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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on March 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 18, 24, and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 13, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 13-17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PG Publication No. 2021/0370922 to Smith.
Regarding Claim 1, Smith discloses a method of braking a tractor-trailer driven autonomously (see Figure 10 and the abstract) having all the features of the instant invention including: sensing, autonomously, a braking event (i.e., jackknifing), the braking event being indicative of a requirement for braking the tractor-trailer (see Figure 10 and paragraph 0059), and actuating a trailer brake valve 904 of a trailer of the tractor-trailer (see paragraph 0075) to apply trailer brakes in response to the sensing of the braking event (see paragraph 0076), wherein the trailer brakes are applied prior to actuating a tractor brake valve of a tractor of the tractor-trailer to apply tractor brakes and to apply trailer brakes (see paragraphs 0076 and 0077).
Regarding Claim 2, Smith further discloses that the tractor brake valve comprises a first brake valve (see Figures 7 and 8 and the valve(s) for brake chambers 730) associated with forward brakes of the tractor, a second brake valve (see Figures 7 and 8 and the valves for brake chambers 738) associated with rear brakes of the tractor, and a tractor protection valve 802/902 associated with the trailer brakes (see Figures 7 and 8 and paragraphs 0068-0072).
Regarding Claim 3, Smith further discloses that the trailer brakes are actuated prior to each of the first brake valve and the second brake valve (i.e., when the trailer is jackknifing, as discussed in paragraphs 0076 and 0077).
Regarding Claim 5, Smith further discloses that the trailer brake valve 904 is upstream of the tractor protection valve 802/902 (see Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 6, Smith further discloses that the trailer brake valve 904 is based on a surface condition of a road (see paragraphs 0062-0064, where the surface condition of the road is sensed and used to regulate control of the tractor-trailer).
Regarding Claim 7, Smith further discloses that the surface condition is available traction on the road (see paragraphs 0062-0064).
Regarding Claim 8, Smith further discloses adjusting a time period that the trailer brake valve 904 is actuated prior to the tractor brake valve based on the surface condition (see paragraphs 0076 and 0077).
Regarding Claim 9, Smith further discloses adjusting a pressure through the trailer brake valve 904 based on the surface condition (see paragraph 076).
Regarding Claim 10, Smith further discloses detecting a braking pressure of each of the trailer brake valve 904 and the tractor brake valve 802/902 (see paragraph 0076).
Regarding Claim 13, Smith further discloses that sensing the braking event further comprises detecting surface conditions and determining a braking operation based on the detected surface conditions (see paragraphs 0062-0064).
Regarding Claim 14, see Claims 1 and 6 above.
Regarding Claim 15, see Claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 16, see Claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 17, Smith further discloses that the trailer brakes are actuated prior to each of the first brake valve (see Figures 7 and 8 and the valve(s) for brake chambers 730), second brake valve (see Figures 7 and 8 and the valves for brake chambers 738), and the tractor protection valve 802/902 (i.e., when the trailer is jackknifing as discussed in paragraphs 0076 and 0077).
Regarding Claim 19, see Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 20, see Claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 21, see Claim 10 above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PG Publication No. 2021/0370922 to Smith.
Regarding Claim 11, Smith discloses most all the features of the instant invention as applied above and further including determining an accurate braking pressure of the trailer brake valve 904 and the tractor brake valve (see paragraph 0076).
However, Smith does not disclose that the pressure determination is done by employing a voting system for detecting the braking pressure at each of the trailer brake valve and the tractor brake valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the method of braking the tractor-trailer of Smith to include determining an accurate braking pressure of the trailer brake valve and the tractor brake valve by employing a voting system for detecting the braking pressure at each of the trailer brake valve and the tractor brake valve as a matter of design preference dependent upon the desired accuracy of the measurement of the braking pressures in the brake valves and desired overall complexity of the braking system.
Regarding Claim 12, Smith does not disclose detecting a fault in the tractor brake valve or the trailer brake valve.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the method of braking the tractor-trailer of Smith to include detecting a fault in the tractor brake valve or the trailer brake valve in order to always ensure braking of the tractor-trailer can be implemented by recognizing a fault and designing a redundancy work-around for the braking system if any fault does occur.
Regarding Claim 22, see Claim 11 above.
Regarding Claim 23, see Claim 12 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 6,257,680 to Jacob and British Patent No. GB 2622107 to Merza et al both disclose methods of braking a tractor-trailer driven vehicles similar to applicant’s.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
PAMELA RODRIGUEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3616
/PAMELA RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616 03/31/26
Prosecution Insights