DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
The following addresses applicant’s remarks/amendments dated 12th October, 2025. Claim(s) 1, 13, and 17-18 were amended; No Claim(s) were cancelled, and No Claim(s) were added. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in current application and are addressed below. Examiner appreciates the courtesies extended by applicant throughout the prosecution of this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2025, and 09/01/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 7) with respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 1-2 under AlA 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention; have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amended Claim(s); therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks Pg. 7-10) with respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 13-14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant presented Prior Art, Genheimer (US 2019/0337342 Al) in view of Scheips (US 2017/0305215 Al); and Claim(s) 15-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Applicant presented Prior Art, Genheimer in view of Scheips and further in view of Zwuz (WO 2020/236389 Al); have been fully considered but are moot since the amendments to the limitations will require a new search and examination based on a change of scope in the claim(s), wherein either new prior art or current prior art on record, viewed in light of the amendments, will be searched.
Regarding Dependent Claim(s) 14-17 and 19-20, by virtue of their dependency from the amended Independent Claim(s) 13 and 18, as well as for the subject matter that they separately recite; the aforementioned response shows applicants arguments to the amended Independent Claim(s) 13 and 18 are moot since the amendments to the limitations will require a new search and examination based on a change of scope in the claims, wherein either new prior art or current prior art on record, viewed in light of the amendments, will be searched; and therefore, the same rationale is applied herein to the rejections of Dependent Claim(s) 14-17 and 19-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HARTMANN (US 2021/0039556 A1) in view of WOOD (US 11,052,913 B2).
Referring to Claim 1, HARTMANN teaches a sensing device (1) comprising:
a range sensor ([0012]; [0048]);
a sensor housing (2) configured to house the range sensor, the sensor housing (2) having an aperture through which the range sensor is configured to emit the signal ([0017]);
a coupling member (8) attached to the sensor housing (2) and configured to couple the sensor housing (2) to a body of a trailer (12) or a chassis.
HARTMANN doesn’t explicitly teach the range sensor being configured to emit a signal toward the ground and to measure a distance between the range sensor and the ground.
WOOD teaches a sensing device (250) comprising a range sensor (252) configured to emit a signal toward the ground and to measure a distance between the range sensor and the ground (column 6, line 59 to column 7, line 4: LIDAR data is collected corresponding to field of view i.e. if attached to trailer-bottom it will detect distance to ground).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensing device disclosed in HARTMANN with the range sensor taught in WOOD with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a known technique for determining positional and spatial relationships between the sensor and its surrounding environment, thereby improving the sensing device’s ability to determine orientation calibration and position relative to the vehicle body, trailer, and ground surface.
Referring to Claim 6, WOOD teaches the sensing device of claim 1, wherein the range sensor is coupled to an electrical system of the trailer or the chassis, and is configured to receive electrical power from at least one of an electrical circuit of an anti-lock braking system (ABS) of the trailer or the chassis, a light circuit providing power to lights of the trailer or the chassis, a power-over-ethernet (PoE) connection, or a storage battery at the trailer or the chassis (column 7, lines 5 to 14).
Referring to Claim 8, HARTMANN teaches the sensing device of claim 1, wherein the sensor housing accommodates the range sensor and is fixedly coupled to the coupling member (Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 2-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann in view of Wood, as applied to Claim(s) 1 above; and further in view GENHEIMER (US 2019/0337342 A1).
Referring to Claim 2, HARTMANN, as modified, teaches the sensing device of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the range sensor comprises a time-of-flight (ToF) sensor, and the signal comprises a light signal or a sound wave.
GENHEIMER teaches the range sensor comprises a time-of-flight (ToF) sensor, and the signal comprises a light signal or a sound wave ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensing device disclosed in HARTMANN with the range sensor taught in GENHEIMER with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a determined the distances by measuring the travel time of the emitted signals between the vehicle sensor and the ground, thereby improving the accuracy, reliability and responsiveness of the vehicle height.
Referring to Claim 3, HARTMANN teaches the sensing device of claim 1, wherein the range sensor comprises:
an emitter ([0012]; [0048]);
a receiver (0009]);
a processing circuit ([0027]; [0046]).
HARTMANN doesn’t explicitly teach the emitter is configured to emit the signal toward the ground; the receiver is configured to receive a reflected signal from the ground; and the processing circuit is configured to calculate the distance between the range sensor and the ground based on an emission time of the signal and a receive time of the reflected signal, and to determine a height of a kingpin of the trailer or the chassis based on the calculated distance.
