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 .
This is a non-final rejection is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 17 March 2026. Claims 1 and 3-19 are currently pending, as discussed below. Claims 2 and 20 are canceled.
Examiner Notes that the fundamentals of the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed of 17 March 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and agrees that Hayes et al. (US 10050674 B1) in view of Kasper et al. (US 20210273679 A1) and Zula (US 20160180605 A1) do not teach the amended features of claim 1, 8 and 14. Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection for claims 1-19 set forth in office action of 09 February 2026 but is moot in view of new obviousness rejection necessitated by the amendments.
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 14-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 is indefinite because "providing a PLC receiver coupled, internally in the tractor" is grammatically incorrect and is missing a subject of what is being provided.
Claims 15-19 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim(s) depending from claims expressly noted above are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 by/for reason of their dependency from a noted claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, for the reasons given.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (US 10050674 B1) in view of Chandra; Umesh et al. (US 20230018015 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayes teaches, a brake system in a tractor (Fig.1 depicts Systems 20, 22, 24 which may comprise anti-lock braking, see at least, Col 3, Line 12-15, Hayes), the brake system comprising: a PLC receive electronic control unit (ECU) comprising a power line communication (PLC) receiver coupled with a power line that provides power from the tractor to at least one trailer coupled with the tractor (Fig.2 depicts input signal conditioning circuit 26 which is the PLC receiver coupled with a power line 18 that allows delivery of electrical power from tractor 12 to trailers 14, see at least, Col 3, Line 4-9 and 35-46, Hayes); and a brake controller comprising a PLC transmitter (Systems 20 and 22 must contain a brake controller for controlling anti-lock braking systems, see at least Col 2 line 12-27) configured to send a PLC test message on the power line as part of a test of the PLC receiver, wherein the test is an internal self-test (each Systems 20 and 22 (brake controller) includes a system 24 for controlling communications between members of tractor-trailer and Fig.3 Flow chart depicts step 52 of receiving and analog signal from the power line 18 and if no signal is received after a predetermined amount of time after controller 30 has generated a message for output on the power line 18, the controller is configured to generate a deficiency signal which is an internal self-testing step, see at least, Col 4, Line 20-45, Hayes) in that both the PLC receiver and the PLC transmitter are in the tractor as opposed to being distributed between the tractor and the at least one trailer (Fig. 1 depicts System 20 in the tractor 12 and contains system 24 depicted in Figure 2 which contain both the input signal conditioning circuit 26 ( PLC receiver) and an output signal conditioning circuit 28 (PLC transmitter) which are both in the tractor 12, see at least, Col 3, Line 27-34, Hayes); wherein, when the PLC receiver is operational, the PLC receive ECU receives the PLC test message transmitted from the PLC transmitter and sends the PLC test message to the brake controller (Fig.3 Flow chart depicts step 54 where the analog signal that is transmitted from the output signal conditioning circuit 28 on the power line 18 and received by the input signal conditioning circuit 26 and converted to digital input signal and input to the controller 30 and depending on the decoded message, directing the system 20 or 22 (brake controller) to take some action in which a message must be sent to the brake controller, see at least, Col 4, Line 20-45, Hayes); and wherein in response to not receiving the PLC test message from the PLC receive ECU, the brake controller is configured to cause a fault message to be sent indicating that the PLC receiver is not operational (Fig.3 Flow chart depicts step 52 of receiving and analog signal from the power line 18 and if no signal is received after a predetermined amount of time after controller 30 has generated a message for output on the power line 18, the controller is configured to generate a deficiency signal (fault message) be sent indicating a lack of communication from related systems 22 in trailer 14, see at least, Col 4, Line 20-45, Hayes).
Hayes does not explicitly teach a test of the PLC receiver, wherein the test is an internal self-test and a fault message to be sent indicating that the PLC receiver is not operational.
Chandra, directed to testing high-speed signal subsystems in information handling systems teaches, a test of the receiver, wherein the test is an internal self-test (Fig. 5 depicts a method 500 for testing a receiver 306 of Fig. 3 using a loopback sub system which is known in the art as an internal self-test, see at least, ¶7 and ¶37-39, Chandra) and a fault message to be sent indicating that the receiver is not operational (Fig. 5 depicts method 500 block 510 determines if there is an issue with the testing communication path which is interpreted as a problem with the received signal and impedance measured at the receiver, see at least, ¶42 and ¶55-57, Chandra).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hayes’s method of PLC testing to incorporate the teachings of Chandra which teaches a test of the receiver, wherein the test is an internal self-test and a fault message to be sent indicating that the receiver is not operational since they are both related to communication systems and incorporation of the teachings of Chandra would save time and reduce the cost of diagnosing communications faults in a communication system (¶5, Chandra).
Regarding Claim 8, Hayes teaches, a system comprising: a power line communication (PLC) receiver coupled with a power line that provides power from a tractor to at least one trailer coupled with the tractor (Fig.2 depicts input signal conditioning circuit 26 which is the PLC receiver coupled with a power line 18 that allows delivery of electrical power from tractor 12 to trailers 14, see at least, Col 3, Line 4-9 and 35-46, Hayes); and a PLC transmitter configured to send a PLC test message on the power line as part of a test of the PLC receiver, wherein the test is an internal self-test (each Systems 20 and 22 (brake controller) includes a system 24 for controlling communications between members of tractor-trailer and Fig.3 Flow chart depicts step 52 of receiving and analog signal from the power line 18 and if no signal is received after a predetermined amount of time after controller 30 has generated a message for output on the power line 18, the controller is configured to generate a deficiency signal which is an internal self-testing step, see at least, Col 4, Line 20-45, Hayes) in that both the PLC receiver and the PLC transmitter are in the tractor as opposed to being distributed between the tractor and the at least one trailer (Fig. 1 depicts System 20 in the tractor 12 and contains system 24 depicted in Figure 2 which contain both the input signal conditioning circuit 26 ( PLC receiver) and an output signal conditioning circuit 28 (PLC transmitter) which are both in the tractor 12, see at least, Col 3, Line 27-34, Hayes); and a brake controller (Systems 20 and 22 must contain a brake controller for controlling anti-lock braking systems, see at least Col 2 line 12-27); wherein, when the PLC receiver is operational, the PLC receiver receives, the PLC test message being transmitted from the PLC transmitter and sends the PLC test message to the brake controller (Fig.3 Flow chart depicts step 54 where the analog signal that is transmitted from the output signal conditioning circuit 28 on the power line 18 and received by the input signal conditioning circuit 26 and converted to digital input signal and input to the controller 30 and depending on the decoded message, directing the system 20 or 22 (brake controller) to take some action in which a message must be sent to the brake controller, see at least, Col 4, Line 20-45, Hayes); and wherein in response to not receiving the PLC test message from the PLC receiver, the brake controller is configured to cause a fault message to be sent indicating that the PLC receiver is not operational (Fig.3 Flow chart depicts step 52 of receiving and analog signal from the power line 18 and if no signal is received after a predetermined amount of time after controller 30 has generated a message for output on the power line 18, the controller is configured to generate a deficiency signal (fault message) be sent indicating a lack of communication from related systems 22 in trailer 14, see at least, Col 4, Line 20-45, Hayes).
Hayes does not explicitly teach a test of the PLC receiver, wherein the test is an internal self-test and a fault message to be sent indicating that the PLC receiver is not operational.
Chandra, directed to testing high-speed signal subsystems in information handling systems teaches, a test of the receiver, wherein the test is an internal self-test (Fig. 5 depicts a method 500 for testing a receiver 306 of Fig. 3 using a loopback sub system which is known in the art as an internal self-test, see at least, ¶7 and ¶37-39, Chandra) and a fault message to be sent indicating that the receiver is not operational (Fig. 5 depicts method 500 block 510 determines if there is an issue with the testing communication path which is interpreted as a problem with the received signal and impedance measured at the receiver, see at least, ¶42 and ¶55-57, Chandra).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hayes’s method of PLC testing to incorporate the teachings of Chandra which teaches a test of the receiver, wherein the test is an internal self-test and a fault message to be sent indicating that the receiver is not operational since they are both related to communication systems and incorporation of the teachings of Chandra would save time and reduce the cost of diagnosing communications faults in a communication system (¶5, Chandra).
Regarding Claim 3 and 9, Hayes in view of Chandra teaches, The brake system of Claim 1 (re-claim 3) and the system of claim 8 (re-claim 9), wherein the fault message is sent on a data network (deficiency signal is sent to an audio, visual or haptic warning system in the vehicle to warn the vehicle operator of loss of communication on the powerline which is a network that transmits data between the tractor and the trailers, see at least, Col 4, Line 20-45, and Col 3 line 10-19 Hayes).
Regarding Claim 14, Hayes teaches, a method comprising: providing a power line communication (PLC) transmitter internal to a tractor (Fig.2 depicts output signal conditioning circuit 28 of system 24 which is part of system 20 of Fig. 1 which is internal to a tractor, see at least, Col 3, Line 32-34, Hayes), wherein the PLC transmitter is configured to couple with a power line (Fig.2 depicts output signal conditioning circuit 28 (PLC transmitter) connected to the power line 18, see at least, Col 3, 28-34, Hayes), wherein the power line is configured to provide power from the tractor to at least one trailer coupled with the tractor (Fig.1 depicts powerline 18 extending power from the tractor 12 to the trailers 14, see at least, Col 3, Line 4-8, Hayes); providing a PLC receiver coupled, internally in the tractor (Fig.2 depicts input signal conditioning circuit 26 which is the PLC receiver coupled with a power line 18 that allows delivery of electrical power from tractor 12 to trailers 14, see at least, Col 3, Line 4-9 and 35-46, Hayes); and using the PLC transmitter to send a PLC test message on the power line as part of a test of the PLC receiver, wherein the test is an internal self-test (each Systems 20 and 22 (brake controller) includes a system 24 for controlling communications between members of tractor-trailer and Fig.3 Flow chart depicts step 52 of receiving and analog signal from the power line 18 and if no signal is received after a predetermined amount of time after controller 30 has generated a message for output on the power line 18, the controller is configured to generate a deficiency signal which is an internal self-testing step, see at least, Col 4, Line 20-45, Hayes) in that both the PLC receiver and the PLC transmitter are in the tractor as opposed to being distributed between the tractor and the at least one trailer (Fig. 1 depicts System 20 in the tractor 12 and contains system 24 depicted in Figure 2 which contain both the input signal conditioning circuit 26 ( PLC receiver) and an output signal conditioning circuit 28 (PLC transmitter) which are both in the tractor 12, see at least, Col 3, Line 27-34, Hayes); wherein, when the PLC receiver is operational, the PLC receiver receives the PLC test message transmitted from the PLC transmitter and sends the PLC test message to the brake controller (Fig.3 Flow chart depicts step 54 where the analog signal that is transmitted from the output signal conditioning circuit 28 on the power line 18 and received by the input signal conditioning circuit 26 and converted to digital input signal and input to the controller 30 and depending on the decoded message, directing the system 20 or 22 (brake controller) to take some action in which a message must be sent to the brake controller, see at least, Col 4, Line 20-45, Hayes); and wherein in response to not receiving the PLC test message from the PLC receiver, the brake controller is configured to cause a fault message to be sent indicating that the PLC receiver is not operational (Fig.3 Flow chart depicts step 52 of receiving and analog signal from the power line 18 and if no signal is received after a predetermined amount of time after controller 30 has generated a message for output on the power line 18, the controller is configured to generate a deficiency signal (fault message) be sent indicating a lack of communication from related systems 22 in trailer 14, see at least, Col 4, Line 20-45, Hayes).
Hayes does not explicitly teach a test of the PLC receiver, wherein the test is an internal self-test and a fault message to be sent indicating that the PLC receiver is not operational.
Chandra, directed to testing high-speed signal subsystems in information handling systems teaches, a test of the receiver, wherein the test is an internal self-test (Fig. 5 depicts a method 500 for testing a receiver 306 of Fig. 3 using a loopback sub system which is known in the art as an internal self-test, see at least, ¶7 and ¶37-39, Chandra) and a fault message to be sent indicating that the receiver is not operational (Fig. 5 depicts method 500 block 510 determines if there is an issue with the testing communication path which is interpreted as a problem with the received signal and impedance measured at the receiver, see at least, ¶42 and ¶55-57, Chandra).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hayes’s method of PLC testing to incorporate the teachings of Chandra which teaches a test of the receiver, wherein the test is an internal self-test and a fault message to be sent indicating that the receiver is not operational since they are both related to communication systems and incorporation of the teachings of Chandra would save time and reduce the cost of diagnosing communications faults in a communication system (¶5, Chandra).
Regarding Claim 15, Hayes in view of Chandra teaches, the method of Claim 14, wherein the PLC transmitter and the PLC receiver are both part of a brake controller (Fig. 2 depicts that each Systems 20 and 22 (brake controller) includes a system 24 for controlling communications between members of tractor-trailer which include an input signal conditioning circuit 26 (PLC receiver) and an output signal conditioning circuit 28 (PLC transmitter), see at least Col 3 line 27-34).
Regarding Claim 16, Hayes in view of Chandra teaches, the method of Claim 14, wherein the PLC receiver is part of a PLC receive ECU in communication with a brake controller over a data network (Fig. 2 depicts input conditioning circuit 26 (PLC receiver) as part of system 24 (PLC receive ECU) which is in communication with the brake system 20, 22, which controls the anti-lock braking system using a digital input signal that is decoded by the controller and processes the data which is interpreted as a data network , see at least, Col 3, Line 28-34 and Line 49-57, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, Hayes).
Claims 4-7, 10-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (US 10050674 B1) in view of Chandra; Umesh et al. (US 20230018015 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 8-9, and 14-16 and further in view of Kasper; Phillip J. et al. (US 20210273679 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, 10 and 17, Hayes in view of Chandra teach, the brake system of Claim 3 (re-claim 4), the system of claim 9 (re-claim 10) and the method of Claim 16 (re-claim 17).
Hayes in view of Chandra does not explicitly teach, wherein the data network
comprises a controller area network (CAN).
Kasper, directed to control and communication network in a tractor of a combination vehicle teaches, wherein the data network comprises a controller area network (CAN) (Fig. 2 depicts a communication network 70 comprising a CAN network 72, see at least, ¶31, Fig. 1, Kasper).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hayes in view of Chandra to incorporate the teachings of Kasper which teaches wherein the data network comprises a controller area network (CAN) since they are both related to Power Line communications between a tractor and trailer and incorporation of the teachings of Kasper would increase the awareness of the tractor operator of a fault in the power line communication network.
Regarding Claim 5 and 11 Hayes in view of Chandra teaches, the brake system of Claim 1 (re-claim 5), and the system of claim 8 (re-claim 11).
Hayes in view of Chandra does not explicitly teach, wherein the PLC transmitter is further configured to send a PLC message on the power line to at least one brake controller in the at least one trailer.
Kasper, directed to control and communication network in a tractor of a combination vehicle teaches, wherein the PLC transmitter is further configured to send a PLC message on the power line to at least one brake controller in the at least one trailer (Fig. 1 TABS controllers 40, 42, 44, 46, 48 disposed in the one or more towed units is responsible for controlling the application of braking commands received from the braking controller in the tractor in the form of air pressure responsive to queries and/or commands received from the one or more controllers 80 disposed in the towing vehicle 22 via the towed vehicle command and communication network 50 (PLC network in Fig. 2), see at least, ¶34-36, Kasper).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hayes in view of Chandra to incorporate the teachings of Kasper which teaches wherein the PLC transmitter is further configured to send a PLC message on the power line to at least one brake controller in the at least one trailer since they are both related to Power Line communications between a tractor and trailer and incorporation of the teachings of Kasper would increase the safety from interfacing between different networks on towing vehicles.
Regarding Claim 6 and 12 Hayes in view Chandra teaches, the brake system of Claim 1 (re-claim 6), and the system of claim 8 (re-claim 12).
Hayes in view of Chandra does not explicitly teach, wherein the PLC receive ECU is further configured to receive a PLC message on the power line from at least one trailer brake controller in the at least one trailer.
Kasper, directed to control and communication network in a tractor of a combination vehicle teaches, wherein the PLC receive ECU is further configured to receive a PLC message on the power line from at least one trailer brake controller in the at least one trailer (Fig. 1 the TABS controllers 40, 42, 44, 46, 48 are responsive to ABS health message queries received from the ABS controller 82 via the towed vehicle command and communication network 50 to generate and report back TABS controller health status messages on the towed vehicle command and communication network 50 including TABS health status data representative of the operational sufficiency of the respective TABS controllers 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, see at least, ¶38, Kasper).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hayes in view of Chandra to incorporate the teachings of Kasper which teaches wherein the PLC receive ECU is further configured to receive a PLC message on the power line from at least one trailer brake controller in the at least one trailer since they are both related to Power Line communications between a tractor and trailer and incorporation of the teachings of Kasper would increase the safety from interfacing between different networks on towing vehicles.
Regarding Claim 7 and 13 Hayes in view Chandra and Kasper teaches, the brake system of Claim 6 (re-claim 7), and the system of claim 12 (re-claim 13)
Kasper, directed to control and communication network in a tractor of a combination vehicle teaches, wherein the PLC message relates to an anti-lock brake function of the at least one trailer (Fig. 1 the TABS controllers 40, 42, 44, 46, 48 are responsive to ABS health message queries received from the ABS controller 82 via the towed vehicle command and communication network 50 to generate and report back TABS controller health status messages on the towed vehicle command and communication network 50 including TABS health status data representative of the operational sufficiency of the respective TABS controllers 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, see at least, ¶38, Kasper).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hayes in view of Chandra and Kasper to incorporate the teachings of Kasper which wherein the PLC message relates to an anti-lock brake function of the at least one trailer since they are both related to Power Line communications between a tractor and trailer and incorporation of the teachings of Kasper would increase the safety from interfacing between different networks on towing vehicles.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (US 10050674 B1) in view of Chandra; Umesh et al. (US 20230018015 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 8-9, and 14-16 and further in view of Sparacino et al. (US 20030080856 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Hayes in view of Chandra teaches, The method of Claim 14.
Hayes in view of Chandra does not explicitly teach wherein the brake controller causes the PLC transmitter to send the PLC test message in response to determining that the PLC transmitter and the PLC receiver are available and that the tractor is in an active mode.
Sparacino, directed to A device and method for determining the status of an anti-lock brake system in a tractor-trailer configuration teaches, wherein the brake controller causes the PLC transmitter to send the PLC test message in response to determining that the PLC transmitter and the PLC receiver are available and that the tractor is in an active mode (Fig. 4 depicts a flowchart, block 66-68 the device determines that the PLC transmitter and PLC receiver are available through confirming data transmission, and that the tractor is in active mode. Next block 79 causes transmitting data upon the previous determination, see at least, ¶66, Fig.4, Sparacino).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hayes in view of Chandra’s method of sending PLC test messages to incorporate the teachings of Sparacino which teaches wherein the brake controller causes the PLC transmitter to send the PLC test message in response to determining that the PLC transmitter and the PLC receiver are available and that the tractor is in an active mode since they are both related to since they are both related to detecting anti-lock brake faults in a tractor-trailer combination and incorporation of the teachings of Sparacino would increase the safety of the overall system by detecting faulty wiring of the anti-lock brake system controller in a trailer.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (US 10050674 B1) in view of Chandra; Umesh et al. (US 20230018015 A1) as applied to claims 1, 3, 8-9, and 14-16 and further in view of Peacemaker et al. (US 20230069630 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Hayes in view of Chandra teaches, The method of Claim 14,
Hayes in view of Chandra does not explicitly teach further comprising periodically causing the PLC transmitter to send the PLC test message on the power line.
Peacemaker, directed to electrical connections between a vehicle (e.g., a truck) and a trailer, teaches further comprising periodically causing the PLC transmitter to send the PLC test message on the power line (the power distribution module connected to the Control Unit 124 is interpreted as the PLC transmitter and may be configured to periodically send a test signal on the power line, see at least, ¶46, Fig. 1, Peacemaker).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Hayes and Chandra to incorporate the teachings of Peacemaker which teaches periodically causing the PLC transmitter to send the PLC test message on the power line since they are both related to Power Line communications between a tractor and trailer and incorporation of the teachings of Peacemaker would increase accuracy of attaching a trailer to a tractor or truck.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRENE C KHUU whose telephone number is (703)756-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0900-1730.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571)272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IRENE C KHUU/
Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights