DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/26/2026 has been entered.
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 1/26/2026. In the amendment, claims 1-3, 8-13 and 20-21 have been amended, and claim 19 is now canceled. Overall, claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 11-13, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub No. US 2017/0174275 A1 to Mohamad et. al. (Mohamad) in view of US Patent No. 11,803,188 B1 to Gupta et. al. (Gupta) and further in view of Pub No. US 2020/0273133 A1 to Morris (Morris).
In Reference to Claim 1
Mohamad teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A method comprising:
receiving, by a processor (54), a first signal from a first sensor (34) configured to detect a presence of a king pin (18) within a throat of a fifth-wheel hitch (16, 24) of an autonomous vehicle (10), wherein the first sensor (34) is cooperatively coupled to the fifth-wheel hitch (24) of the autonomous vehicle (10) (Mohamad teaches “the kingpin sensor 34 outputs a detection signal when the metal lower flange of the kingpin 18 is disposed in the throat 46” and “the controller 54 determines whether the fifth wheel hitch assembly 16 is properly coupled to the kingpin 18 by readings from the sensors 34, 36”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-14, 16);
assigning, by the processor (54), a first value to the first signal by:
increasing the first value as a strength of the first signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the king pin (18) and the first sensor (34);
receiving, by the processor (54), a second signal from a second sensor (36) configured to detect a jaw (50) of the fifth-wheel hitch (16, 24), wherein the second sensor (36) is cooperatively coupled to the fifth-wheel hitch (16, 24) of the autonomous vehicle (10) (Mohamad teaches “the lock sensor 36 detects the presence of the plate 48 as a basis for detecting that the locking mechanism 26 is in a locked and secured position”, “that the lock sensor 36 may be positioned so as to sense the relative position of other components of the illustrated locking mechanism 26, such as locking jaws 50” and “the controller 54 determines whether the fifth wheel hitch assembly 16 is properly coupled to the kingpin 18 by readings from the sensors 34, 36”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 15, 16);
assigning, by the processor (54), a second value to the second signal by:
increasing the second value as a strength of the second signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the jaw (50) and the second sensor (36);
determining, by the processor (54), when the first value exceeds a first threshold (Mohamad teaches that “the kingpin sensor 34 sensing whether the kingpin 18 is properly situated within the throat 24” and that the “first threshold” is indication (or value) as to “properly situated”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 17);
determining, by the processor (54), when the second value exceeds a second threshold (Mohamad teaches that “the lock sensor 36 sensing whether the locking mechanism 26 has properly locked the kingpin 18 within the throat 46” and that the “second threshold” is indication (or value) as to “properly situated”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 17); and
responsive to at least one of the first value not exceeding the first threshold (not “properly situated”) or the second value not exceeding the second threshold (not “properly situated”), disabling, by the processor (54), the autonomous vehicle (10) by causing a virtual driver system (instruction within the processor (54)) of the autonomous vehicle (10) to restrict operation of the autonomous vehicle (10) within a geofenced location (Mohamad teaches that “the controller determine that an improper couple between the fifth wheel hitch assembly 16 and the kingpin 18 has occurred, a control signal is generated by the controller 54 and communicated to the control valve 58 to move the control valve 58 from the open position to the closed position, thereby preventing the pressurized fluid to move from the pressurized fluid source 62 to the brake assembly 60 of the trailer 14, such that the brake assembly 60 remains in the engaged position and prevents the trailer 14 from being moved”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19).
Mohamad teaches to receive signals from the sensors #34, #36 and #38 and determine if the fifth-wheel hitch is connected and locked (e.g. properly situated) however Mohamad does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to assigning, by the processor (54), a first value to the first signal by: increasing the first value as a strength of the first signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the king pin (18) and the first sensor (34); and assigning, by the processor (54), a second value to the second signal by: increasing the second value as a strength of the second signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the jaw (50) and the second sensor (36) and comparing the first and second values to the threshold and making a determination. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assigning a first value to the first signal and increasing the first value as a strength of the first signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the sensor and the target location; assigning a second value to the second signal and increasing the first value as a strength of the second signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the sensor and the target location and comparing the first and second values to the threshold and making a determination. For example, Gupta teaches assigning a value in which as an inductive sensor gets closer to a metallic target, the signal strength measured by the inductive sensor increases and comparing the assigned value to the threshold to making a determination. Gupta further implicitly teaches that performing such steps prevent damage to the system and accurate determination of the location of the attaching devices (see at least Gupta Figs. 1-2, 6-8 and column 3 lines 25-55, column 5 lines 54-67, column 6 lines 1-32, column 7 lines 55-67 and column 8-9). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mohamad to assigning a first value to the first signal and increasing the first value as a strength of the first signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the sensor and the target location; assigning a second value to the second signal and increasing the first value as a strength of the second signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the sensor and the target location and comparing the first and second values to the threshold and making a determination as taught by Gupta in order to prevent damage to the system and accurate determination of the location of the attaching devices.
Mohamad in view of Gupta teaches that the controller of the system prevents the vehicles from moving when the improper couple between the fifth wheel hitch assembly and the kingpin has occurred. However Mohamad in view of Gupta do not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the vehicle (10) is a autonomous vehicle and disabling, by the processor (54), the autonomous vehicle (10) by causing a virtual driver system of the autonomous vehicle (10) to restrict operation of the autonomous vehicle (10) within a geofenced location. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that vehicles that moves trailers can be an autonomous vehicles and geofenced location are assigned when the vehicles are attaching to the trailer. For example, Morris teaches that the vehicles pulling trailers can be autonomous, partially autonomous, self-driving, driverless, or driver-assisted and geofenced location are assigned when the vehicles are attaching to the trailer. Further Morris implicitly teaches that autonomous vehicles provide autonomous operations without a driver and further teaches that having the geofence which is used to direct vehicle to accurately identify an appropriate trailer (see at least Morris Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 32-33, 38, 41-42, 48, 77, 108 and 117). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Mohamad in view of Gupta as to being an autonomous vehicle in order to autonomously control the vehicle without a driver as evidence and implicit teaching of Morris and to have the geofenced location which are assigned when the vehicles are attaching to the trailer as taught by Morris in order to accurately identify an appropriate trailer. Therefore the autonomous vehicle of Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris can cause a virtual driver system (instruction within the processor (54)) of the autonomous vehicle (10) to restrict operation of the autonomous vehicle (10) within a geofenced location the system by engaging the brake.
In Reference to Claim 2
The method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), further comprising upon the first value (properly situated) exceeding the first threshold and the second value (properly situated) exceeding the second threshold, enabling, by the processor (54), the autonomous vehicle (10) by causing the virtual driver system of the autonomous vehicle (10) to enable operation of the autonomous vehicle (10) to leave the geofenced location (Morris of #17) (see Mohamad paragraph [0017] “Should the controller 54 determine that a proper couple between the hitch assembly 16 and the kingpin 18 has been achieved, the controller 54 does not generate a control signal to the control valve 58, and the control valve 58 remains open, and as a result, the brake assembly 60 of the trailer 14 remains in the disengaged position, thereby allowing the trailer 14 to move”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19) (see at least Morris Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 32-33, 38, 41-42, 48, 77, 108 and 117).
In Reference to Claim 3
The method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein autonomous vehicle (10) is a tractor (12) configured to attach to a trailer (14), the geofenced location includes a tractor trailer hub parking lot (Morris #17), and the first value, and the second value are associated with at least one mode of the virtual driver system (instruction within the processor (54)) (Mohamad teaches to determine proper couple between the hitch assembly (16) and the kingpin (18) is or not therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris can have value the status of the coupled or not such as coupled (1) and uncoupled (0) in order to simplify the system) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19) (see at least Morris Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 32-33, 38, 41-42, 48, 77, 108 and 117).
In Reference to Claim 5
The method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the second sensor (36) is fixedly positioned at an entrance of the throat (46) of the fifth-wheel hitch (24) (Mohamad teaches that “the lock sensor 36 may be positioned so as to sense the relative position of other components of the illustrated locking mechanism 26, such as locking jaws 50” which can be placed in any location therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fixedly position the second sensor (36) at an entrance of the throat (46) of the fifth-wheel hitch (24) since rearranging parts would not have modified the operation of the device and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (see MPEP 2144.04)) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19).
In Reference to Claim 8
The method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein disabling the autonomous vehicle (10) further comprises one of removing power to a prime mover of the autonomous vehicle (10) or engaging a brake of the autonomous vehicle (10) (Mohamad teaches that “brake assembly 60 remains in the engaged position and prevents the trailer 14 from being moved” (which is part of the vehicle) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 17) (see at least Morris Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 32-33, 38, 41-42, 48, 77, 108 and 117).
In Reference to Claim 11
Mohamad teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
A system comprising:
a first sensor (34);
a second sensor (36); and
one or more processors (54), wherein the one or more processors (54)are configured to:
receive a first signal from a first sensor (34) configured to detect a presence of a king pin (18) within a throat of a fifth-wheel hitch (16, 24) of an autonomous vehicle (10), the first sensor (34) cooperatively coupled to the fifth-wheel hitch (24) of the autonomous vehicle (10) (Mohamad teaches “the kingpin sensor 34 outputs a detection signal when the metal lower flange of the kingpin 18 is disposed in the throat 46” and “the controller 54 determines whether the fifth wheel hitch assembly 16 is properly coupled to the kingpin 18 by readings from the sensors 34, 36”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-14, 16);
assign a first value to the first signal by:
increasing the first value as a strength of the first signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the king pin (18) and the first sensor (34);
receive a second signal from the second sensor (36) configured to detect a jaw (50) of the fifth-wheel hitch (16, 24), the second sensor (36) cooperatively coupled to the fifth-wheel hitch (16, 24) of the autonomous vehicle (10) (Mohamad teaches “the lock sensor 36 detects the presence of the plate 48 as a basis for detecting that the locking mechanism 26 is in a locked and secured position”, “that the lock sensor 36 may be positioned so as to sense the relative position of other components of the illustrated locking mechanism 26, such as locking jaws 50” and “the controller 54 determines whether the fifth wheel hitch assembly 16 is properly coupled to the kingpin 18 by readings from the sensors 34, 36”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 15, 16);
assign a second value to the second signal by:
increasing the second value as a strength of the second signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the jaw (50) and the second sensor (36);
determining, by the processor (54), when the first value exceeds a first threshold (Mohamad teaches that “the kingpin sensor 34 sensing whether the kingpin 18 is properly situated within the throat 24” and that the “first threshold” is indication (or value) as to “properly situated”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 17);
determining, by the processor (54), when the second value exceeds a second threshold (Mohamad teaches that “the lock sensor 36 sensing whether the locking mechanism 26 has properly locked the kingpin 18 within the throat 46” and that the “second threshold” is indication (or value) as to “properly situated”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 17); and
responsive to the second value exceeding the second threshold, cause the autonomous vehicle to lock the jaw (50) around the king pin (18) (automatically) “the fifth wheel hitch assembly 16 further includes the locking mechanism 26 that is biased by compression springs to automatically lock in and secure the trailer kingpin 18 as soon as it enters the throat 46. In the example illustrated in FIG. 3, the lock sensor 36 is mounted on the hitch plate 24 such that its sensing end is positioned proximate to a position that a metal plate 48 of the locking mechanism 26 is in when in a locked position. In this manner, the lock sensor 36 detects the presence of the plate 48 as a basis for detecting that the locking mechanism 26 is in a locked and secured position. Although a particular locking mechanism is illustrated in FIG. 3, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, that the present invention may be used in connection with any type of locking mechanism, and that the lock sensor 36 may be positioned so as to sense the relative position of other components of the illustrated locking mechanism 26, such as locking jaws 50, and the cam member or members that actuate the same. It should also be noted that the present invention may be applied to hitch assemblies having other constructions and is not limited to a fifth wheel hitch assembly and the mounting locations exemplified thereby” such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the system of Mohamad would close lock when the distance of the kingpin (18) as soon as it enters the throat (46) excides the distance between them) (see Mohamad Fig. 3 and paragraph 15); and
responsive to at least one of the first value not exceeding the first threshold or the second value not exceeding the second threshold, disable the autonomous vehicle (10) by causing a virtual driver system (instruction within the processor (54)) of the autonomous vehicle (10) to restrict operation of the autonomous vehicle (10) within a geofenced location (Mohamad teaches that “the controller determine that an improper couple between the fifth wheel hitch assembly 16 and the kingpin 18 has occurred, a control signal is generated by the controller 54 and communicated to the control valve 58 to move the control valve 58 from the open position to the closed position, thereby preventing the pressurized fluid to move from the pressurized fluid source 62 to the brake assembly 60 of the trailer 14, such that the brake assembly 60 remains in the engaged position and prevents the trailer 14 from being moved”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19).
Mohamad teaches to receive signals from the sensors #34, #36 and #38 and determine if the fifth-wheel hitch is connected and locked (e.g. properly situated) however Mohamad does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to assigning, by the processor (54), a first value to the first signal by: increasing the first value as a strength of the first signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the king pin (18) and the first sensor (34); and assigning, by the processor (54), a second value to the second signal by: increasing the second value as a strength of the second signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the jaw (50) and the second sensor (36) and comparing the first and second values to the threshold and making a determination. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assigning a first value to the first signal and increasing the first value as a strength of the first signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the sensor and the target location; assigning a second value to the second signal and increasing the first value as a strength of the second signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the sensor and the target location and comparing the first and second values to the threshold and making a determination. For example, Gupta teaches assigning a value in which as an inductive sensor gets closer to a metallic target, the signal strength measured by the inductive sensor increases and comparing the assigned value to the threshold to making a determination. Gupta further implicitly teaches that performing such steps prevent damage to the system and accurate determination of the location of the attaching devices (see at least Gupta Figs. 1-2, 6-8 and column 3 lines 25-55, column 5 lines 54-67, column 6 lines 1-32, column 7 lines 55-67 and column 8-9). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mohamad to assigning a first value to the first signal and increasing the first value as a strength of the first signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the sensor and the target location; assigning a second value to the second signal and increasing the first value as a strength of the second signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the sensor and the target location and comparing the first and second values to the threshold and making a determination as taught by Gupta in order to prevent damage to the system and accurate determination of the location of the attaching devices.
Mohamad in view of Gupta teaches that the controller of the system prevents the vehicles from moving when the improper couple between the fifth wheel hitch assembly and the kingpin has occurred. However Mohamad in view of Gupta do not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the vehicle (10) is a autonomous vehicle and disabling, by the processor (54), the autonomous vehicle (10) by causing a virtual driver system of the autonomous vehicle (10) to restrict operation of the autonomous vehicle (10) within a geofenced location. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that vehicles that moves trailers can be an autonomous vehicles and geofenced location are assigned when the vehicles are attaching to the trailer. For example, Morris teaches that the vehicles pulling trailers can be autonomous, partially autonomous, self-driving, driverless, or driver-assisted and geofenced location are assigned when the vehicles are attaching to the trailer. Further Morris implicitly teaches that autonomous vehicles provide autonomous operations without a driver and further teaches that having the geofence which is used to direct vehicle to accurately identify an appropriate trailer (see at least Morris Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 32-33, 38, 41-42, 48, 77, 108 and 117). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Mohamad in view of Gupta as to being an autonomous vehicle in order to autonomously control the vehicle without a driver as evidence and implicit teaching of Morris and to have the geofenced location which are assigned when the vehicles are attaching to the trailer as taught by Morris in order to accurately identify an appropriate trailer. Therefore the autonomous vehicle of Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris can cause a virtual driver system (instruction within the processor (54)) of the autonomous vehicle (10) to restrict operation of the autonomous vehicle (10) within a geofenced location the system by engaging the brake.
In Reference to Claim 12
The system of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the one or more processors are further configured to enable the autonomous vehicle (10) by causing the virtual driver system (instruction within the processor (54)) of the autonomous vehicle (10) to enable operation of the autonomous vehicle (10) to leave the geofence location (Morris #17) upon the first value (properly situated) exceeding the first threshold and the second value (properly situated) exceeding the second threshold (see Mohamad paragraph [0017] “Should the controller 54 determine that a proper couple between the hitch assembly 16 and the kingpin 18 has been achieved, the controller 54 does not generate a control signal to the control valve 58, and the control valve 58 remains open, and as a result, the brake assembly 60 of the trailer 14 remains in the disengaged position, thereby allowing the trailer 14 to move”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19) (see at least Morris Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 32-33, 38, 41-42, 48, 77, 108 and 117).
In Reference to Claim 13
The system of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the autonomous vehicle (10) is a tractor (12) configured to attach to a trailer (14), the geofenced location includes a tractor trailer hub parking lot (Morris #17), and the first value, and the second value are associated with at least one mode of the virtual driver system (instruction within the processor (54)) (Mohamad teaches to determine proper couple between the hitch assembly (16) and the kingpin (18) is or not therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris can have value the status of the coupled or not such as coupled (1) and uncoupled (0) in order to simplify the system) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19) (see at least Morris Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 32-33, 38, 41-42, 48, 77, 108 and 117).
In Reference to Claim 15
The system of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the second sensor (36) is fixedly positioned at an entrance of the throat (46) of the fifth-wheel hitch (24) (Mohamad teaches that “the lock sensor 36 may be positioned so as to sense the relative position of other components of the illustrated locking mechanism 26, such as locking jaws 50” which can be placed in any location therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fixedly position the second sensor (36) at an entrance of the throat (46) of the fifth-wheel hitch (24) since rearranging parts would not have modified the operation of the device and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (see MPEP 2144.04)) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19).
In Reference to Claim 18
The system of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the one or more processors (54) are configured to disable the autonomous vehicle (10) by removing power to a prime mover of the autonomous vehicle (10) or engaging a brake of the autonomous vehicle (10) (Mohamad teaches that “brake assembly 60 remains in the engaged position and prevents the trailer 14 from being moved” (which is part of the vehicle) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 17) (see at least Morris Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 32-33, 38, 41-42, 48, 77, 108 and 117).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Pub No. US 2022/0324525 A1 to Vikstrom et. al. (Vikstrom) and further in view of Morris.
In Reference to Claim 21
Mohamad teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
An engagement verification system for verifying trailer engagement for an autonomous vehicle (12), the engagement verification system comprising:
a first sensor (34) operatively coupled to a fifth-wheel hitch (16, 24) of an autonomous vehicle (12);
a second sensor (36) operatively coupled to the fifth-wheel hitch (16, 24); and
a remote user device (54) located remotely from the autonomous vehicle (12), the remote user device (54) comprising one or more processors (54) in communication with one or more memory devices, the one or more processors (54) programmed to:
receive a first signal from a first sensor (34) configured to detect a presence of a king pin (18) within a throat of a fifth-wheel hitch (16, 24) (Mohamad teaches “the kingpin sensor 34 outputs a detection signal when the metal lower flange of the kingpin 18 is disposed in the throat 46” and “the controller 54 determines whether the fifth wheel hitch assembly 16 is properly coupled to the kingpin 18 by readings from the sensors 34, 36”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-14, 16);
assign a first value to the first signal by: increasing the first value as a strength of the first signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the king pin (18) and the first sensor (34);
receive a second signal from the second sensor (36) configured to detect a jaw (50) of the fifth-wheel hitch (16, 24) (Mohamad teaches “the lock sensor 36 detects the presence of the plate 48 as a basis for detecting that the locking mechanism 26 is in a locked and secured position”, “that the lock sensor 36 may be positioned so as to sense the relative position of other components of the illustrated locking mechanism 26, such as locking jaws 50” and “the controller 54 determines whether the fifth wheel hitch assembly 16 is properly coupled to the kingpin 18 by readings from the sensors 34, 36”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 15, 16);
assign a second value to the second signal by: increasing the second value as a strength of the second signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the jaw (50) and the second sensor (36);
determine when the first value exceeds a first threshold (Mohamad teaches that “the kingpin sensor 34 sensing whether the kingpin 18 is properly situated within the throat 24” and that the “first threshold” is indication (or value) as to “properly situated”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 17);
determine when the second value exceeds a second threshold (Mohamad teaches that “the lock sensor 36 sensing whether the locking mechanism 26 has properly locked the kingpin 18 within the throat 46” and that the “second threshold” is indication (or value) as to “properly situated”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 17);
responsive to at least one of the first value not exceeding the first threshold or the second value not exceeding the second threshold,
lock the autonomous vehicle (12) in a coupling mode; and
limit operation of the autonomous vehicle (12) by causing the virtual driver system (instruction within the processor (54)) of the autonomous vehicle (10) to restrict operation of the autonomous vehicle (10) within a geofenced location (Mohamad teaches that “the controller determine that an improper couple between the fifth wheel hitch assembly 16 and the kingpin 18 has occurred, a control signal is generated by the controller 54 and communicated to the control valve 58 to move the control valve 58 from the open position to the closed position, thereby preventing the pressurized fluid to move from the pressurized fluid source 62 to the brake assembly 60 of the trailer 14, such that the brake assembly 60 remains in the engaged position and prevents the trailer 14 from being moved”) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19); and
responsive to the first value exceeding the first threshold and the second value exceeding the second threshold,
set the autonomous vehicle (12) in a coupled mode; and
enable the autonomous vehicle (12) by causing the virtual driver system of the autonomous vehicle (12) to enable operation of the autonomous vehicle (12) outside the geofenced location (automatically) “the fifth wheel hitch assembly 16 further includes the locking mechanism 26 that is biased by compression springs to automatically lock in and secure the trailer kingpin 18 as soon as it enters the throat 46. In the example illustrated in FIG. 3, the lock sensor 36 is mounted on the hitch plate 24 such that its sensing end is positioned proximate to a position that a metal plate 48 of the locking mechanism 26 is in when in a locked position. In this manner, the lock sensor 36 detects the presence of the plate 48 as a basis for detecting that the locking mechanism 26 is in a locked and secured position. Although a particular locking mechanism is illustrated in FIG. 3, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art, that the present invention may be used in connection with any type of locking mechanism, and that the lock sensor 36 may be positioned so as to sense the relative position of other components of the illustrated locking mechanism 26, such as locking jaws 50, and the cam member or members that actuate the same. It should also be noted that the present invention may be applied to hitch assemblies having other constructions and is not limited to a fifth wheel hitch assembly and the mounting locations exemplified thereby” such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the system of Mohamad would close lock when the distance of the kingpin (18) as soon as it enters the throat (46) excides the distance between them) (see Mohamad Fig. 3 and paragraph 15) and “Should the controller 54 determine that a proper couple between the hitch assembly 16 and the kingpin 18 has been achieved, the controller 54 does not generate a control signal to the control valve 58, and the control valve 58 remains open, and as a result, the brake assembly 60 of the trailer 14 remains in the disengaged position, thereby allowing the trailer 14 to move” which enables the vehicle (12) to leave the area (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraph 17),
Mohamad teaches to receive signals from the sensors #34, #36 and #38 and determine if the fifth-wheel hitch is connected and locked (e.g. properly situated) however Mohamad does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to assigning, by the processor (54), a first value to the first signal by: increasing the first value as a strength of the first signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the king pin (18) and the first sensor (34); and assigning, by the processor (54), a second value to the second signal by: increasing the second value as a strength of the second signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the jaw (50) and the second sensor (36) and comparing the first and second values to the threshold and making a determination. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assigning a first value to the first signal and increasing the first value as a strength of the first signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the sensor and the target location; assigning a second value to the second signal and increasing the first value as a strength of the second signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the sensor and the target location and comparing the first and second values to the threshold and making a determination. For example, Gupta teaches assigning a value in which as an inductive sensor gets closer to a metallic target, the signal strength measured by the inductive sensor increases and comparing the assigned value to the threshold to making a determination. Gupta further implicitly teaches that performing such steps prevent damage to the system and accurate determination of the location of the attaching devices (see at least Gupta Figs. 1-2, 6-8 and column 3 lines 25-55, column 5 lines 54-67, column 6 lines 1-32, column 7 lines 55-67 and column 8-9). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mohamad to assigning a first value to the first signal and increasing the first value as a strength of the first signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the sensor and the target location; assigning a second value to the second signal and increasing the first value as a strength of the second signal increases due to a reduction in a distance between the sensor and the target location and comparing the first and second values to the threshold and making a determination as taught by Gupta in order to prevent damage to the system and accurate determination of the location of the attaching devices.
Mohamad in view of Gupta is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the vehicle being an autonomous vehicle and having a remote server which can control the vehicle. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the engagement verification system of trailer for is required by an autonomous vehicle and having a remote server which can control the vehicle. For example, Vikstrom teaches that the engagement verification system of trailer for an autonomous vehicle is needed and having a remote server (250) which can control the vehicle to determine that the trailer is safely in place. Vikstrom further teaches that having such system provides safely pulling the trailer (see at least Vikstrom Figs. 1-5 and paragraphs 20-23, 40, 45, 54-56, 59-61, 65). Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by Mohamad in view of Gupta can be used in autonomous vehicle such as Vikstrom with a remote server would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system, namely, a system that would provide assurance that the trailer is attached to a vehicle including the autonomous vehicle in such as Vikstrom to prevent separation or disengagement of the trailer from the vehicle.
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Vikstrom teaches that the controller of the system prevents and enables the vehicles from moving when the improper couple between the fifth wheel hitch assembly and the kingpin has occurred and when the coupling is proper. However Mohamad in view of Gupta do not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to restrict operation of the autonomous vehicle (10) within a geofenced location and enable operation of the autonomous vehicle (10) vehicle outside the geofenced location. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the geofenced location are assigned when the vehicles are attaching to the trailer. For example, Morris teaches that the geofenced location are assigned when the vehicles are attaching to the trailer. Further Morris teaches that having the geofence which is used to direct vehicle to accurately identify an appropriate trailer (see at least Morris Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 32-33, 38, 41-42, 48, 77, 108 and 117). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Vikstrom as to having the geofenced location which are assigned when the vehicles are attaching to the trailer as taught by Morris in order to accurately identify an appropriate trailer. Therefore the autonomous vehicle of Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Vikstrom and further in view of Morris can cause a virtual driver system (instruction within the processor (54)) of the autonomous vehicle (10) to restrict operation of the autonomous vehicle (10) within a geofenced location the system by engaging the brake when the hitch is not properly connected and enable the operation of the autonomous vehicle (10) outside the geofenced location by disengaging the brake when the hitch is properly connected.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris and further in view of Pub No. WO 2006/048718 A1 to Van Eeden (Van).
In Reference to Claim 4
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the first sensor (34) is fixedly positioned at an inner surface at a back of the throat (46) of the fifth-wheel hitch (24) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19).
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to having the first sensor (34) is fixedly positioned at an inner surface at a back of the throat (46) of the fifth-wheel hitch (24). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first sensor is fixedly positioned at an inner surface at a back of the throat of the fifth-wheel hitch. For example, Van teaches a first sensor (90) is fixedly positioned at an inner surface at a back of the throat (12, 22) of the fifth-wheel hitch (10) (see at least Van Figs. 1-2 and 6-8 and page 5 lines 9-16, page 6 lines 15-30, page 7 lines 1-10). The substitution of one known element (sensor (34) as shown in Van) for another (sensor (90) as shown in Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the sensor (34) shown in Van would have yielded predictable results, namely, determine whether the kingpin is in position in Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris to know when the kingpin is secure in the fifth-wheel hitch.
In Reference to Claim 14
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The system of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the first sensor (34) is fixedly positioned at an inner surface at a back of the throat (46) of the fifth-wheel hitch (24) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19).
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) as to having the first sensor (34) is fixedly positioned at an inner surface at a back of the throat (46) of the fifth-wheel hitch (24). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first sensor is fixedly positioned at an inner surface at a back of the throat of the fifth-wheel hitch. For example, Van teaches a first sensor (90) is fixedly positioned at an inner surface at a back of the throat (12, 22) of the fifth-wheel hitch (10) (see at least Van Figs. 1-2 and 6-8 and page 5 lines 9-16, page 6 lines 15-30, page 7 lines 1-10). The substitution of one known element (sensor (34) as shown in Van) for another (sensor (90) as shown in Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the sensor (34) shown in Van would have yielded predictable results, namely, determine whether the kingpin is in position in Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris to know when the kingpin is secure in the fifth-wheel hitch.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris and further in view of Pub No. CN 112672947 A to Koster (Koster).
Examiner’s Note: Machine translation of Koster will be used in the rejection below.
In Reference to Claim 6
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein receiving the first signal comprises measuring a capacitance between the first sensor (34) and the king pin (18) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19).
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches that the sensors (34, 36, 38) sensors are non-contact sensors and that other suitable sensors known in the art may also be utilized (see Mohamad paragraph 12). However, Mohamad in view of Gupta does not explicitly teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the first signal comprises measuring a capacitance between the first sensor (34) and the king pin (18) which requires the first sensor (34) to be a capacitance sensor. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a capacitance sensor in the fifth-wheel hitch system. For example, Koster teaches of having sensors (30) in a fifth-wheel hitch system (2) as being a non-contact design which includes a capacitance sensor (see Koster Figs.1-6 and page 4 lines 37-46, page 5 lines 1-10). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the non-contact sensors of Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris can be a capacitance sensor as evidence by Koster that non-contact sensors can be a capacitance sensor.
In Reference to Claim 7
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein receiving the second signal comprises measuring a capacitance between the second sensor (36) and the jaw (50) of the fifth-wheel hitch (24) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19).
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches that the sensors (34, 36, 38) sensors are non-contact sensors and that other suitable sensors known in the art may also be utilized (see Mohamad paragraph 12). However, Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris does not explicitly teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the second signal comprises measuring a capacitance between the second sensor (36) and the jaw (50) of the fifth-wheel hitch (24) which requires the second sensor (36) to be a capacitance sensor. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a capacitance sensor in the fifth-wheel hitch system. For example, Koster teaches of having sensors (30) in a fifth-wheel hitch system (2) as being a non-contact design which includes a capacitance sensor (see Koster Figs.1-6 and page 4 lines 37-46, page 5 lines 1-10). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the non-contact sensors of Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris can be a capacitance sensor as evidence by Koster that non-contact sensors can be a capacitance sensor.
In Reference to Claim 16
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The system of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the first sensor (34) is configured to measure a capacitance between the first sensor (34) and the king pin (18) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19).
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches that the sensors (34, 36, 38) sensors are non-contact sensors and that other suitable sensors known in the art may also be utilized (see Mohamad paragraph 12). However, Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris does not explicitly teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as the first sensor (34) is configured to measure a capacitance between the first sensor (34) and the king pin (18). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a capacitance sensor in the fifth-wheel hitch system. For example, Koster teaches of having sensors (30) in a fifth-wheel hitch system (2) as being a non-contact design which includes a capacitance sensor (see Koster Figs.1-6 and page 4 lines 37-46, page 5 lines 1-10). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the non-contact sensors of Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris can be a capacitance sensor as evidence by Koster that non-contact sensors can be a capacitance sensor.
In Reference to Claim 17
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The system of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), wherein the second sensor (36) is configured to measure a capacitance between the second sensor (36) and the jaw (50) of the fifth-wheel hitch (24) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19).
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches that the sensors (34, 36, 38) sensors are non-contact sensors and that other suitable sensors known in the art may also be utilized (see Mohamad paragraph 12). However, Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris does not explicitly teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the second sensor (36) is configured to measure a capacitance between the second sensor (36) and the jaw (50) of the fifth-wheel hitch (24) which requires the second sensor (36) to be a capacitance sensor. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a capacitance sensor in the fifth-wheel hitch system. For example, Koster teaches of having sensors (30) in a fifth-wheel hitch system (2) as being a non-contact design which includes a capacitance sensor (see Koster Figs.1-6 and page 4 lines 37-46, page 5 lines 1-10). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the non-contact sensors of Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris can be a capacitance sensor as evidence by Koster that non-contact sensors can be a capacitance sensor.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris and further in view of Pub No. US 2016/0018229 A1 to Lee (Lee) and further in view of Pub No. US 2006/0186636 A1 to Schutt et. al. (Schutt).
In Reference to Claim 9
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the processor (54) is configured for autonomously maneuvering the autonomous vehicle (10) without human intervention and the first sensor (34) is an inductive proximity sensor (34) configured to detect the presence of the king pin (18) based on an electromagnetic field associated with the king pin (18) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19).
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the processor (54) is configured for autonomously maneuvering the vehicle (10) without human intervention. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the processor configured for autonomously maneuvering the vehicle without human intervention. For example, Lee teaches having processor (12) is configured for autonomously maneuvering the vehicle (10) without human intervention. Lee further teaches that having such processor provide driving control with less driver intervention (see at least Lee Fig.1 and paragraphs 4 and 17-18). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris to include the processor configured for autonomously maneuvering the vehicle as taught by Lee in order to provide driving control with less driver intervention.
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris and further in view of Lee does not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) that the first sensor (34) is an inductive proximity sensor (34) configured to detect the presence of the king pin (18) based on an electromagnetic field associated with the king pin (18). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in that hitch sensor can be an inductive proximity sensor configured to detect the presence of the king pin. For example, Schutt teaches having a hitch sensor which is an inductive proximity sensor (24) configured to detect the presence of the king pin (32) (see at least Schutt Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 8-10, 39, 42). The substitution of one known element (hitch sensor as shown in Schutt) for another (hitch senso as shown in Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since the substitution of the hitch senso shown in Schutt would have yielded predictable results, namely, determining the hitch location in Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris to accurately determine if the hitch is engaged or not.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris and further in view of Pub No. US 2022/0177033 A1 to Laine et. al. (Laine).
In Reference to Claim 10
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The method of claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), further comprising: receiving, by the processor from a third sensor (38), an indication of a rotation of the king pin (18) in relation to the throat of the fifth-wheel hitch (24), wherein the third sensor (38) is cooperatively coupled to the fifth-wheel hitch (24) of the autonomous vehicle (10) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19).
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches the third sensor (38) is cooperatively coupled to the fifth-wheel hitch (24) of the vehicle (10) however does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) having a sensor which detects an indication of a rotation of the king pin in relation to the throat of the fifth-wheel hitch. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sensor which detects a rotation of the king pin in relation to the throat of the fifth-wheel hitch. For example, Laine teaches of having a sensor (330) which detects an indication of a rotation of the king pin (8) in relation to the throat of the fifth-wheel hitch. Laine further teaches that having such sensor provides to determination of the swept area (see at least Laine Figs.1-3 and paragraph 49). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris to include the sensor which detects an indication of a rotation of the king pin in relation to the throat of the fifth-wheel hitch as taught by Laine in order to provide to determination of the swept area.
In Reference to Claim 20
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The system of claim 11 (see rejection to claim 11 above), further comprising:
a third sensor (38) configured to measure an angle of rotation of the king pin (18) in relation to the throat of the fifth-wheel hitch (24), wherein the third sensor (38) is cooperatively coupled to the fifth-wheel hitch (24) of the autonomous vehicle (10) (see Mohamad Figs. 1-6 and paragraphs 12-19).
Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris teaches the third sensor (38) is cooperatively coupled to the fifth-wheel hitch (24) of the vehicle (10) however does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) having a sensor configured to measure an angle of rotation of the king pin (18) in relation to the throat of the fifth-wheel hitch (24). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sensor configured to measure an angle of a rotation of the king pin in relation to the throat of the fifth-wheel hitch. For example, Laine teaches of having a sensor (330) configured to measure an angle of a rotation of the king pin (8) in relation to the throat of the fifth-wheel hitch. Laine further teaches that having such sensor provides to determination of the swept area (see at least Laine Figs.1-3 and paragraph 49). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mohamad in view of Gupta and further in view of Morris to include the sensor which configured to measure an angle of a rotation of the king pin in relation to the throat of the fifth-wheel hitch as taught by Laine in order to provide to determination of the swept area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 and 20-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pub No. US 2015/0102583 A1 to Reimer (Reimer) teaches a valve in the brake line to a trailer parking brake in a closed position based on the unlocked position of the fifth wheel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 February 27, 2026