WOOD teaches an emitter configured to emit the signal toward the ground (column 6, line 59 to column 7, line 4: LIDAR data is collected corresponding to field of view i.e. if attached to trailer-bottom it will detect distance to ground);
a receiver configured to receive a reflected signal from the ground (column 6, line 59 to column 7, line 4: LIDAR data is collected corresponding to field of view i.e. if attached to trailer-bottom it will detect distance to ground).
GENHEIMER teaches a processing circuit configured to calculate the distance between the range sensor and the ground based on an emission time of the signal and a receive time of the reflected signal, and to determine a height of a kingpin of the trailer or the chassis based on the calculated distance ([0016]: laser range finder).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensing device disclosed in HARTMANN with the range sensor taught in WOOD with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a known technique for determining positional and spatial relationships between the sensor and its surrounding environment, thereby improving the sensing device’s ability to determine orientation calibration and position relative to the vehicle body, trailer, and ground surface.
And further with the processing circuit taught in GENHEIMER with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a determined the distances by measuring the travel time of the emitted signals between the vehicle sensor and the ground, thereby improving the accuracy, reliability and responsiveness of the vehicle height.
Referring to Claim 4, GENHEIMER teaches the sensing device of claim 3, wherein the processing circuit is configured to determine the height of the kingpin further based on a calibration value corresponding to a vertical distance between the kingpin and the range sensor ([0016]: laser range finder).
Referring to Claim 5, HARTMANN; as modified, teaches the sensing device of claim 3, wherein the range sensor further comprises:
a communication circuit in electrical communication with a telematics gateway circuit at the trailer or the chassis, and configured to transmit data generated by the processing circuit to the telematics gateway circuit over a controller area network (CAN) bus of the trailer or the chassis, an RS232/485 connection, a power line communication (PLC) connection, or a wireless communication link ([0046]).
Referring to Claim 7, GENHEIMER teaches the sensing device of claim 1, wherein the range sensor is configured to determine a height of a kingpin of the trailer or the chassis based on the distance between the range sensor and the ground, and to transmit the height of the kingpin ([0016]: laser range finder).
Claim(s) 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HARTMANN in view of Wood, as applied to Claim(s) 1 above; and further in view FORTHOFFER (US 2023/0113053 A1).
Referring to Claim 9, HARTMANN, as modified, teaches the sensing device of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach the sensor housing comprises glass-filled nylon material.
FORTHOFFER teaches the sensor housing (230) comprises glass-filled nylon material ([0053]; Claim 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensing device disclosed in HARTMANN with the range sensor taught in FORTHOFFER with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a durable and structurally stable enclosure capable of protecting the sensing components while maintaining reliable operation resistant to environmental conditions.
Referring to Claim 10, HARTMANN, as modified, teaches the sensing device of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly teach the coupling member comprises: a fixing member; a first fastener and a second fastener facing one another, the first and second fasteners being configured to be attached to the fixing member and to grip a flange of an 1-beam at an underside of the trailer or the chassis.
FORTHOFFER teaches the coupling member (240) comprises:
a fixing member ([0015]; [0049]; Claim 9);
a first fastener (242) and a second fastener (244) facing one another ([0054]), the first and second fasteners being configured to be attached to the fixing member and to grip a flange (105a) of an 1-beam (105) at an underside of the trailer or the chassis (104) ([0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensing device disclosed in HARTMANN with the fixing member, first fastener and second fastener taught in FORTHOFFER with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a secure attachment or support for the sensing device.
Referring to Claim 11, FORTHOFFER teaches the sensing device of claim 10, wherein the first fastener comprises:
a first U-shaped clip having two parallel arms that extend along and overlap the flange, one of the two parallel arms having a threaded through hole to enable a bolt to screw through and apply compressive force against the flange of the 1-beam and to fasten the first U-shaped clip to the 1-beam ([0056]);
a first stem extending from an other one of the two parallel arms and configured to be fastened to the fixing member ([0056]).
Referring to Claim 12, HARTMANN teaches the sensing device of claim 10, wherein the fixing member has a fixing stem portion configured to be coupled to the first and second fasteners, and a U-shaped bracket portion configured to be mounted to two sides of the sensor housing ([0056]).
Claim(s) 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant presented Prior Art, GENHEIMER (US 2019/0337342 A1) in view of SCHEIPS (US 2017/0305215 A1) in view of FORTHOFFER (US 2023/0113053 A1).
