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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: “a front end of trailer” in the second line and “the rear of a vehicle” in the third line, should read “a front end of a trailer” and “a rear of a vehicle”, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinker et al. (US 2024/0132146 A1) hereinafter, Rinker in view of Misir (DE 10 2019 207 384 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rinker teaches an interchangeable trailer system (since trailer 102 is selectively coupled, it can be swapped with another trailer), comprising:
wherein the trailer comprises:
a battery bank (130);
a first drive motor (112) configured to drive a first wheel (108) of the trailer; and
a second drive motor (124) configure to drive a second wheel (120) of the trailer.
Regarding claim 5, Rinker teaches one or more sensors (114, 116) on the trailer in communication with an electronic control module (104) on the trailer, the electronic control module configured to drive the first and second drive motors (Fig 2 and Para [0025] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Rinker teaches that the trailer comprises an electronic control module in communication with an electronic control module of the vehicle (Para [0014]).
However, Rinker does not teach electromagnetic coupling.
Misir teaches a first electromagnet (32) coupled to a front end of a trailer (12);
a second electromagnet (30) coupled to a rear end of a vehicle (14);
the first and second electromagnets configured to selectively couple to one another (Fig 2-3 and last two paragraphs of page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Rinker’s system, in view of Misir, with electromagnetic coupling, for increased reliability and easier energy transfer (Sixth paragraph of page 2).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rinker in view of Misir teaches that the trailer further comprises a tongue, the first electromagnet coupled to a distal end of the tongue (Fig 2 of Misir).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kober (DE 20 2018 106 548 U1) in view of Misir (DE 10 2019 207 384 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kober teaches an interchangeable trailer system (since trailer 1 is selectively coupled, it can be swapped with another trailer, second paragraph of page 10), comprising:
wherein the trailer comprises:
a battery bank (35);
a first drive motor (40) configured to drive a first wheel (18) of the trailer; and
a second drive motor (40) configure to drive a second wheel (19) of the trailer (Fig 3).
Regarding claim 5, Kober teaches one or more sensors (10, 11) on the trailer in communication with an electronic control module (37) on the trailer, the electronic control module configured to drive the first and second drive motors (Fig 3 and first and second paragraph of page 11).
Regarding claim 6, Kober teaches one or more cameras (59) on the trailer in communication with an electronic control module on the trailer (first paragraph of page 16).
Regarding claim 8, Kober (Fig 3) teaches that the trailer comprises a battery-powered drive system comprising the battery bank (35), the first and second drive motors (40), an electronic control module (37), at least one power inverter (38), a charge controller (sixth paragraph of page 7), and a cooling system (sixth paragraph of page 7).
Regarding claim 9, Kober teaches that the electronic control module is in communication with one or more sensors on the trailer and one or more cameras on the trailer and is programmed to execute one or more actions based on information received from the one or more sensors and one or more cameras (last paragraph of page 5 to second paragraph of page 6).
However, Kober does not teach electromagnetic coupling.
Misir teaches a first electromagnet (32) coupled to a front end of a trailer (12);
a second electromagnet (30) coupled to a rear end of a vehicle (14);
the first and second electromagnets configured to selectively couple to one another (Fig 2-3 and last two paragraphs of page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Kober’s system, in view of Misir, with electromagnetic coupling, for increased reliability and easier energy transfer (Sixth paragraph of page 2).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kober in view of Misir teaches that the trailer further comprises a tongue, the first electromagnet coupled to a distal end of the tongue (Fig 2 of Misir).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinker et al. (US 2024/0132146 A1) hereinafter, Rinker in view of Misir (DE 10 2019 207 384 A1) and further in view of Akiba (EP 1 103 452 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rinker in view of Misir teaches the system of claim 1. However, the combination of Rinker in view of Misir does not teach that the hitch comprising an elongated shaft receivable within a channel of a receiver tube of a hitch receiver extending rearwardly from the vehicle.
Akiba teaches that the trailer further comprises a hitch (12) extending from the front of the trailer, the hitch comprising an elongated shaft receivable within a channel (15d) of a receiver tube of a hitch receiver (15) extending rearwardly from the vehicle (Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Rinker’s system, in view of Akiba, with an elongated shaft receivable within a channel of a receiver tube of a hitch receiver, for a safer and more secure connection.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinker et al. (US 2024/0132146 A1) hereinafter, Rinker in view of Misir (DE 10 2019 207 384 A1) and further in view of Akiba (EP 1 103 452 A1) and further in view of Harmon et al. (US 2020/0189335 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rinker in view of Misir and further in view of Akiba teaches the system of claim 3. However, the combination of Rinker in view of Misir and further in view of Akiba does not teach that when the elongated shaft is mated with the channel, a first electromagnetic plate on the hitch contacts a second electromagnetic plate on the hitch receiver.
Harmon teaches when the elongated shaft is mated with the channel, a first electromagnetic plate (20) on the hitch contacts a second electromagnetic plate (11) on the hitch receiver (Fig 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Rinker’s system, in view of Harmon, with direct electromagnetic coupling, to improve the strength of coupling (Para [0023]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinker et al. (US 2024/0132146 A1) in view of Misir (DE 10 2019 207 384 A1) and further in view of Huett et al. (US 2020/0254883 A1) hereinafter, Huett.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rinker in view of Misir teaches the system of claim 1. However, the combination of Rinker in view of Misir does not teaches that the system of claim 1, further comprising one or more cameras on the trailer in communication with an electronic control module on the trailer.
Huett teaches one or more cameras (23) on the trailer in communication with an electronic control module on the trailer (Para [0037 and Fig 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Rinker’s system, in view of Huett, with one or more cameras, to measure yaw of the trailer, for example, if a vehicle is positioned on a sharp incline in a sideways position, one wheel will experience a bulk of the weight of the trailer whilst the other wheel will have little to no weight passing therethrough. Thus, by detecting this situation, the controller can reduce the power applied to the wheel with less weight and deliver most power to the wheel supporting the most weight to control motion of the trailer (Para [0037]).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinker et al. (US 2024/0132146 A1) hereinafter, Rinker in view of Misir (DE 10 2019 207 384 A1) and further in view of Hribar (US 3,193,330 A1).
Regarding claim 10-11, the combination of Rinker in view of Misir teaches the system of claim 1. However, the combination of Rinker in view of Misir does not teaches that the trailer comprises a plurality of securing pins.
Hribar teaches that the trailer comprises a plurality of securing pins (14), each configured to mate with a respective receiving inlet (14a) of an external shell (10), the external shell configured as a box trailer (Fig 1-2), wherein the plurality of securing pins are positioned on one or more support bars (14b) configured to secure to the trailer (Annotated Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Rinker’s system, in view of Hribar, with a dump trailer box, to enable hauling gravels and the like (Col. 1, Lines 14-17).
PNG
media_image1.png
711
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kober (DE 20 2018 106 548 U1) in view of Harmon et al. (US 2020/0189335 A1) hereinafter, Harmon.
Regarding claim 18, Kober teaches a method of using an interchangeable trailer system, the method comprising:
initiating an electronic control module on a trailer (first paragraph of page 11);
monitoring, via the electronic control module, one or more sensors and one or more cameras positioned on the trailer (first paragraph of page 11, last paragraph of page 16 to first paragraph of page 17 and fourth paragraph of page 17); and
in response to the electronic control module detecting one or more triggering events, activating one or more drive motors or brakes of the trailer (fourth paragraph of page 14 and second paragraph of page 15).
Regarding claim 19, Kober teaches a user maneuvering the trailer via one or more drive motors configured to drive respective wheels of the trailer (second paragraph of page 6).
However, Kober does not teach energizing a first electromagnet via the electronic control module;
coupling the trailer to a vehicle via the first electromagnet;
Harmon teaches energizing a first electromagnet (20) via the electronic control module (22);
coupling the trailer (second vehicle) to a vehicle (first vehicle) via the first electromagnet (Para [0022]- [0023]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Kober, system, in view of Harmon, with electromagnetic coupling, for increased reliability and easier energy transfer (Sixth paragraph of page 2 of Misir).
Claim(s) 12-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kober (DE 20 2018 106 548 U1) in view of Harmon et al. (US 2020/0189335 A1) hereinafter, Harmon and further in view of Rinker et al. (US 2024/0132146 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kober teaches an interchangeable trailer system, comprising:
a hitch receiver (21) extending from the rear of a vehicle (2); and
an electronic control module (37) on the trailer (1);
wherein the electronic control module is configured to:
c. monitor one or more sensors (58) of the trailer,
d. monitor one or more cameras (59) of the trailer; and
e. control the status of one or more drive motors (40) of the trailer (Fig 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Kober teaches that the one or more sensors comprise one or more proximity sensors, the electronic control module configured to determine the position of the trailer in relation to the vehicle using the one or more proximity sensors (first Para of Page 16).
Regarding claim 14, Kober teaches that the at least one electronic control module comprises a microcontroller (microprocessor), a transceiver (the controller sends and receive signals, so it does have a transceiver), and a user input/output interface (sixth paragraph of page 7).
However, Kober does not teach a first electromagnet coupled to a tongue extending from a front end of trailer; the hitch receiver comprising a second electromagnet at a distal end, the second electromagnet being selectively couplable to the first electromagnet;
wherein the electronic control module is configured to:
a. control the status of the first electromagnet,
b. monitor one or more control modules of the vehicle.
Harmon teaches a first electromagnet (20) coupled to a tongue (9) extending from a front end of trailer (second vehicle); the hitch receiver (10) comprising a second electromagnet (11) at a distal end, the second electromagnet being selectively couplable to the first electromagnet (Fig 1 and 5-6);
wherein the electronic control module (22, 900) is configured to:
a. control the status of the first electromagnet (Para [0043]- [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Kober, system, in view of Harmon, with electromagnetic coupling, for increased reliability and easier energy transfer (Sixth paragraph of page 2 of Misir).
However, the combination of Kober in view of Harmon does not teach that wherein the electronic control module is configured to:
b. monitor one or more control modules of the vehicle.
Rinker teaches that the electronic control module (104) is configured to:
b. monitor one or more control modules (152) of the vehicle (Para [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Kober, system, in view of Rinker, with controller configured to monitor one or more control modules of the vehicle, to not only to fine tune trailer operation for handling and performance optimization, but also to optimize the efficiency of the overall tractor-trailer combination (Para [0036]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kober in view of Harmon teaches that the electronic control module of the trailer controlling the status and speed of one or more drive motors configured to drive respective wheels of the trailer (fourth paragraph of page 14 of Kober).
However, the combination of Kober in view of Harmon does not teach that the electronic control module of the trailer communicates with an electronic control module on the vehicle.
Rinker teaches that the electronic control module of the trailer communicates with an electronic control module on the vehicle (Para [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Kober, system, in view of Rinker, with controller configured to monitor one or more control modules of the vehicle, to not only to fine tune trailer operation for handling and performance optimization, but also to optimize the efficiency of the overall tractor-trailer combination (Para [0036]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kober (DE 20 2018 106 548 U1) in view of Harmon et al. (US 2020/0189335 A1) hereinafter, Harmon and further in view of Rinker et al. (US 2024/0132146 A1) and further in view of Alois (DE 20 2022 102 790 U1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kober in view of Harmon and further in view of Rinker teaches the system of claim 1. However, the combination of Kober in view of Harmon and further in view of Rinker does not teaches that the user input/output interface comprises a touchscreen.
Alois teaches that the user input/output interface comprises a touchscreen (fifth paragraph of page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Kober’s system, in view of Alois, with a touchscreen, to enhance user experience.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kober (DE 20 2018 106 548 U1) in view of Harmon et al. (US 2020/0189335 A1) hereinafter, Harmon and further in view of Rinker et al. (US 2024/0132146 A1) and further in view of Hribar (US 3,193,330 A1).
Regarding claim 16-17, the combination of Kober in view of Harmon and further in view of Rinker teaches the system of claim 1. However, the combination of Kober in view of Harmon and further in view of Rinker does not teaches that the trailer comprises a plurality of securing pins.
Hribar teaches that the trailer comprises a plurality of securing pins (14), each configured to mate with a respective receiving inlet (14a) of an external shell (10), the external shell configured as a box trailer (Fig 1-2), wherein the plurality of securing pins are positioned on one or more support bars (14b) configured to secure to the trailer (Annotated Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify Kober’s system, in view of Hribar, with a dump trailer box, to enable hauling gravels and the like (Col. 1, Lines 14-17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references noted on the attached PTO-892 for teach interchangeable trailer systems of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAM SHABARA whose telephone number is (571)272-5495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 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, MINNAH SEOH can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/HOSAM SHABARA/Examiner, Art Unit 3618