DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim1, line 7 recites “at least one of the trailer or the vehicle ; should read “at least one of the trailers or the vehicle . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sacher Patrick (DE 102021208369 A1; hereinafter, “Patrick”).
Regarding claim 1, Patrick discloses: a vehicle (“Vehicle”, figs. 1-3; ‘Abstract’), comprising:
a locking mechanism (“a locking mechanism”; [0031]) configured to removably (“automatic uncoupling process”; 0031, line 4) secure to a trailer configured to be towed [ para. 0031 discloses: “an (automatic) uncoupling process of the trailer from the vehicle is initiated”];
a memory storing instructions (via processor; [0027]);
one or more processors (“processor device”; [0069]) configured to access the memory and execute the instructions to [para. 0069 teaches: “the present invention further relates to a computer program or computer program product, comprising program means, in particular a program code, which represents or encodes at least individual process steps of the method according to the invention, in particular the process steps carried out by means of the emergency device, and preferably one of the described preferred embodiments, and is designed for execution by a processor device”; thus, one or more processors configured to access the memory and execute the instructions]:
receive at least one signal (via sensor 9; [0074]) used to determine that a potential fire condition is present on at least one of the
in response to the at least one signal (“signal from sensor device 9”; [0074]), automatically initiate unlocking the locking mechanism to disconnect the trailer [ para. 0075 teaches: “control unit 8 with a (vehicle function) signal which initiates or triggers the decoupling process”]; and
initiate driving a distance away from the trailer [ para. 0074 teaches: “the trailer is automatically uncoupled when towing a car”; thus, initiate driving a distance away from the trailer.]
Regarding claim 3, Patrick further discloses that the one or more processors (“processor device”; [0069]) are further configured to wirelessly communicate real-time data [para. 0023 teaches: “the vehicle's environment (especially wirelessly, for example via car-to-car or car-to-infrastructure communication (real-time data) to the vehicle and especially to the hazard detection device for determining at least one hazard parameter”] pertaining to the potential fire condition to a remotely located mission control center [see para. 0023 for “vehicle environment and or stationary infrastructure”; infrastructure communication and wirelessly is understood to be equivalent to remotely located mission control center and its communication].
Regarding claim 4, Patrick further discloses that the one or more processors are further configured to receive the at least one signal from the mission control center [ para 0026 teaches: “the vehicle function signal is determined based on a comparison of at least one prediction parameter (equivalent to one signal) and at least one hazard parameter”; again para. 0023 teaches: “the environment detection device can be a sensor device of a vehicle different from the vehicle (which is preferably located in the vehicle's environment) and/or a (stationary) infrastructure in the vehicle's environment”; thus, one or more processors are further configured to receive the at least one signal from the mission control center.]
Regarding claim 5, Patrick further discloses that the vehicle is at least one of an autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle [ para. 0067 teaches: “semi-autonomous, autonomous (for example, of autonomy level 3 or 4 or 5 (of the SAE J3016 standard) or self-driving motor vehicle”.]
Regarding claim 8, Patrick further discloses that the at least one signal is generated by at least one of: an infrared sensor, a camera, a smoke detector (“preferably a plurality of sensors for detecting smoke particles”; [0017]), an acoustic detector, an accelerometer, and a vibration sensor, a scale, a spectral sensor, a chemical nose sensor, and a sensor (“a sensor device for detecting vehicle fire”; [0017]) on the trailer (“trailer”; [0020]).
Regarding claim 9, Patrick discloses that a method of responding to a potential trailer fire condition (“in the event of an occurring, potentially worsening and/or spreading hazard”; ‘Abstract’), the method comprising: removably securing a trailer using a locking mechanism (“a locking mechanism”; [0031]); determining that a potential fire condition is present based on received sensor data (via sensor device; [0053]); in response to the determination, automatically initiating unlocking the locking mechanism to disconnect the trailer; and initiating driving a distance away from the trailer [ para. 0074 teaches: “in this process, a control unit 8 of the vehicle or the control unit with the algorithm for the decoupling process 8 receives a signal from a sensor device 9 to determine a hazard of the vehicle 1 or from the fire detection sensor 9. In the next step, a locking mechanism 4 and 5 is activated and opens it”; thus, in response to the determination, automatically initiating unlocking the locking mechanism to disconnect the trailer; and initiating driving a distance away from the trailer.]
Regarding claim 11, Patrick further discloses that the method of claim 9 comprising wirelessly communicating real-time data [para. 0023 teaches: “the vehicle's environment (especially wirelessly, for example via car-to-car or car-to-infrastructure communication (real-time data) to the vehicle and especially to the hazard detection device for determining at least one hazard parameter”] pertaining to the potential fire condition to a remotely located mission control center [see para. 0023 for “vehicle environment and or stationary infrastructure”; infrastructure communication and wirelessly is understood to be equivalent to remotely located mission control center and its communication].
Regarding claim 12, Patrick further discloses that the method of claim 11, further comprising receiving instructions (“determining at least one hazard parameter”; [0023]) to unlock the locking mechanism from the mission control center (“car-to-car or car-to-infrastructure communication”; [0023]; [note that: infrastructure communication is understood to be a control center]).
Regarding claim 16, Patrick discloses that at least one computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon [para. 0069 teaches: “the present invention further relates to a computer program or computer program product, comprising program means, in particular a program code, which represents or encodes at least individual process steps of the method according to the invention”] that, in response to execution by at least one processor [ para. 0069 teaches: “preferred embodiments and is designed for execution by a processor device”], cause the at least one processor to (“processor”): determine that a potential fire condition is present based on received sensor data [ para. 0068 teaches: “the present invention, in particular an algorithm for assessing fire risk”] and; in response to the determination, automatically initiate unlocking a locking mechanism [para. 0074 teaches: “in this process, a control unit 8 of the vehicle or the control unit with the algorithm for the decoupling process 8 receives a signal from a sensor device 9 to determine a hazard of the vehicle 1 (equivalent to a potential fire condition) or from the fire detection sensor 9”; thus, in response to the determination, automatically initiate unlocking a locking mechanism] connecting a trailer to be towed; and initiate driving a distance away from the trailer [ para. 0074 teaches: “the trailer is automatically uncoupled when towing a car”; thus, a trailer to be towed; and initiate driving a distance away from the trailer.]
Regarding claim 18, Patrick further discloses that the at least one computer-readable storage medium (“computer”, [0069]) of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor (“processor-based emergency response devise; [0012]) is further configured to wirelessly communicate real-time data [para. 0023 teaches: “the vehicle's environment (especially wirelessly, for example via car-to-car or car-to-infrastructure communication (equivalent to ‘real-time data’) to the vehicle and especially to the hazard detection device for determining at least one hazard parameter”; thus real-time-date] pertaining to the potential fire condition [ para. 0076 teaches: “a sensor system 9 fire detection or a sensor device for detecting a hazard and in particular a fire in the vehicle 1”; thus, pertaining to the potential fire condition] to a remotely located real-time data [ para. 0023 teaches: “especially wirelessly, for example via car-to-car or car-to-infrastructure communication”; note that: infrastructure communication is understood to be “a remotely located real-time data” as recited in claim 18.]
Regarding claim 19, Patrick further discloses that the at least one computer-readable storage medium of claim 18 (“computer”, [0069]), wherein the at least one processor (“processor-based emergency response devise”; [0012]) is further configured to receive instructions (“signal” from sensor 9; [0074]) to unlock the locking mechanism (“locking mechanism”; [0074]) from the mission control center (“infrastructure communication”;[0023]).
Regarding claim 20, Patrick further discloses that the at least one computer-readable storage medium (“computer”, [0069]) of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor (“processor-based emergency response devise”; [0012]) configured to initiate an automated release of landing gear of the trailer in response to the determination [ para. 0074 teaches: “in this process, a control unit 8 of the vehicle or the control unit with the algorithm for the decoupling process 8 receives a signal from a sensor device 9 to determine a hazard of the vehicle 1 or from the fire detection sensor 9. In the next step, a locking mechanism 4 and 5 is activated and opens it”; thus, configured to initiate an automated release of landing gear of the trailer in response to the determination.]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 2, 6-7, 10, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick in view of Smith et al. (US 20210053407 A1; hereinafter, “Smith”).
Regarding claim 2, Patrick does not appear to explicitly teach that the locking mechanism comprises lock jaw to hold a kingpin; however,
Smith in another ‘system and methods for automated operation and handling of autonomous trucks and trailers’ similar to Patrick teaches that the locking mechanism (“locking mechanism”; [0180]) comprises lock jaw to hold a kingpin (“kingpin jaws on the fifth wheel”; [0235]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coupling mechanism, such as kingpin jaws on the fifth wheel which can be locked and unlocked as taught by Smith to the invention of Patrick with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously fasten the trailer coupling mechanism to the autonomous vehicle of Patrick to detect proper mechanical coupling with the fifth wheel [para. 0235 of Smith]. The fifth wheel jaw and kingpin configurations are well-known interchangeable fastening solutions that predictably secure two bodies together. A skilled artisan would have recognized that adding or substituting such a known fastening interface for the docker of Patrick and Smith constitute a simple design choice that renders claim limitation obvious, yielding only predictable positive results.
Regarding claim 6, Patrick discloses the one or more processors (“processor”; [0010]), but fails to teach that are further configured to initiate an automated release of landing gear of the trailer in response to the at least one signal; however,
Smith teaches that the one or more processors (via processor; [0027]) but fails to teach that configured to initiate an automated (“automated”; [0009]) release of landing gear (“landing gear”; [0009]) of the trailer in response to the at least one signal (“signal from AV yard truck controller”; [0185]; also [para. 0009 teaches: “access to the truck by a user can be controlled, and safety tests can be performed in an automated manner including but not limited to a tug test that ensures a secure hitch. Likewise, the raising of the fifth wheel and verification that the trailer landing gear has disengaged the ground is automated”]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Smith and provide controller, sensor that outputs a signal, configured to initiate an automated release of landing gear of the trailer in response to the at least one signal in order to clear the landing gear off the ground, and the trailer is then hauled away [para. 0229 of Smith].
Regarding claim 7, Patrick as modified above further teaches that wherein the one or more processors (“processor”; [0027]) but fails to expressly teach that processors are further configured to initiate unlocking the locking mechanism without permission from a remotely located mission control center in response to the automated release of the landing gear; however.
Smith teaches that the one or more processors (“processor”; [0010]) are further configured to initiate unlocking the locking mechanism (“raising of the fifth wheel”; [0009]) without permission from a remotely located mission control center (via lever arm assembly 442 and wheel-lifting mechanism; [0175], but not the control-center) in response to the automated release of the landing gear [para. 0175 teaches that in fig. 4, the fifth wheel 440 is shown raised by a lever arm assembly 442, which, as described below, allows the landing gear of the trailer (when attached) to clear the ground during hauling by the truck 400; thus, initiate unlocking the locking mechanism without permission from a remotely located mission control center].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Smith and provide one or more processors, further configured to initiate unlocking the locking mechanism without permission from a remotely located mission control center in response to the automated release of the landing gear in order to clear the landing gear off the ground, and the trailer is then hauled away and in this raised orientation, the hitch between the truck and trailer is secured [para. 0175 of Smith].
Regarding claim 10, Patrick discloses the unlocking the locking mechanism (4 and 5; [0074]), but fails to teach that the unlocking the locking mechanism further comprises moving a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly; however,
Smith teaches that the unlocking the locking mechanism further comprises moving a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly [para. 0235 teaches that the fifth-wheel has been raised sufficiently (unlocking) so that the trailer's landing gear is clear of the ground (in order to avoid landing gear damage during test). Further, the autonomous truck tug-test procedure 3000 is adapted to detect proper mechanical coupling with a fifth wheel in the absence of any feedback from the fifth wheel unlatch control valve, thereby indicating if the kingpin jaws on the fifth wheel are in the open position; thus, the unlocking the locking mechanism further comprises moving a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly; also see para. 0242 for the transmission to put in park, c) the service brakes are released, d) the trailer is raised to driving height, and e) the tractor pulls slightly forward to move the trailer away from the dock.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Smith and execute the unlocking the locking mechanism further comprises moving a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly, and the trailer is then hauled away and thereby indicating if the kingpin jaws on the fifth wheel are in the open position. [paragraphs 0239 and 0242 of Smith].
Regarding claim 13, Patrick teaches the method of claim 9, but fails to explicitly teach that initiating an automated release of landing gear of the trailer in response to the determination; however,
Smith teaches initiating an automated (“automated”; [0009]) release of landing gear (“landing gear”; [0009]) of the trailer (“trailer”) in response to the determination [para, 0009 teaches that the raising of the fifth wheel and verification that the trailer landing gear has disengaged the ground is automated; thus, initiating an automated release of landing gear of the trailer in response to the determination.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Smith and initiating an automated release of landing gear of the trailer in response to the determination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously automate the tug-test conceived and configurable with respect to enablement of individual tugs, and selection of parameters of the complete operation or test [para. 0242 of Smith].
Regarding claim 14, Patrick as modified above includes all the limitation of claim 13, but fails to explicitly teach that initiate unlocking the locking mechanism without permission from a remotely located mission control center; however,
Smith teaches that limitation of claim 13 initiate unlocking the locking mechanism (via lever arm assembly 442, fig. 4 and [0175]) without permission from a remotely located mission control center [see 0175 teaches that in fig. 4, the fifth wheel 440 is shown raised by a lever arm assembly 442, which, as described below, allows the landing gear of the trailer (when attached) to clear the ground during hauling by the truck 400; thus, initiate unlocking the locking mechanism without permission from a remotely located mission control center].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Smith and initiate unlocking the locking mechanism without permission from a remotely located mission control center in order to clear the landing gear off the ground, and the trailer is then hauled away and in this raised orientation, the hitch between the truck and trailer is secured [para. 0175 of Smith].
Regarding claim 15, Patrick as modified above includes all the limitation of claim 13, but fails to explicitly teach that initiate unlocking the locking mechanism in response to the automated release of the landing gear; however,
Smith teaches that initiate unlocking the locking mechanism (via lever arm assembly 442, fig. 4 and [0175]) in response to the automated release of the landing gear [see 0175 teaches that hitch-to/unhitch-from a trailer in an autonomous manner that is substantially or completely free of human intervention; also, para. 0229 teaches that the fifth wheel when using appropriate hydraulic/pneumatic (more generally, "fluid" herein) pressure actuators on the truck to raise the trailer landing gear out of engagement with a ground surface and allow it to be hauled to another location in the yard; thus, initiate unlocking the locking mechanism in response to the automated release of the landing gear].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Smith and initiate unlocking the locking mechanism in response to the automated release of the landing gear in order to clear the landing gear off the ground, and the trailer is then hauled away and in this raised orientation, the hitch between the truck and trailer is secured [para. 0175 of Smith].
Regarding claim 17, Patrick further teaches that the at least one computer-readable storage medium (“computer”, [0069]) of claim 16, but silent on wherein unlocking the locking mechanism further comprises initiating movement of a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly; however,
Smith teaches wherein unlocking the locking mechanism (figs. 9 and 48 J) further comprises initiating movement of a lock jaw (fig. 9) of a fifth wheel assembly (fifth wheel and ‘Abstract’ teaches that a plurality of sensors is interconnected with the processor that sense terrain/objects and assist in automatically connecting/disconnecting trailers; thus, unlocking the locking mechanism further comprises initiating movement of a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Patrick to incorporate the teaching of Smith and provide unlocking the locking mechanism which further comprises initiating movement of a lock jaw of a fifth wheel assembly in order to clear the landing gear off the ground, and the trailer is then hauled away and in this raised orientation, the hitch between the truck and trailer is secured [para. 0175 of Smith].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2018035566 A1 to John teaches: embodiments generally relate to a trailer safety system for monitoring a vehicle and at least one trailer. The system comprises at least one sensor positioned on a turntable of the vehicle; the sensor being configured to detect the presence of a portion of a first trailer in proximity to the turntable.
US 20140151979 A1 to Aaron teaches: a system for facilitating coupling between a trailer kingpin and a fifth wheel of a vehicle includes at least one camera mounted on the vehicle and adapted to provide an image of the kingpin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
April 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights