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 the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 2/26/26 (hereinafter “Response”) including claim amendments and a replacement drawing sheet has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 4, 6, 13, and 17 have been amended and claims 7, 9, and 19-20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-18 remain pending in the application with claims 13-18 being withdrawn from consideration.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejection raised in the non-final office action (hereinafter “Office Action”) is withdrawn based on the amendments to the claims submitted in the Response.
Drawings
The drawing objection raised in the Office Action is withdrawn based on the drawing amendments included in the Response.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 114083943 A to Song et al (hereinafter Song) in view of KR 100198756 B1 to Lee and further in view of Process Systems, “Quick exhaust Valve,” YouTube, published August 9, 2012, available at https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=X5SVF7TV8w4 (hereinafter Process Systems).
Regarding claim 1, Song discloses a tow hook system for a vehicle (Figs. 1-2 & [0004]), comprising:
a sensor (17) configured to detect a collision of the vehicle; and
an electronic control unit coupled to the sensor (17) and configured to:
obtain, from the sensor (17), the collision detection, and
PNG
media_image1.png
399
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
activate a tow hook assembly based on the collision detection (Figs. 1-2 & [0016] disclose a distance sensor is configured to detect the distance between the trailer hook, i.e., the vehicle, and an external object. Examiner notes that if the distance detected is 0 then a collision would be considered to be detected. [0018]-[0019] & [0069] disclose obtaining distance sensor data and activating the tow hook assembly when the determined distance is less than the set safe distance, e.g., 0.7m. This is interpreted as disclosing activating the tow hook assembly based on a detected range between 0<x<0.7m and thus is considered to teach a range overlapping or touching the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03.);
wherein the tow hook assembly includes: a tow hook (2,5) having a distal end (D) and a proximal end (E) opposite the distal end (D), (Fig. 1, Annotated Fig. 2); and an … actuator (15) having a translating portion coupled to the distal end (E) of the tow hook (2, 5) (Fig. 1, Annotated Fig. 2, & [0013] and [0040])
PNG
media_image2.png
507
362
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Song does not appear to explicitly disclose that the actuator is a pneumatic actuator and at least one quick exhaust valve configured to control a speed and/or a position of the tow hook, wherein the pneumatic actuator is configured to cause movement of the tow hook via the translating portion.
Lee teaches that it was old and well known in the art of movable tow hooks, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the actuator used to deploy/retract a tow hook to be a pneumatic actuator (10,20,30) (Figs. 2-3 & p. 3 ¶ 2-5), wherein the pneumatic actuator (10,20,30) is configured to cause movement of the tow hook (14) via the translating portion (16) (Figs. 2-3 & p. 3 ¶ 2-5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted features of Song with teaching of Lee since the combination of the two references is merely simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (KSR rationale B). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is, in the substitution of the pneumatic device of the Lee for the electronic actuator of Song. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
PNG
media_image3.png
1019
1264
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Process Systems teaches that it was old and well known in the art of pneumatic actuators, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a pneumatic actuator (X) to include at least one quick exhaust valve (Y) configured to control a speed and/or position of the pneumatic actuator (X) (Process Systems Annotated Screenshot & 1:40-2:15 depicting cycling of the pneumatic actuator from an extended position to a retracted position where the speed of retraction is greatly reduced in comparison to the extension as a result of the quick exhaust valve to atmosphere. The quick exhaust valve also is interpreted as controlling the position of the actuator because without the opening of the quick exhaust valve the position from the extended to the retracted position would not change.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pneumatic actuators before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pneumatic actuator disclose by the modified combination of Song/Lee to incorporate for the pneumatic actuator to include at least one quick exhaust valve configured to control a speed and/or position of the pneumatic actuator as taught by Process Systems in order to significantly reduce the speed of retraction of the actuator, e.g., see Process Systems 2:10-2:20, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Further, assuming, arguendo, that Applicant does not consider the disclosure of Song of obtaining distance information to an obstacle, making the determination that the distance is not a safe distance, i.e., less than x, e.g., where x, is 0.7m or smaller, and then activating the tow hook assembly based on that determination as discussed above as being anticipating under MPEP 2131.03 as discussed above, Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the distance x down to 0, i.e., at impact, because the determining the optimal distance is the result of mere optimization of variables, e.g., balancing early/unnecessary retraction of the tow hook or additional cycles on the system vs. being more conservative with giving more time for tow hook to retract, etc that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices and does not itself warrant patentability.
Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the determination being at collision vs another distance, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed deployment at collision vs another distance would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Song further discloses wherein the sensor (17) includes at least one of an airbag sensor, an external camera configured to capture different views of an exterior of the vehicle, or a proximity sensor (Figs.1-2 & [0016] disclose the sensor is a distance sensor, i.e., a proximity sensor).
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Song further discloses wherein the tow hook assembly comprises a housing (3) coupled to a frame (1) of the vehicle, the housing (3) having a first end (A), a second end (B) opposite the first end, and an opening (C) (Fig. 1, Annotated Fig. 2, & [0038]).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 3, Song further discloses wherein the tow hook assembly is at least partially housed by the housing (3) such that the tow hook (2,5) is configured to move through the opening of the housing (3) (Fig. 1, Annotated Fig. 2, & [0038]-[0041] disclose the tow hook 2,5 moves horizontally in/out of the slide base 3).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 4, Song further wherein the tow hook (2,5) further comprises an end portion (7) disposed on the proximal end (E) of the tow hook (2,5), the end portion (7) configured to prevent the tow hook (2,7) from being removed from the housing (3) such that the end portion (7) is configured to be in confronting relation with an inside surface (F) of the housing (3) adjacent the opening (C) when the tow hook (2,5) is in a deployed position (Fig. 1, Annotated Fig. 2, & [0041] disclose the tow hook include fixing member 7 that when the tow hook is furthest extended from the vehicle, the fixing member 7 would engage positioning hole F of the positioning holes 4 of the housing 3. When engaged the tow hook cannot be moved.).
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 5, the modified combination of Song/Lee/Power Systems further discloses wherein the pneumatic actuator (Song – 15/Lee – 10,20,30) is configured to be disposed with the housing (Song – 3), (Song - Fig. 1, Annotated Fig. 2, & [0013] and [0040]; Lee - Figs. 2-3 & p. 3 ¶ 2-5).
It would have been obvious to have modified Song in view of the teachings of Lee/Power Systems for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 6, the modified combination of Song/Lee/Power Systems further discloses wherein the end portion (Song – 7/Lee - G) of the tow hook (Song – 2,5/Lee - G) is configured to be in confronting relation with an end surface (Lee-H) of the pneumatic actuator (Lee – 10,20,30) in a stowed position (Lee Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 1, Song further discloses a user interface configured to receive commands from the user ([0016] discloses a control button is in vehicle to receive user commands).
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 10, Song further discloses wherein the commands from the user include deploying and stowing the tow hook assembly ([0016]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Lee and further in view of Power Systems and further in view of US 2019/0225171 A1 to Temple.
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Song/Lee/Power Systems does not appear to further disclose wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle.
Temple teaches that it was old and well known in the art of vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a vehicle including a tow hook to be an autonomous vehicle ([0133] and [0136]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the noted features of the modified combination of Song/Lee/Power Systems with teaching of Temple since the combination of the two references is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR rational A). It can be seen that each element claimed is present in either the modified combination of Song/Lee/Power Systems or Temple. Providing that the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle (as taught by Temple) does not change or affect the normal automatic functionality of the stowing/deploying of the tow hook device of Song. Since the functionalities of the elements in the modified combination of Song/Lee/Power Systems and Temple do not interfere with each other, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Response directed to the 102/103 rejection of claim 1, see pp.8-9, 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 Song/Lee/Power Systems as discussed above. As discussed above it is the combination of the references that discloses the amended claim language of claim 1. Because Applicant’s argument merely states that the amended claim limitation is not addressed by Song/Lee without any additional support/reasoning there are no arguments to respond to based on the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
See the 892 for prior art made of record and not relied upon that 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 CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611