Referring to Claim 13, GENHEIMER teaches a sensing device comprising:
the trailer or chassis having a kingpin configured to couple the trailer or the chassis to a tractor ([0016]-[0017], [0043], [0059]; and figure 4: a kingpin (22) firmly connected to a second vehicle (20), especially being screwed together, wherein immediately above the kingpin (22) there stretches a trailer plate (24) fastened to an underside (23) of the second vehicle (20), which lies against a fifth wheel (12) when first and second vehicles (10, 20) are joined together and slides across the fifth wheel (12) when negotiating curves);
a range sensor configured to emit a signal toward the ground, to measure a distance between the range sensor and the ground, and to determine a height of the kingpin based on the measured distance (a height measuring sensor (51), which measures without contact a vertical distance between the trailer plate (24) and a ground surface (GOK), and wherein the height measuring sensor (51) may be an ultrasound sensor or a laser range finder, and a height condition of the kingpin (22) situated on the second vehicle (20) is determined by the height measuring sensor (51) situated on the second vehicle (20)).
GENHEIMER doesn’t explicitly teach a sensor housing configured to be coupled to a body of a trailer or a chassis, a range sensor in the sensor housing; but does disclose in [0016], [0059]; and figure 4: the height measuring sensor (51), that may be the ultrasound sensor or the laser range finder, measures without contact the vertical distance between the trailer plate (24) and the ground surface (GOK)).
Furthermore, GENHEIMER doesn’t explicitly teach a coupling member attached to the sensor housing and configured to grip a flange of an I-beam at an underside of the trailer or the chassis.
SCHEIPS teaches a sensor housing configured to be coupled to a body of a trailer or a chassis, a range sensor in the sensor housing (Claim(s) 1, 12; and figures 1-2, 9-10: a sensor housing (62, 362) configured to house a sensor (60, 360), wherein the sensor housing (62, 362) is connected to a coupling arm (11, 311) by means of a fixing bolt (65), wherein a trailer coupling for a motor vehicle for attaching a trailer or supporting a load carrier, comprises the coupling arm (311) provided with a coupling element (17) for coupling on the trailer or load carrier and at least one sensor (60, 360) mounted at the coupling arm (11, 311), and wherein at least one sensor (60, 360) has the sensor housing (62, 362) in which a distance sensor and/or at least one sensor element (67) are arranged).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sensing device disclosed in GENHEIMER with sensor housing taught in SCHEIPS with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a trailer coupling for a motor vehicle for attaching a trailer or supporting a load carrier, with a coupling arm provided with a coupling element for coupling-on the trailer or load carrier, and at least one sensor mounted on the coupling arm for detecting a deformation of the coupling arm due to a load acting on the coupling arm.
FORTHOFFER teaches a coupling member (240) attached to the sensor housing (230) and configured to grip a flange (105a) of an I-beam (105) at an underside of the trailer or the chassis (104) ([0056]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the sensing device disclosed in GENHEIMER with the fixing member, first fastener and second fastener taught in FORTHOFFER with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have provided a secure attachment or support for the sensing device.
Referring to Claim 14, GENHEIMER teaches the sensing device of claim 13, wherein the range sensor is further configured to receive a reflected signal from the ground, to calculate the distance between the range sensor and the ground based on an emission time of the signal and a receive time of the reflected signal, and to determine the height of the kingpin of the trailer or the chassis based on the calculated distance and a calibration value corresponding to a vertical distance between the kingpin and the range sensor ([0011], [0016], [0059]; claim l; and figures 1, 3-4: the height measuring sensor (51), which measures without contact the vertical distance between the trailer plate (24) and the ground surface (GOK), wherein the sensor device (51) has at least one transceiver unit (31, 34), and on the at least one reference point (40) there can be fastened a transponder (43a), which reflects a radio signal of the transceiver unit, and wherein the sensor device (51) comprises an electronic controller, which calculates from a travel time of the radio signal the direct distance to the at least one transponder (41, 43a, 47a, 48a, 49); and the height condition of the kingpin (22) situated on the second vehicle (20) is determined by the height measuring sensor (51) situated on the second vehicle (20)).
Referring to Claim 17, FORTHOFFER teaches the sensing device of claim 13: a coupling member attached to the sensor housing and configured to couple the sensor housing to an underside of the trailer or the chassis, the coupling member comprising: a fixing member; a first fastener and a second fastener facing one another, the first and second fasteners being configured to be attached to the fixing member and to grip a flange of an 1-beam at the underside of the trailer or the chassis ([0056]).
Claim(s) 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant presented Prior Art, GENHEIMER in view of SCHEIPS in view of FORTHOFFER as applied to Claim(s) 13 above, and further in view of Applicant presented Prior Art, ZWIJZ (WO 2020/236389 A1).
Referring to Claim 15, GENHEIMER, as modified, teaches the sensing device of claim 13, wherein the range sensor is configured to be in electrical communication, the tractor coupled to the trailer or the chassis, or automated landing legs of the trailer or the chassis ([0064]; and figures 4-5: metered values of the distance measurements to the transponders (44) and the calculated value of the distance (a) are relayed by an electronic controller (32) via a data radio transmitter (60) arranged on the second vehicle (20) as a data signal (62) to the first vehicle (10), wherein a data radio antenna (61) for receiving the data signal (62), is connected to a vehicle controller (36)).
GENHEIMER doesn’t explicitly teach the range sensor is configured to be in electrical communication with at least one of a telematics gateway circuit at the trailer or the chassis.
ZWIJZ teaches the range sensor is configured to be in electrical communication with at least one of a telematics gateway circuit at the trailer or the chassis (see page 4, lines 1-7; and figure 1: establishing a communication between a tractor wireless hub and a telematics device (116a, 116b) as well as communication between a plurality of sensors (110) throughout a tractor-trailer vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sensing device disclosed in GENHEIMER with the range sensor taught in ZWIJZ with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have established communication between the tractor wireless hub and a telematics device as well as communication between a plurality of sensors throughout the vehicle. By processing data from the plurality of sensors, proper action for the vehicle can be determined.
Referring to Claim 16, GENHEIMER teaches the sensing device of claim 13, wherein the range sensor is configured to transmit data corresponding to the height of the kingpin to a telematics gateway circuit at the trailer or the chassis ([0064]; and figures 4-5: the metered values of the distance measurements to the transponders (44) and the calculated value of the distance (a) are relayed by the electronic controller (32) via the data radio transmitter (60) arranged on the second vehicle (20) as the data signal (62) to the first vehicle (10), wherein the data radio antenna (61) for receiving the data signal (62), is connected to the vehicle controller (36))
GENHEIMER doesn’t explicitly teach over a controller area network (CAN) bus of the trailer or the chassis, an RS232/485 connection, a power line communication (PLC) connection, or a wireless communication link
ZWIJZ teaches over a controller area network (CAN) bus of the trailer or the chassis, an RS232/485 connection, a power line communication (PLC) connection, or a wireless communication link (page 20, line 18 - page 21, line 5; and figure 1: the telematics modules (116a, 116b) also communicate with external networks (118) having an external devices (120), wherein a tractor (102) has a chassis CAN bus (124) over which a tractor hub (130a) and the telematics module (116a) communicate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine sensing device disclosed in GENHEIMER with the range sensor taught in ZWIJZ with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have established communication between the tractor wireless hub and a telematics device as well as communication between a plurality of sensors throughout the vehicle. By processing data from the plurality of sensors, proper action for the vehicle can be determined and further provide communication protocol.
Claim 18 is essentially the same as Claim 13, and refers to a vehicle height sensing system comprising a sensing device of Claim 13 and further comprising a telematics gateway circuit at the trailer or the chassis and configured to be in electrical communication with the sensing device (GENHEIMER teaches [0064]; and figures 4-5: metered values of the distance measurements to the transponders (44) and the calculated value of the distance (a) are relayed by an electronic controller (32) via a data radio transmitter (60) arranged on the second vehicle (20) as a data signal (62) to the first vehicle (10), wherein a data radio antenna (61) for receiving the data signal (62), is connected to a vehicle controller (36)). ZWIJZ teaches (see page 4, lines 1-7; and figure 1: establishing a communication between a tractor wireless hub and a telematics device (116a, 116b) as well as communication between a plurality of sensors (110) throughout a tractor-trailer vehicle).
Referring to Claim 19, GENHEIMER teaches the vehicle height sensing system of claim 18, wherein the telematics gateway circuit is at a nose box of the trailer or the chassis and is configured to wirelessly transmit data corresponding to the height of the kingpin via a cellular or a broadband connection to an external server or a tractor cab ([0064]; and figures 4-5: metered values of the distance measurements to the transponders (44) and the calculated value of the distance (a) are relayed by an electronic controller (32) via a data radio transmitter (60) arranged on the second vehicle (20) as a data signal (62) to the first vehicle (10), wherein a data radio antenna (61) for receiving the data signal (62), is connected to a vehicle controller (36)); and D3 (see page 4, lines 1-7; and figure 1: establishing a communication between a tractor wireless hub and a telematics device (116a, 116b) as well as communication between a plurality of sensors (110) throughout a tractor-trailer vehicle).
Claim 20 is essentially the same as Claim 16 and is rejected for the same reasons as applied to Claim 16 above.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. However, any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIE M N'DURE whose telephone number is (571)272-6031. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Isam Alsomiri can be reached on 571-272-6970. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMIE M NDURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645