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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 9-14, 18 have been amended and claims 7, 20 have been cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-6, and 8-19 are now pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 and 8-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niglas et al. (US – 2021/0129810 A1) and further in view of Riley et al. (US – 2020/0094805 A1) and Hilberer (US – 2011/0168505 A1).
As per claim 1, Niglas discloses Trailer Detection And Control Module comprising:
a tractor protection controller (22, [0016], Fig: 1) comprising:
an output port (54, 56, Fig: 1, 3-4) configured to be coupled with a service braking system of a trailer (14, Fig: 1);
a first input port (52, Fig: 1) configured to receive pressurized air from at least one reservoir of a tractor (24, Fig: 1);
a relay (38, Fig: 3-4) comprising a control port (86, Fig: 3-4), a source port (52, Fig: 3-4) coupled with the input port (82, inlet port 82 is in fluid communication with supply port 52 of body 36, [0028], Fig: 3-4), and a drain port (3, Fig: 3-4) coupled with the output port (84, Fig: 3-4), and
a solenoid valve (42, 44, 46, Fig: 3-4) configured to selectively close to prevent pressurized air from the second input port from being received by the control port (86, [0030], Fig: 3-4).
Niglas discloses all the structural elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose a second input port configured to receive pressurized air from the at least one reservoir of the tractor in response to actuation of a foot brake in the tractor;
wherein the relay is configured to selectively allow pressurized air to flow between the source port and the drain port to provide a pneumatic control signal to the service braking system of the trailer in response to the control port receiving pressurized air from the second input port in response to actuation of the foot brake in the tractor; and
a braking controller configured to cause the solenoid valve to close in response to determining that the output port is not in pneumatic communication with the service braking system of the trailer.
Riley discloses Apparatus And Method For Controlling Pneumatic Fluid To A Trailer comprising:
a second input port configured to receive pressurized air from the at least one reservoir of the tractor in response to actuation of a foot brake in the tractor (Because the pneumatic control port 116 of the TCV 52 fluidly communicates with the second reservoir 42 via the secondary supply port 94 and the secondary delivery port 96, the fluid communication between the pneumatic control port 116 and the second reservoir 42 is based on …….. increases based on (e.g., proportionally) as the distance the pedal 80 is depressed. Therefore, the pneumatic control port 116 fluidly communicates with the second reservoir 42 based on the driver brake demand ([0018], Fig: 1-3);
wherein the relay is configured to selectively allow pressurized air to flow between the source port and the drain port to provide a pneumatic control signal to the service braking system of the trailer (in response to the control port receiving pressurized air from the second input port in response to actuation of the foot brake in the tractor ([0018] and [0026], Attached figure and Fig: 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Trailer Detection And Control Module of the Niglas to arrange the a second input port configured to receive pressurized air from the at least one reservoir of the tractor in response to actuation of a foot brake in the tractor and wherein the relay is configured to selectively allow pressurized air to flow between the source port and the drain port to provide a pneumatic control signal to the service braking system of the trailer in response to the control port receiving pressurized air from the second input port in response to actuation of the foot brake in the tractor as taught by Riley in order to provide a trailer control valve comprises a valve electronic control port adapted to receive an electronic control signal; a valve pneumatic supply port unrestrictedly fluidly communicating with a first supply of a pneumatic fluid; a valve pneumatic control port normally proportionally fluidly communicating with a second supply of the pneumatic fluid based on a pressure representing a driver brake demand to ensure fail safe braking control of trailer.
Further, Niglas and Riley fail to explicitly disclose a braking controller configured to cause the solenoid valve to close in response to determining that the output port is not in pneumatic communication with the service braking system of the trailer.
Hilberer discloses Braking System For A Utility Vehicle That Can Be Pneumatically Coupled To A Trailer comprising:
a braking controller (16, 18, [0096], Fig: 4) configured to cause the solenoid valve (22, Fig: 4) to close in response to determining that the output port is not in pneumatic communication with the service braking system of the trailer (The leak can only be detected on the basis of the drop in pressure. Different sequences can then occur depending on the embodiment of the braking system. Either a limiting pressure occurs upstream of the throttle in step 104 when there is a constant loss of air via the leak, or firstly the hold valve and then the valve device are closed in steps 106 and 108, that is response to determining that the output port is not in pneumatic communication with the braking system of the trailer, [0100], Fig: 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Trailer Detection And Control Module of the Niglas as modified by Riley to arrange the control procedure in which braking controller configured to cause the solenoid valve to close in response to determining that the output port is not in pneumatic communication with the service braking system of the trailer as taught by Hilberer in order to prevent rolling movements and also in this way be able to end an anti-jackknifing braking process more quickly, and this also reduces loading on the controlling components, that is to say the valves and the brakes, and improves the driving stability.
As per claim 2, Niglas discloses wherein the tractor protection system provides tractor protection without using a mechanical tractor protection valve (Referring to FIGS. 2A-B, 3, and 4, valve 34 includes a body 36 and a relay valve 38 and may further include double check valve 40, electronically controlled valves 42, 44, 46, and a single pressure sensor 48. Body 36 provides structural support for, and positions and orients, the other components of valve 34 including relay valve 38, double check valve 40, electronically controlled valves 42, 44, 46, and pressure sensor 48. Body 36 protects these components against external objects and elements. That is tractor protection system provides tractor protection without using a mechanical tractor protection valve, [0025], Fig: 1-4).
As per claim 4, Niglas discloses wherein the tractor protection controller further comprises a pressure sensor (48, Fig: 3-4) located between the first input port and the supply port of the relay (38, Fig: 3-4), and wherein the braking controller is further configured to determine that the output port is not in pneumatic communication with the braking system of the trailer in response to receiving a signal from the pressure sensor that indicates a detected pressure is below a threshold (Sensor 48 is supported within body 36 of valve 34. Sensor 48 generates a pressure signal indicative of the fluid pressure received from solenoid 35. For instance, the solenoid 35 can be configured to provide a pressure signal from a supply line glad hand ……. a trigger event (e.g., such as a trailer break-away event or the like), …….. a pressure sensor in fluid communication with the solenoid 35, [0031], Fig: 1, 3-4).
As per claim 5, Niglas discloses wherein the braking controller is further configured to cause the solenoid valve to close by sending an electrical signal to the solenoid valve ([0031], Fig: 1, 3-4).
As per claim 6, Niglas discloses wherein the braking controller is further configured to cause the solenoid valve to close by refraining from sending an electrical signal to the solenoid valve ([0027], Fig: 1, 3-4).
As per claim 8, Niglas discloses wherein the tractor protection controller further comprises at least one additional solenoid valve (44, 46, Fig: 3-4), and wherein the braking controller is further configured to send electrical signals to the at least one additional solenoid valve to provide electronic braking ([0027], Fig: 3-4)
As per claim 9, Niglas discloses Trailer Detection And Control Module comprising:
performing in one or more processors of a tractor (Controller 22 may comprise a programmable microprocessor or microcontroller or may comprise an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC). Controller 22 may include a memory and a central processing unit (CPU), [0038], Fig: 1-4):
determining whether the tractor is pneumatically coupled with a service braking system of a trailer ( the pressure sensor receives fluid signal, via the pressure sensing solenoid, from the second delivery port 56 when the fluid signal from the first delivery port is below a predetermined threshold pressure (e.g., a pressure threshold consistent with a trigger event such as a disconnected trailer supply glad hand), [0037], Fig: 1, 3-4); and
wherein the component comprises:
an output port (54, 56, Fig: 1, 3-4) configured to be coupled with the service braking system of the trailer (14, Fig: 1):
a first input port (52, Fig: 1) configured to receive pressurized air from at least one reservoir of the tractor (24, Fig: 1);
a relay (38, Fig: 3-4) comprising a control port (86, Fig: 3-4), a source port (52, Fig: 3-4) coupled with the input port (82, inlet port 82 is in fluid communication with supply port 52 of body 356, [0028], Fig: 3-4), and a drain port (3, Fig: 3-4) coupled with the output port (84, Fig: 3-4);
a solenoid valve (42, 44, 46, Fig: 3-4) configured to selectively close to prevent pressurized air from the second input port from being received by the control port (86, [0030] Fig: 3-4); and
wherein causing the component to prevent the pneumatic control signal from being supplied to the service braking system of the trailer comprises causing the solenoid valve to close ([0027], [0031], fig: 3-4).
teaching reference Hilberer discloses Braking System For A Utility Vehicle That Can Be Pneumatically Coupled To A Trailer comprising:
in response to determining that the tractor is not pneumatically coupled with the service braking system of the trailer, causing a component in the tractor to prevent a pneumatic control signal from being supplied to the service braking system of the trailer (The leak can only be detected on the basis of the drop in pressure. Different sequences can then occur depending on the embodiment of the braking system. Either a limiting pressure occurs upstream of the throttle in step 104 when there is a constant loss of air via the leak, or firstly the hold valve and then the valve device are closed in steps 106 and 108, that is response to determining that the output port is not in pneumatic communication with the braking system of the trailer, [01000] Fig: 7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date Trailer Detection And Control Module of the Niglas arrange the control procedure in which in response to determining that the tractor is not pneumatically coupled with the service braking system of the trailer, causing a component in the tractor to prevent a pneumatic control signal from being supplied to the service braking system of the trailer as taught by Hilberer in order to prevent rolling movements and also in this way be able to end an anti-jackknifing braking process more quickly, and this also reduces loading on the controlling components, that is to say the valves and the brakes, and improves the driving stability.
Further, another teaching reference Riley discloses Apparatus and Method For Controlling Pneumatic Fluid To A Trailer comprising:
a second input port configured to receive pressurized air from the at least one reservoir of the tractor in response to actuation of a foot brake in the tractor (Because the pneumatic control port 116 of the TCV 52 fluidly communicates with the second reservoir 42 via the secondary supply port 94 and the secondary delivery port 96, the fluid communication between the pneumatic control port 116 and the second reservoir 42 is based on …….. increases based on (e.g., proportionally) as the distance the pedal 80 is depressed. Therefore, the pneumatic control port 116 fluidly communicates with the second reservoir 42 based on the driver brake demand ([0018], Fig: 1-3); and
wherein the relay is configured to selectively allow pressurized air to flow between the source port and the drain port to provide the pneumatic control signal to the service braking system of the trailer in response to the control port receiving pressurized air from the second input port in response to actuation of the foot brake in the tractor ([0018] and [0026], Attached figure and Fig: 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Trailer Detection And Control Module of the Niglas to arrange the a second input port configured to receive pressurized air from the at least one reservoir of the tractor in response to actuation of a foot brake in the tractor and wherein the relay is configured to selectively allow pressurized air to flow between the source port and the drain port to provide a pneumatic control signal to the service braking system of the trailer in response to the control port receiving pressurized air from the second input port in response to actuation of the foot brake in the tractor as taught by Riley in order to provide a trailer control valve comprises a valve electronic control port adapted to receive an electronic control signal; a valve pneumatic supply port unrestrictedly fluidly communicating with a first supply of a pneumatic fluid; a valve pneumatic control port normally proportionally fluidly communicating with a second supply of the pneumatic fluid based on a pressure representing a driver brake demand to ensure fail safe braking control of trailer.
As per claim 10, Niglas discloses wherein the pneumatic control signal is prevented from being supplied to the service braking system of the trailer without a use of a mechanical tractor protection valve (Referring to FIGS. 2A-B, 3, and 4, valve 34 includes a body 36 and a relay valve 38 and may further include double check valve 40, electronically controlled valves 42, 44, 46, and a single pressure sensor 48. Body 36 provides structural support for, and positions and orients, the other components of valve 34 including relay valve 38, double check valve 40, electronically controlled valves 42, 44, 46, and pressure sensor 48. Body 36 protects these components against external objects and elements, that is the tractor protection system provides tractor protection without using a mechanical tractor protection valve, [0025], Fig: 1-4)
As per claim 11, Niglas discloses wherein the one or more processors determine that the tractor is not pneumatically coupled with the service braking system of the trailer in response to receiving a signal that indicates that supply air is not being provided to the service braking system of the trailer (In another example, the pressure sensor receives fluid signal, via the pressure sensing solenoid, from the second delivery port 56 when the fluid signal from the first delivery port is below a predetermined threshold pressure (e.g., a pressure threshold consistent with a trigger event such as a disconnected trailer supply glad hand). The pressure sensing solenoid 35 stops transmitting fluid signal from the second delivery port, [0037], Fig: 3-4).
As per claim 12, Niglas discloses wherein the one or more processors determine that the tractor is not pneumatically coupled with the service braking system of the trailer in response to receiving a pressure sensor signal that indicate a detected pressure is below a threshold (Sensor 48 is supported within body 36 of valve 34. Sensor 48 generates a pressure signal indicative of the fluid pressure received from solenoid 35. For instance, the solenoid 35 can be configured to provide a pressure signal from a supply line glad hand …….. a trigger event (e.g., such as a trailer break-away event or the like),…….. a pressure sensor in fluid communication with the solenoid 35, [0031], Fig: 1, 3-4).
As per claim 13, Niglas discloses wherein causing the solenoid valve to close comprises sending an electrical signal to close the solenoid valve ([0031], Fig” 1, 3-4).
As per claim 14, Niglas discloses wherein causing the solenoid valve to close comprises refraining from sending an electrical signal to the solenoid valve ([0031] – [0031], and [0037], Fig: 1-4).
As per claim 15, Niglas discloses causing electronic braking (Controller 22 may also include an input/output (I/O) interface including a plurality of input/output pins or terminals through which the controller may receive a plurality of input signals and transmit a plurality of output signals, therefore, it is electronic braking, [0038], Fig: 1-4).
As per claim 16, Niglas discloses wherein the one or more processors are in a braking controller (Controller 22 may comprise a programmable microprocessor or microcontroller or may comprise an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), [0038], Fig: 1-4).
As per claim 17, Niglas discloses wherein the component comprises a tractor protection controller (22, [0016], Fig: 1).
Independent claim 18 recites all the limitations recited in independent claims 1 and 9, therefore rejects under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, Niglas discloses wherein the means for causing comprises a braking controller (22, 34, Fig: 1-4).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niglas et al. (US – 2021/0129810 A1) as modified by Riley et al. (US – 2020/0094805 A1) and Hilberer (US – 2011/0168505 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kennedy et al. (US – 2020/0114896 A1).
As per claim 3, Niglas as modified by Riley and Hilberer discloses all the structure elements of the claimed invention but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the braking controller is further configured to determine that the output port is not in pneumatic communication with the braking system of the trailer in response to receiving a signal from a parking controller that indicates that supply air is not being provided to the braking system of the trailer.
Kennedy discloses Apparatus For Controlling A Trailer Parking Brake Status Indicator In A Tractor comprising:
wherein the braking controller is further configured to determine that the output port is not in pneumatic communication with the braking system of the trailer in response to receiving a signal from a parking controller that indicates that supply air is not being provided to the braking system of the trailer (Sensor 18 comprises a pressure sensor that generate signals indicative of the fluid pressure within a fluid conduit extending between tractor protection valve 60 and glad hand connector 34. Additional pressure sensors may be located at various locations throughout fluid circuit 14. In conventional systems, the output of sensor 18 may be used to control a visual indicator, or tell-tale, that is illuminated when the parking brake in a trailer coupled to the tractor is applied. In particular, when a vehicle operator wants to apply the trailer parking brake, fluid pressure in the conduit is evacuated from the conduit to allow the parking brake to be applied. The absence of fluid pressure in the conduit is sensed by sensor 18 and the indicator is illuminated to indicate that the trailer parking brake has been applied. An absence of fluid pressure in the conduit also exists, however, when the tractor is operating without a trailer (i.e., in a bobtail configuration) because no fluid pressure is required for service braking in the trailer and, therefore, no fluid pressure is supplied to the conduit between the tractor and trailer. As a result, in conventional tractors the indicator remains constantly illuminated when the tractor is being operated without a trailer. The constant illumination is annoying and distracting to the vehicle operator—particularly at night. The system and method described herein are intended to address this issue by providing an improved system and method for controlling a trailer parking brake status indicator in a tractor, [0021], fig: 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Trailer Detection And Control Module of the Niglas as modified by Riley and Hilberer to arrange the braking controller is further configured to determine that the output port is not in pneumatic communication with the braking system of the trailer in response to receiving a signal from a parking controller that indicates that supply air is not being provided to the braking system of the trailer as taught by Kennedy in order to enable the vehicle operator to achieve this result while using existing user interface elements that ae used to apply and release parking brake in the vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARK, filed 03/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 8-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Niglas et al. (US – 2021/0129810 A1) further in view of Riley et al. (US – 2020/0094805 A1) and Hilberer (US – 2011/0168505 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure 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 SAN M AUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5792. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/SAN M AUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights