DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Claims status
In the amendment filed on October 3, 2025, claims 1-8 and 12 have been canceled, claims 16-34 have been newly added and claims 9-11 and 13-15 have been amended. Therefore, claims 9-11 and 13-34 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 recites “operable to”. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “able to” operate a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. Examiner suggest to amend “operable to” as “configured to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 32-34 recite “the tractor” without proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-11 and 13-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 22 recite the subject matter “to receive .. and to store …, in advance of a movement of the trailer, grant data”. Examiner cannot find the subject matter in the specification. While specification disclose “the authorization list stored in its storage” in Par 51 and “PIN which is pre-assigned by CAS and stored in TAM’s storage” in Par 54, there is no support in the specification that the temporal relationship between movement of the trailer and the receiving/storage of grant data. In other words, the trailer may been already moved when newly built from the manufacturer or by a prior use of the prior grant data before receiving latest grant data.
Claims 10-11, 13-21 and 23-34 are also rejected since they depend from the rejected claim 9 or 22.
Claim 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.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9, 16-22 and 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (Nam: US 2022/0118942) in view of Choi (US 2022/0135084A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Nam teaches a security system for a trailer, the security system comprising:
a physical device for blocking or disabling movement of the trailer and/or driving systems of the trailer (Par 11 and Par 66, EPB),
a computing device (Fig. 3, 350, 310) on the trailer (Fig. 1, 300), the computing device comprising a memory (Fig. 3, 310), the computing device configured to receive from an authorization computing system (CAS) (Fig. 1, 100, 110), in advance of a movement of the trailer, grant data (Fig. 4, 404 and Par 78, the control server 100 transmits the identification information on the tractor 200 to the trailer 300 (404)) and Fig. 4, receiving tractor ID from server (step 404) is prior to receiving tractor ID from tractor (step 406) and release EPB (step 410) i.e. before movement of the trailer),
wherein the grant data comprises one or more conditions for allowing movement of the trailer; the computing device further configured to determine whether the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied and, if the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied, to cause the physical device to unsecure the trailer in accordance with the grant data (Par 80, trailer 300 may authenticate the tractor 200, by comparing the identification information, which is received from the control server 100, on the tractor 200 with the identification information received from the tractor 200 (406) and Par 69-70, The second communication device 340 may transmit the identification information on the trailer 300 to the tractor 200 and may receive the identification information on the tractor 200 from the tractor 200 and Par [0045] The trailer 300 may release an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) when the authentication result for the tractor 200 is correct ).
Nam does not explicitly disclose grant data is stored in the memory of the computing device.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of authentication vehicles. Choi teaches a trailer to be taken over by a second vehicle and receiving grant data from a server and storing in the memory of the computing device (Par [0020] The controller of the vehicle according to the other embodiment may receive and store an authentication number from the server, attempt a communication connection with the other vehicle in response to determining that current information is a waypoint based on the received location information and waypoint information, receive an authentication number of the other vehicle in response to communication with the other vehicle being connected, and determine whether the other vehicle is a vehicle to take over the trailer based on whether the stored authentication number and the received authentication number match. And see also Par [0222] The first controller may receive the authentication number from the second vehicle 1b, and also determine whether the second vehicle 1b is a vehicle to take over the trailer by comparing the received authentication number with the stored authentication number.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store grant data received from the server as taught by Choi as a known implementation in the base process of authenticating vehicle with the predictable result of comparing the data received and stored from server with the data received from the vehicle at a later time.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the security system as claimed in claim 9 wherein the computing device is configured to, in determining whether the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied, compare tractor identification data received by the computing device to a list of one or more authorized tractors included in the grant data (Nam: Par 80, trailer 300 may authenticate the tractor 200, by comparing the identification information, which is received from the control server 100, on the tractor 200 with the identification information received from the tractor 200 (406)).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the security system according to claim 9 wherein the computing device is configured to, in determining whether the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied, compare a current time to an authorized time window included in the grant data (Nam: Par 72, The setting state of the EPB 320 may be maintained when the tractor 200 is not coupled within a reference time after the tractor 200 is authenticated. Since the time period starts after the tractor authentication, the time period is a default time associated with the authentication data).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the security system as claimed in claim 9 wherein the computing device is configured to, in determining whether the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied, compare a current location of the trailer to a location condition included in the grant data (Choi: Par [0207] The waypoint information may be information on a location where the second vehicle meets to take over the trailer. Par [0208] The first controller 172 determines whether current information is a waypoint based on the current location information and the waypoint information and see also Par 221).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the security system as claimed in claim 16 wherein the computing device is configured to, in determining whether the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied, compare a current location of the trailer to a location condition included in the grant data (Choi: Par [0207] The waypoint information may be information on a location where the second vehicle meets to take over the trailer. Par [0208] The first controller 172 determines whether current information is a waypoint based on the current location information and the waypoint information and see also Par 221) and compare a current time to an authorized time window included in the grant data (Nam: Par 72, The setting state of the EPB 320 may be maintained when the tractor 200 is not coupled within a reference time after the tractor 200 is authenticated. Since the time period starts after the tractor authentication, the time period is a default time associated with the authentication data).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the security system as claimed in claim 9 wherein the grant data includes information identifying one or more of: one or more tractors authorized to move the trailer (Nam:Par 80, trailer 300 may authenticate the tractor 200, by comparing the identification information, which is received from the control server 100, on the tractor 200 with the identification information received from the tractor 200 (406)), one or more drivers authorized to move the trailer, and/or one or more companies authorized to move the trailer and the computing device is configured to use some or all of the information identifying the one or more tractor authorized to move the trailer, the one or more drivers authorized to move the trailer, and/or the one or more companies authorized to move the trailer, in determining whether the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the security system as claimed in claim 9 wherein the computing device is configured to store the grant data in the memory of the computing device in advance of the trailer arriving at the tractor (Nam: Fig. 4, authentication step 406 is prior to coupling trailer step 409. Therefore, the storage occurs before the tractor coupling/arriving at the trailer).
Regarding Claim 22, Nam teaches a method for securing a trailer (Fig. 1, 300), the method comprising:
controlling a physical device to block or disable movement of the trailer and/or driving systems of the trailer (Par 11 and Par 66, EPB),
receiving, by a computing device (Fig. 3, 350, 310) on the trailer (Fig. 1, 300), in advance of a movement of the trailer, grant data (Fig. 4, 404 and Par 78, the control server 100 transmits the identification information on the tractor 200 to the trailer 300 (404)),
wherein the grant data comprises one or more conditions for allowing movement of the trailer; by the computing device, determining whether the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied and, if the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied, causing the physical device to unsecure the trailer in accordance with the grant data (Par 80, trailer 300 may authenticate the tractor 200, by comparing the identification information, which is received from the control server 100, on the tractor 200 with the identification information received from the tractor 200 (406) and Par 69-70, The second communication device 340 may transmit the identification information on the trailer 300 to the tractor 200 and may receive the identification information on the tractor 200 from the tractor 200 and Par [0045] The trailer 300 may release an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) when the authentication result for the tractor 200 is correct).
Nam does not explicitly disclose grant data is stored in the memory of the computing device.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of authentication vehicles. Choi teaches a trailer to be taken over by a second vehicle and receiving grant data from a server and storing in the memory of the computing device (Par [0020] The controller of the vehicle according to the other embodiment may receive and store an authentication number from the server, attempt a communication connection with the other vehicle in response to determining that current information is a waypoint based on the received location information and waypoint information, receive an authentication number of the other vehicle in response to communication with the other vehicle being connected, and determine whether the other vehicle is a vehicle to take over the trailer based on whether the stored authentication number and the received authentication number match. And see also Par [0222] The first controller may receive the authentication number from the second vehicle 1b, and also determine whether the second vehicle 1b is a vehicle to take over the trailer by comparing the received authentication number with the stored authentication number.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store grant data received from the server as taught by Choi as a known implementation in the base process of authenticating vehicle with the predictable result of comparing the data received and stored from server with the data received from the vehicle at a later time.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 22 comprising, by the computing device, in determining whether the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied, comparing tractor identification data received by the computing device to a list of one or more authorized tractors included in the grant data (Nam: Par 80, trailer 300 may authenticate the tractor 200, by comparing the identification information, which is received from the control server 100, on the tractor 200 with the identification information received from the tractor 200 (406)).
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 22 comprising, by the computing device, in determining whether the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied, comparing a current time to an authorized time window included in the grant data (Nam: Par 72, The setting state of the EPB 320 may be maintained when the tractor 200 is not coupled within a reference time after the tractor 200 is authenticated. Since the time period starts after the tractor authentication, the time period is a default time associated with the authentication data).
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 22 comprising, by the computing device, in determining whether the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied, comparing a current location of the trailer to a location condition included in the grant data (Choi: Par [0207] The waypoint information may be information on a location where the second vehicle meets to take over the trailer. Par [0208] The first controller 172 determines whether current information is a waypoint based on the current location information and the waypoint information and see also Par 221).
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 22 comprising, by the computing device, in determining whether the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied, comparing a current location of the trailer to a location condition included in the grant data (Choi: Par [0207] The waypoint information may be information on a location where the second vehicle meets to take over the trailer. Par [0208] The first controller 172 determines whether current information is a waypoint based on the current location information and the waypoint information and see also Par 221) and compare a current time to an authorized time window included in the grant data (Nam: Par 72, The setting state of the EPB 320 may be maintained when the tractor 200 is not coupled within a reference time after the tractor 200 is authenticated. Since the time period starts after the tractor authentication, the time period is a default time associated with the authentication data).
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 22 wherein the grant data includes information identifying one or more of: the tractor authorized to move the trailer, one or more drivers authorized to move the trailer (Nam:Par 80, trailer 300 may authenticate the tractor 200, by comparing the identification information, which is received from the control server 100, on the tractor 200 with the identification information received from the tractor 200 (406)), and/or one or more companies authorized to move the trailer and the method comprises, by the computing device, using some or all of the information identifying the one or more tractor authorized to move the trailer, the one or more drivers authorized to move the trailer, and/or the one or more companies authorized to move the trailer, in determining whether the one or more conditions of the grant data are satisfied.
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 22, wherein the tractor identification information is received from at least one identification device.
Regarding Claim 34, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 22 comprising, by the computing device, storing the grant data before the tractor arrives at a location of the trailer (Nam: Fig. 4, authentication step 406 is prior to coupling trailer step 409. Therefore, the storage occurs before the tractor coupling/arriving at the trailer ).
Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Choi further in view of Rowe et al. (Rowe: US 20040036350 A1 ).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the security system as claimed in claim 9 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is operable to secure the trailer by causing a hydraulic air line blocking or bypass valve to actuate to prevent release of parking brakes of the trailer.
However, Rowe teaches an antitheft braking system for trailers (title and abstract) and further teaches securing the trailer by causing bypass valve to actuate to prevent release of parking brakes of the trailer (Par 28-29, valve module 160 energizes its antitheft device. Air brakes are engaged by default, so when the antitheft device is engaged, the brakes cannot be disengaged by coupling with a source of compressed air and Par 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rowe in order to thwart the theft of a trailer (Rowe: Par 32).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 22 comprising, until the trailer is unsecured, securing the trailer (Nam: Par [0045] The trailer 300 may release an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) when the authentication result for the tractor 200 is correct ).
The combination does not explicitly disclose securing by causing a hydraulic air line blocking or bypass valve to actuate to prevent release of parking brakes of the trailer.
However, Rowe teaches an antitheft braking system for trailers (title and abstract) and further teaches securing the trailer by causing bypass valve to actuate to prevent release of parking brakes of the trailer (Par 28-29, valve module 160 energizes its antitheft device. Air brakes are engaged by default, so when the antitheft device is engaged, the brakes cannot be disengaged by coupling with a source of compressed air and Par 32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rowe in order to thwart the theft of a trailer (Rowe: Par 32).
Claims 14 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Schulz (US 6070688 A).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the security system as claimed in claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is operable to secure the trailer by causing access to at least one of: a coupling pin of the trailer; an electric line coupling of the trailer; an emergency line coupling of the trailer; or a service line coupling of the trailer; to be mechanically blocked.
However, Schulz teaches an antitheft protection for a trailer (abstract) and further teaches securing the trailer by mechanically blocking access to a coupling pin of the trailer (Fig. 1-3 and Col. 4 lines 1-13 and Col. 5 lines 20-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schulz for the benefit of driver’s convenience (Schulz: col. 1 lines 45-55).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 22 comprising, until the trailer is unsecured, securing the trailer (Nam: Par [0045] The trailer 300 may release an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) when the authentication result for the tractor 200 is correct ).
The combination does not explicitly disclose securing the trailer by causing access to at least one of: a coupling pin of the trailer; an electric line coupling of the trailer; an emergency line coupling of the trailer; or a service line coupling of the trailer; to be mechanically blocked.
However, Schulz teaches an antitheft protection for a trailer (abstract) and further teaches securing the trailer by mechanically blocking access to a coupling pin of the trailer (Fig. 1-3 and Col. 4 lines 1-13 and Col. 5 lines 20-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schulz for the benefit of driver’s convenience (Schulz: col. 1 lines 45-55).
Claims 13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Rowe and further in view of Gomes (US 20100036546 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Nam and Rowe teaches the security system as claimed in claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is operable to secure the trailer by preventing a landing gear of the trailer from being raised.
However, Gomes teaches a method for providing vehicle trailer (Par 10 and Par 12) and further teaches securing the trailer by preventing a landing gear of the trailer from being raised (Par 10 and Par 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gomes in order to prevent a driver from mistakenly coupling to and driving away with the wrong trailer (Gomes: Par 10).
Regarding Claim 25, Nam, Rowe and Gomes teaches the method as claimed in claim 22 comprising, until the trailer is unsecured, securing the trailer (Nam: Par [0045] The trailer 300 may release an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) when the authentication result for the tractor 200 is correct ).
The combination does not explicitly disclose securing the trailer by preventing a landing gear of the trailer from being raised.
However, Gomes teaches a method for providing vehicle trailer (Par 10 and Par 12) and further teaches securing the trailer by preventing a landing gear of the trailer from being raised (Par 10 and Par 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gomes in order to prevent a driver from mistakenly coupling to and driving away with the wrong trailer (Gomes: Par 10).
Claims 15 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Rowe and further in view of Payne (US 2008/0157942).
Regarding Claim 15, Nam, Rowe and Gomes teaches the security system as claimed in claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is configured to electronically lock a cargo door of the trailer from inside of the trailer.
However, Payne teaches a theft-prevention and tracking system and method for semi truck trailers (abstract) and further teaches wherein the computing device is configured to electronically lock a cargo door of the trailer from inside of the trailer (Fig. 8-9 and Par 45, sing magnetic bolt locks 210 mounted on the inside of the doors, the trailer can be locked up in such a way that the only way to access the trailer without inputting the proper code will be to cut one's way in. Par 46, The door locks are preferably mounted on the inside of the doors, at the top and bottom of each door opposite of the hinges 212 (i.e. at the opening seam).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Payne in order to prevent the driver from accessing the cargo unless authorized (Payne Par 45).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 22 comprising, until the trailer is unsecured, securing the trailer (Nam: Par [0045] The trailer 300 may release an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) when the authentication result for the tractor 200 is correct ).
The combination does not explicitly disclose securing the trailer by controlling a lock by the computing device to lock a cargo door of the trailer from inside of the trailer to prevent access to the inside of the trailer.
However, Payne teaches a theft-prevention and tracking system and method for semi truck trailers (abstract) and further teaches securing the trailer by controlling a lock by the computing device to lock a cargo door of the trailer from inside of the trailer to prevent access to the inside of the trailer (Fig. 8-9 and Par 45, sing magnetic bolt locks 210 mounted on the inside of the doors, the trailer can be locked up in such a way that the only way to access the trailer without inputting the proper code will be to cut one's way in. Par 46, The door locks are preferably mounted on the inside of the doors, at the top and bottom of each door opposite of the hinges 212 (i.e. at the opening seam).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Payne in order to prevent the driver from accessing the cargo unless authorized (Payne Par 45).
Claims 11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Choi further in view of Panetta (US 4466260).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Nam and choi teaches the security system as claimed in claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is operable to secure the trailer by actuating service brakes of the trailer.
However, Panetta teaches an antitheft device for trailers (abstract) and further teaches securing the trailer by actuating service brakes of the trailer (Col. 3 lines 20-25, the antitheft device according to the invention has a double safety degree as it acts both independently, through the tie rods 29 and 30, and on the service brake circuit. And Col. 3 lines 45-50: once the brake control pedal has been depressed, the brakes can no more be released.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Panetta in order to provide a double safety degree (Panetta: Col. 3 lines 20-25).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Nam and Choi teaches the method as claimed in claim 22 comprising, until the trailer is unsecured (Nam: Par [0045] The trailer 300 may release an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) when the authentication result for the tractor 200 is correct ).
The combination of Nam and Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing device is operable to secure the trailer by actuating service brakes of the trailer.
However, Panetta teaches an antitheft device for trailers (abstract) and further teaches securing the trailer by actuating service brakes of the trailer (Col. 3 lines 20-25, the antitheft device according to the invention has a double safety degree as it acts both independently, through the tie rods 29 and 30, and on the service brake circuit. And Col. 3 lines 45-50: once the brake control pedal has been depressed, the brakes can no more be released.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Panetta in order to provide a double safety degree (Panetta: Col. 3 lines 20-25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 3, 2025 have been fully considered.
Arguments regarding failure of the prior art to teach the amended limitations are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Arguments regarding no motivation to modify Nam reference to store data are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12 of the Applicant’s Response, applicants argue that
(A) “It appears from this description as well as the rest of the Specification of Nam, as understood, that communication between each trailer 300 and control server 100 is continuously available. There is no reason to store grant data or an equivalent thereof in a memory of a computing device of trailer 300”,
(B) “It would not make sense to store tractor identification information in a memory associated with a computing device of a trailer 300 in the Nam system because that information would be out of date and wrong on the event that control server 100 changed the tractor matched to the trailer 300 in performing its management functions” and
(C) “Applicant points out that this process depends only on whether or not a coupling is completed and does not involve information that is equivalent to grant data and would therefore not motivate storage of grant data as recited in claim 9.”.
In response to Arguments (A) and (B), Examiner respectfully disagrees because Nam clearly teaches in Fig. 4 that the ID information on tractor from Server is received by trailer i.e. received grant data at Step 404 which is followed by Step 405 where ID information from tractor is received by trailer and then the two IDs are compared at Step 406. It is clear that the information received at Step 404 need to be stored/saved until the other information to be compared is received at a later step. Therefore, storing the grant data by the trailer is clearly desirable and makes sense. Further, the stored grant data can also be updated or deleted by server in the same manner and there’s no reason to be out of date as argued.
In response to Arguments (C), Examiner respectfully disagrees because Nam clearly teaches in Par 83 that the correct authentication result is to be followed by the tractor-trailer coupling to release EPB and eventually tractor towing the trailer (Par 85). Nam further disclose the detail in Par 45 [0045] that “The trailer 300 may release an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) when the authentication result for the tractor 200 is correct and may transmit, to the tractor 200, an EPB release signal indicating that the EPB is released. In this case, the trailer 300 may release the EPB after further determining the coupling state with the tractor 200. For example, the trailer 300 may maintain the setting state of the EPB when the tractor 200 is not coupled to the tractor 200 within a reference time (for example, five minutes) after authenticating the tractor 200”. Therefore, the releasing the brake is clearly based on the grant/authentication data but NOT just only on coupling as argued.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. 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).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688