.”
However, Biberstein discloses a trailer detection system “further comprising a plurality of image sensors” (Biberstein ¶ 11) where the camera may be “one or more cameras.”
Szwabowski, Dickinson, Kamioka, and Biberstein are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of trailer detection systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Szwabowski, Dickinson, Kamioka, and Biberstein before him or her to modify the cameras of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka to multiple image sensors of Biberstein.
The motivation for doing so would have been that using multiple image sensors are well-known in the art to provide lower cost of installation.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “wherein the towing road load is based at least partially on an aerodynamic draft of the trailering load” (Dickinson ¶ 27) by calculating “aerodynamic drag” based on the previously calculated data, which would include the category of load. Further, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “wherein the aerodynamic draft is a product of … a velocity of the vehicle” (Dickinson ¶ 27) where the aerodynamic drag is a function of the vehicle speed.
The combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the aerodynamic draft is a product of an aerodynamic coefficient, the frontal area of the trailering load, an air density, and a velocity of the vehicle.”
However, Biberstein discloses a trailer detection method including “wherein the aerodynamic draft is a product of an aerodynamic coefficient, the frontal area of the trailering load, an air density, and a velocity of the vehicle” (Biberstein ¶ 21) where the coefficient of drag force is “Cdrag*A*ρv2/2, were ρ is the density of air and v is the velocity of the trailer.”
Szwabowski, Dickinson, Kamioka, and Biberstein are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of trailer detection systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Szwabowski, Dickinson, Kamioka, and Biberstein before him or her to modify the drag coefficient of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka to include the formula of Biberstein.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the range of the vehicle. (Biberstein ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, Kamioka, and Biberstein, discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, Kamioka, and Biberstein discloses “wherein the aerodynamic coefficient is a preset value based on the category of the trailering load” (Dickinson ¶ 32) where the trailer manufacturer provides a value for aerodynamic drag.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “wherein the towing road load is based at least partially on an aerodynamic draft of the trailering load” (Dickinson ¶ 27) by calculating the “aerodynamic drag” based on the previously calculated data, which would include the category of load. Further, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka discloses “wherein the aerodynamic draft is a product of … a velocity of the vehicle” (Dickinson ¶ 27) where the aerodynamic drag is a function of the vehicle speed.
The combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the aerodynamic draft is a product of an aerodynamic coefficient, the frontal area of the trailering load, an air density, and a velocity of the vehicle.”
However, Biberstein discloses a trailer detection method including “wherein the aerodynamic draft is a product of an aerodynamic coefficient, the frontal area of the trailering load, an air density, and a velocity of the vehicle” (Biberstein ¶ 21) where the coefficient of drag force is “Cdrag*A*ρv2/2, were ρ is the density of air and v is the velocity of the trailer.”
Szwabowski, Dickinson, Kamioka, and Biberstein are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of trailer detection systems.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Szwabowski, Dickinson, Kamioka, and Biberstein before him or her to modify the drag coefficient of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka to include the formula of Biberstein.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the range of the vehicle. (Biberstein ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, Kamioka, and Biberstein discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 17 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Szwabowski, Dickinson, Kamioka, and Biberstein discloses “wherein the aerodynamic coefficient is a preset value based on the category of the trailering load” (Dickinson ¶ 32) where the trailer manufacturer provides a value for aerodynamic drag.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 30, 3036, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b) (Remarks 8-9) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112(a) and 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed January 30, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Remarks 9-11) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Szwabowski, Dickinson, and Kamioka.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662