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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office action is in response to communications filed on 1/27/2026. Claims 1, 4-10, 13-28 are currently pending within this application with claim 24 being withdrawn from consideration at the time.
Objection to Drawings
2. The previous objections to the drawings are withdrawn in response to amended specification filed on 1/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the clams have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the previously pending claims.
16Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Juelsgaard (US PGPub 2018/0372875) [hereafter Juel] in view of Yang (US PGPub 2024/0116531) [hereafter Yang].
5. As to claim 1, Juel discloses a system (autonomous truck control system shown in Figures 1 and 2) for imaging an environment (regions 402-426) proximate to a tractor (cabin 410 of autonomous semi-truck 400), wherein a trailer (trailer 420 as shown in Figure 4) or other conveyance has two opposed lateral sides (as shown in Figure 4 having sides corresponding to regions 414 and 416), the system comprising: a plurality of sensors (sensors 101-105 of sensor configuration 150) mounted to the tractor (sensors housed within sensor assembly shown in Figure 3 and mounted to the cabin according to various configurations as shown in Figures 5-8), wherein the sensors together have an active sensing area that encompasses at least the two opposed lateral sides of the trailer or other conveyance (as shown in Figure 4), wherein the tractor has a left side and a right side (as shown in Figures 4-8), and the plurality of sensors comprises a left sensor (610/630 as shown in Figure 6 and/or 720/740 as shown in Figure 7 and/or 833/837 as shown in Figure 8C) mounted such that it extends outwardly away from the left side of the tractor and a right sensor (610/630 as shown in Figure 6 and/or 720/740 as shown in Figure 7 and/or 833/837 as shown in Figure 8C) mounted such that it extends outwardly away from the right side of the tractor (Paragraphs 0023-0031, 0061, 0068, 0072, 0075, 0077-0078, 0084-0085).
It is however noted that Juel fails to particularly disclose imaging at least one of a trailer or other conveyance that is connected to a tractor and is configured to be conveyed by the tractor.
On the other hand, Yang discloses a system (sensor system shown in Figure 2 including cameras within sensor assembly 12) for imaging at least one of a trailer (trailer 22 of truck 10 shown in Figure 1) or other conveyance that is connected to a tractor and is configured to be conveyed by the tractor (as shown in Figure 3 where the field of views 302 and 304 of respective sensor assemblies 12a and 12b encompass trailer sides 23 and 25) (Paragraphs 0035-0038, 0041-0046).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include imaging at least one of a trailer or other conveyance that is connected to a tractor and is configured to be conveyed by the tractor as taught by Yang with the imaging system of Juel because the cited prior art references are directed towards tractor and trailer vehicle configurations and surveillance sensor components thereof that enhance the operations of an autonomous vehicle and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of enabling the sides of the attached trailer to be within the monitored field of view through expanding the field of view of the sensor components mounted on the side mirrors of the cabin in order to enable detection of objects in contact or within the immediate vicinity of the trailer being conveyed by the tractor as well as enable the determination of the angle between the tractor and trailer to be monitored as parameters for improved control of the various operations of the autonomous vehicle.
6. As to claim 6, Juel discloses the left and right sensors are distance ranging sensors, wherein the distance ranging sensors comprise at least one of a LIDAR-based sensor, a radar based sensor, and an ultrasonic based sensor (Paragraphs 0026-0029, 0061, 0068, 0075-0078, 0084-0085).
7. As to claim 9, Juel discloses the left and right sensors are spaced apart sufficiently such that they can obtain position data along the entire side of the trailer or other conveyance when misalignment between the tractor and the trailer or other conveyance is up to about 3 degrees (Paragraphs 0029, 0031, 0068, 0075, 0077-0078, 0084-0085).
8. As to claim 10, Juel discloses the left and right sensors are displaced laterally away from the tractor a sufficient distance such that the portion of the sensor field of view filled by the trailer or other conveyance side wall is at least about 0.3 degrees, when the tractor and the trailer or other conveyance are misaligned by up to about +/−3.0 degrees (Paragraphs 0029, 0031, 0068, 0075, 0077-0078, 0084-0085).
9. As to claim 13, Juel discloses a processor (processors implementing logic of control system 100 and computing system 200 shown in Figures 1 and 2) that is configured to process data from the plurality of sensors to develop position data for the trailer or other conveyance (Paragraphs 0023, 0025, 0031, 0036, 0048-0054).
10. As to claim 15, it is noted that Juel fails to particularly disclose the position data for the trailer or other conveyance comprises at least one of a trailer or other conveyance length, a trailer or other conveyance width, a trailer or other conveyance height, a location of a rear axle of the trailer or other conveyance, a location of a kingpin, and an angle between the tractor and the trailer or other conveyance.
On the other hand, Yang discloses the position data for the trailer (trailer 22 as shown in Figure 1) or other conveyance comprises at least one of a trailer or other conveyance length, a trailer or other conveyance width, a trailer or other conveyance height, a location of a rear axle of the trailer or other conveyance, a location of a kingpin, and an angle between the tractor (tractor 20) and the trailer or other conveyance (Paragraphs 0035-0036, 0042, 0044-0046, 0065).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include position data for the trailer or other conveyance comprises at least one of a trailer or other conveyance length, a trailer or other conveyance width, a trailer or other conveyance height, a location of a rear axle of the trailer or other conveyance, a location of a kingpin, and an angle between the tractor and the trailer or other conveyance as taught by Yang with the imaging system of Juel because the cited prior art references are directed towards tractor and trailer vehicle configurations and sensor components thereof and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of enabling various autonomous operations of the semi-truck to be controlled according to the calculated angle between the tractor and trailer as well as enabling calibration of the various sensors to occur.
11. As to claim 16, Juel discloses the plurality of sensors comprise at least one of a front camera mounted to the front of the tractor, a rear camera mounted to the rear of the tractor, a right side camera mounted to the right side of the tractor, a left side camera mounted to the left side of the tractor, and a top camera mounted to the top of the tractor (as shown in Figure 3 and Figures 5-8) (Paragraphs 0061, 0068, 0071-0075, 0077-0084).
12. As to claim 18, Juel discloses the trailer or other conveyance has a front side (side adjacent fifth coupling wheel 430 as shown in Figure 4), and wherein a camera is oriented with a field of view that includes the front side of the trailer or other conveyance (as shown as intersection of imaged regions 404 and 414 as well as 406 and 416) (Paragraphs 0029, 0031, 0068, 0075, 0077-0078, 0084-0085).
13. As to claim 19, Juel discloses the at least one camera is configured to be used for at least one of: static object detection, dynamic object detection, lane marking, safety identification, dock door identification, trailer or other conveyance identification, inspection for damage to the trailer or other conveyance, and robotic connection of air hoses and electrical connections of the tractor to the trailer or other conveyance (Paragraphs 0034, 0036, 0041-0043, 0061-0065, 0073-0075).
14. As to claim 20, Juel discloses a global positioning system (GPS) carried at least in part by the tractor (Paragraph 0048).
15. As to claim 28, the combination of the Juel and Yang references discloses all claimed subject matter as explained above with respect to the comments/citations of claim 15.
16. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Juelsgaard (US PGPub 2018/0372875) [hereafter Juel] and Yang (US PGPub 2024/0116531) [hereafter Yang] in further view of Mains (US PGPub 2016/0121790) [hereafter Mains].
17. As to claim 4, Juel discloses the left and right sensors are spaced apart such that they do not significantly protrude beyond the profile of the side mirrors of the cabin of the tractor (as shown in Figures 6 and 8) (Paragraphs 0075, 0081, 0084).
It is however noted that Juel and Yang fails to particularly disclose a width of at least 102 inches.
On the other hand, Mains discloses the width of trailers (105, 110) is at least 102 inches wide (Paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include spacing apart the left and right sensors apart by at least 102 inches as taught by the combination of the Juel and Yang and Mains references because the cited prior art are directed towards tractor and trailer vehicle configurations and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of enabling the sensors within Juel and Yang to function as disclosed in order to achieve surveillance of the surrounding environment of the cabin and trailer by placing the sensors at a distance greater than a typical width of the trailer and cabin.
18. As to claim 5, Juel discloses the tractor has a front, a rear, and a top, and wherein the plurality of sensors further comprises at least one of a front sensor mounted to the front of the tractor, a rear sensor mounted to the rear of the tractor, and a top sensor mounted to the top of the tractor (as shown in Figures 4-8) (Paragraphs 0068, 0071-0072, 0074-0075, 0077-0078, 0080-0081, 0084).
19. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Juelsgaard (US PGPub 2018/0372875) [hereafter Juel] Yang (US PGPub 2024/0116531) [hereafter Yang] and in further view of Van Der Knaap (US PGPub 2020/0241563) [hereafter Van].
20. As to claim 7, Juel discloses the left and right distance ranging sensors are spaced apart laterally (as shown in Figures 5-8) such that a resolution on a determination of a length of the trailer or other conveyance, and a maximum allowable spacing of the data points returned from left and right sides of the trailer or other conveyance, is in range to encompass an entirety of the surrounding regions of the truck and trailer (Paragraphs 0029, 0031, 0068, 0075, 0077-0078, 0084-0085).
It is however noted that Juel and Yang fails to particularly disclose a resolution is in the range of from about 1 cm to about 50 cm.
On the other hand, Van discloses left and right sensors (detectors 20 and 20’) are spaced apart laterally (as shown in Figure 2) such that a resolution is in the range of from about 1 cm to about 50 cm (Paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include left and right distance ranging sensors are spaced apart laterally such that a resolution is in the range of from about 1 cm to about 50 cm as taught by Van with the imaging system of Juel and Yang because the cited prior art references are directed towards tractor and trailer vehicle configurations and sensor components thereof and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of providing a sufficient resolution for determining exact measurements associated with the trailer.
21. Claims 8 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Juelsgaard (US PGPub 2018/0372875) [hereafter Juel] and Yang (US PGPub 2024/0116531) [hereafter Yang] and in further view of Dominik (EP 1245445) [hereafter Dom].
22. As to claim 8, it is noted that Juel and Yang fails to particularly disclose the trailer or other conveyance has a bottom height, and wherein the left and right sensors are mounted below the bottom height of the trailer or other conveyance.
On the other hand, Dom discloses the trailer (trailer 7 as shown in Figures 1 and 2) or other conveyance has a bottom height (height from ground to bottom of trailer), and wherein the left and right sensors (cameras 2) are mounted below the bottom height of the trailer or other conveyance (Paragraphs 0009, 0013-0015).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the trailer or other conveyance has a bottom height, and wherein the left and right sensors are mounted below the bottom height of the trailer or other conveyance as taught by Dom with the imaging system of Juel because the cited prior art references are directed towards tractor and trailer vehicle configurations and sensor components thereof and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of providing an alternative configuration where achieving accurate measurements of the side of the trailer is made possible in circumstances when the trailer and tractor are displaced at an angle.
23. As to claim 25, Juel discloses the tractor comprises a chassis (portion carrying fifth wheel not shown) and a cab (cabin 410) which is mounted to the chassis (as shown in Figures 4-8) (Paragraphs 0012, 0068, 0083, 0085).
It is however noted that Juel and Yang fails to particularly disclose the left and right sensors are mounted to the chassis.
On the other hand, Dom discloses a chassis (portion carrying tractor 8) and a cab (body of tractor 8) which is mounted to the chassis (as shown in Figures 1-2), where the left and right sensors (cameras 2) are mounted to the chassis (Paragraphs 0009, 0013-0015).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include mounting the left and right sensors to the chassis as taught by Dom with the imaging system of Juel and Yang because the cited prior art references are directed towards tractor and trailer vehicle configurations and sensor components thereof and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of providing an alternative configuration where achieving accurate measurements of the side of the trailer is made possible in circumstances when the trailer and tractor are displaced at an angle.
24. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Juelsgaard (US PGPub 2018/0372875) [hereafter Juel] and Yang (US PGPub 2024/0116531) [hereafter Yang] and in further view of Joshi (US PGPub 2022/0136823) [hereafter Joshi].
25. As to claim 14, it is noted that Juel and Yang fails to particularly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to fit a predetermined shape representing the trailer or other conveyance to the position data.
On the other hand, Joshi discloses a processor (control unit 12) is further configured to fit a predetermined shape (known trailer types T1-T3) representing the trailer (trailer 4) or other conveyance to the position data (kinematic model and distance/length information) (Paragraphs 0044-0049, 0062-0063, 0074-0078).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a processor configured to fit a predetermined shape representing the trailer or other conveyance to the position data as taught by Joshi with the imaging system of Juel and Yang because the cited prior art references are directed towards tractor and trailer vehicle configurations and sensor components thereof and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of enabling an angle between the trailer and tractor to be calculated and used for determination of collisions during operation.
26. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Juelsgaard (US PGPub 2018/0372875) [hereafter Juel] and Yang (US PGPub 2024/0116531) [hereafter Yang] and in further view of Berne (US PGPub 2022/0153345) [hereafter Berne].
27. As to claim 17, Juel discloses at least one camera is oriented with a field of view proximate a side of the tractor (as shown in Figure 4 with field of views of regions 404 and 406) (Paragraphs 0038, 0061, 0068, 0072-0073, 0076, 0079, 0082).
It is however noted that Juel and Yang fails to particularly disclose an illumination system configured to provide light to the at least one camera field of view.
On the other hand, Berne discloses an illumination system (lighting assembly 30 as shown in Figures 1 and 6-7) configured to provide light to the at least one camera (camera assembly 41) field of view (Paragraphs 0047-0048, 0052-0053, 0059-0050, 0063, 0088-0089).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an illumination system configured to provide light to the at least one camera field of view as taught by Berne with the imaging system of Juel and Yang because the cited prior art references are directed towards tractor and trailer vehicle configurations and camera sensor components thereof and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of providing improved lighting functions for illuminating the area imaged by the cameras in order to enhance the captured image data.
28. Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Juelsgaard (US PGPub 2018/0372875) [hereafter Juel] and Yang (US PGPub 2024/0116531) [hereafter Yang] and in further view of Huo (CN 109991971) [hereafter Huo].
29. As to claim 21, it is noted that Juel and Yang fails to particularly disclose the GPS comprises two GPS antennas mounted to a roof of the tractor, such that a position and attitude of the tractor can be determined using the two GPS antennas without the need for the tractor to be in motion.
On the other hand, Huo discloses the GPS comprises two GPS antennas mounted to a roof of the tractor (front antenna 1021 and rear antenna 1022 as shown in Figures 1 and 2), such that a position and attitude of the tractor can be determined using the two GPS antennas without the need for the tractor to be in motion (Abstract, Pages 6-8, GPS Positioning Method section).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a GPS with two GPS antennas mounted to a roof of the tractor, such that a position and attitude of the tractor can be determined using the two GPS antennas without the need for the tractor to be in motion as taught by Huo with the imaging system of Juel because the cited prior art references are directed towards vehicle configurations having GPS capabilities and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of enabling accurate calculations of position and attitude of the tractor that dictate various autonomous operations of the semi-truck.
30. As to claim 22, Huo discloses a third antenna (antenna 3011) located externally of the tractor in a fixed, non-moving location and serving as a reference point for the GPS (Page 7, Paragraphs 3-7).
31. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Juelsgaard (US PGPub 2018/0372875) [hereafter Juel] and Yang (US PGPub 2024/0116531) [hereafter Yang] and in further view of Viele (US PGPub 2019/0217831) [hereafter Viele].
32. As to claim 23, Juel discloses the sensor configuration (150) can include a field of view that includes a region directly behind the trailer of the truck (Paragraph 0030).
It is, however, noted that Juel and Yang fails to particularly disclose the sensors are used to image at least one open rear door of a trailer or other conveyance that is connected to the tractor.
On the other hand, Viele discloses the sensors (park sensors 1620 as shown in Figure 16) are used to image at least one open rear door of a trailer (trailer 210) or other conveyance that is connected to the tractor (Paragraphs 0215, 0220).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include sensors are used to image at least one open rear door of a trailer or other conveyance that is connected to the tractor as taught by Viele with the imaging system of Juel and Yang because the cited prior art references are directed towards tractor and trailer vehicle configurations and sensor components thereof and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of enabling accidents regarding the state of the rear door of the trailer to be avoided by enabling the door to be monitored.
33. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Juelsgaard (US PGPub 2018/0372875) [hereafter Juel] and Yang (US PGPub 2024/0116531) [hereafter Yang] and Dominik (EP 1245445) [hereafter Dom], as applied to claim 25, and in further view of Skinner (US PGPub 2020/0307467) [hereafter Skinner].
34. As to claim 26, it is noted that the combination of the Juel, Yang, and Dominik references fails to particularly disclose the left and right sensors are mounted to the chassis using vibration isolation mounts.
On the other hand, Skinner discloses the left and right sensors (cameras) are mounted to the chassis using vibration isolation mounts (mounts 120A and 120B as shown in Figures 1-3) (Paragraphs 0036, 0041, 0046, 0068, 0072).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include left and right sensors are mounted to the chassis using vibration isolation mounts as taught by Skinner with the imaging system of Juel, Yang, and Dominik because the cited prior art references are directed towards tractor and trailer vehicle configurations and sensor components thereof and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of reducing the effects of unwanted vibration on the operations of the attached sensors.
35. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Juelsgaard (US PGPub 2018/0372875) [hereafter Juel] and Yang (US PGPub 2024/0116531) [hereafter Yang] and in further view of Puckett (US PGPub 2014/0151979) [hereafter Puckett].
36. As to claim 27, Juel discloses the tractor comprises a beaver tail fifth wheel (Paragraphs 0012-0013, 0068).
It is, however, noted that Juel and Yang fails to particularly disclose at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is mounted to an underside of the beaver tail.
On the other hand, Puckett discloses the tractor (tractor 10) comprises a beaver tail fifth wheel (18) wherein at least one sensor (camera 30) of the plurality of sensors is mounted to an underside of the beaver tail (Paragraphs 0013-0018).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is mounted to an underside of the beaver tail as taught by Puckett with the imaging system of Juel and Yang because the cited prior art references are directed towards tractor and trailer vehicle configurations and sensor components thereof and because each of the claimed limitations is fully disclosed within the cited prior art references and would yield predictable results of enabling monitoring of coupling operations between the tractor and the trailer.
Conclusion
37. 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 MICHAEL S OSINSKI whose telephone number is (571) 270-3949. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10:00am - 6:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oneal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
MO
/MICHAEL S OSINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
2/16/2026