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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10 and 11 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant argues the limitation in claims 10 and 14 the target relationship with the tractor and chassis in alignment along the longitudinal axis are not taught by the prior arts.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The Examiner has given the limitation its BRI and believes controlling the vehicle combination in alignment along the longitudinal axis is merely aligning the sections of the vehicle combination in targeted motions and path while performing the reverse motions, which at least Rydstrom clearly teaches the vehicle combination in reverse motion is being controlling to be aligned with target movements between the different sections of the vehicle combination, in at least Fig. 8, para. 0050, previously cited. In fact, at least in Fig. 8, shows the vehicle combination are in alignment in the longitudinal axis. Even so, Layfield discloses controls the chassis and the tractor along the longitudinal axis in alignment (see at least para. 0086).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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) 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydstrom et al. (US 2022/0355860 A1), Nuttalltrailers (“12 Ton Single Axle Jeep”, http://web.archive.org/web/20220403071308/http://nuttalltrailers.com/id114.html) and Layfield et al. (US 2023/0312029 A1).
For claim 1, Rydstrom discloses a method for reversal of a multi-pivot, combination vehicle comprising, during reversal of the combination vehicle: collecting a set of inputs with a sensor suite of a vehicle system (Fig. 6, abstract, para. 0008, 0037), the vehicle system comprising: a chassis, a steering axle mounted to the chassis, and a secondary fifth wheel configured to couple the chassis to a trailer (Fig. 1, 3, para. 0031, where the vehicle system chassis includes a steering axle and fifth wheel configured to couple the chassis to a trailer);
at a computing system onboard the vehicle system, determining a vehicle state estimate based on the set of inputs, the vehicle state estimate comprising a fifth wheel angle and a steering angle of the steering axle (Para. 0044, 0059, 0060); and
based on the vehicle state estimate and a target relationship between the vehicle system and the semi-tractor, autonomously controlling the steering axle during reversal of the vehicle system to adjust the steering angle of the vehicle system (Para. 0007, 0015, 0035, 0044, where the vehicle combination autonomously control steering axle during reversal assist to adjust the steering angle of the vehicle system).
Rydstrom discloses coupling the chassis to a semi-tractor (Fig. 1), but does not specifically disclose a kingpin configured to couple the chassis to a fifth wheel of a semi-tractor. Nuttalltrailers in the same field of the art discloses a chassis of a trailer dolly configured with a kingpin to couple the chassis to a fifth wheel of a semi-tractor (as shown in picture and drawing below). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Rydstrom to employ the known trailer dolly configuration of a kingpin couple to a fifth wheel of a semi-tractor, taught by Nuttalltrailers to allow coupling the dolly to a fifth wheel of a standard semi-tractor.
Rydstrom further does not specifically disclose the semi-tractor controls maintains propulsion control of the combination vehicle during reversal of the combination vehicle. Layfield in the same field of the art discloses the semi-tractor controls maintains propulsion control of the combination vehicle during reversal of the combination vehicle (Para. 0086, 0091, 0125, 0126, where the active dolly assists the tractor trailer controlling the reversing of the vehicle combination). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Rydstrom to allow the semi-tractor controls maintains propulsion control of the combination vehicle during reversal of the combination vehicle, as taught by Layfield to perform traditional vehicle combination backing method with active dolly assist to accurately reverse the vehicle combination.
PNG
media_image1.png
620
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, Rydstrom discloses the method of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein a distance between the kingpin and an axis of the secondary fifth wheel is less than 550 centimeters. Nuttalltrailers discloses the distance between the kingpin and an axis of the secondary fifth wheel is less than 550 centimeters (See drawing preproduced above). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Rydstrom to utilize a trailer dolly configured having a distance between the kingpin and an axis of the secondary fifth wheel is less than 550 centimeters, taught by Nuttalltrailers to provide appropriate dimension for towing needs and operations.
For claims 6 and 7, Rydstrom, as modified, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the sensor suite comprises a 3D scanner, wherein the set of inputs comprises a point cloud model of a rear end of the semi-tractor determined using the 3D scanner (Para. 0037, 0046, where LIDAR is a form of 3D scanner that model point cloud of the measured environment), wherein the fifth wheel angle is estimated as a rotation of the point cloud model about a central axis of the kingpin relative to a reference (Fig. 3, para. 0035, 0044, where the sensors estimates the orientations and articulation angles between the semi-tractor and the dolly/trailers based on the measured images from the various sensors including the LIDAR).
For claim 10, Rydstrom, as modified, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the target relationship is an alignment of the chassis and semi-tractor along a longitudinal axis (Rydstrom - Fig. 8, para. 0050, where the target relationship between the chassis and the semi-tractor is being maintained and properly controlled) (Layfield – Para. 0086, controls the chassis and the tractor along the longitudinal axis in alignment).
For claim 12, Rydstrom, as modified, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle system comprises a battery electric powertrain (Para. 0033).
For claim 19, Rydstrom, as modified, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle system further comprises a motor, and wherein during reversal of the combination vehicle: the moto applies propulsive torque to the steering axle; and the semi-tractor generates a propulsive force (Layfield - Para. 0086, 0091, 0125, 0126, where the active dolly assists the tractor trailer controlling the reversing of the vehicle combination).
Claim(s) 3, 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydstrom et al. (US 2022/0355860 A1), Nuttalltrailers (“12 Ton Single Axle Jeep”, http://web.archive.org/web/20220403071308/http://nuttalltrailers.com/id114.html) and Layfield et al. (US 2023/0312029 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sandblom et al. (US 2020/0180691 A1).
For claim 3, Rydstrom, as modified, discloses the method of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein autonomous control of the steering axle is based on a set of environmental collision constraints. Sandblom in the same field of the art discloses wherein autonomous control of the steering axle is based on a set of environmental collision constraints (Fig. 3, para. 0023, 0067, 0068). wherein autonomous control of the steering axle is based on a set of environmental collision constraints, as taught by Sandblom to safely control the vehicle autonomously in paths avoiding collision.
For claim 4, Rydstrom, as modified, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein autonomous control of the steering axle comprises a set of model-based envelope protections (Sandblom - Fig. 3, para. 0023, 0067, 0068, as discussed above).
For claim 11, Rydstrom, as modified, discloses the method of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the target relationship is a minimized cost function associated with an area swept by the multi-pivot, combination vehicle during reversal of the vehicle system. Sandblom in the same field of the art discloses wherein the target relationship is a minimized cost function associated with an area swept by the multi-pivot, combination vehicle during reversal of the vehicle system (Fig. 3, 6, para. 0036, where the reverse path for the vehicle combination is iterated to minimize the cost of the vehicle movements associated with an area). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Rydstrom to determine the target relationship is a minimized cost function associated with an area swept by the multi-pivot, combination vehicle during reversal of the vehicle system, as taught by Sandblom to manages and solve the travel path of the vehicle combination with the most optimal path.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydstrom et al. (US 2022/0355860 A1), Nuttalltrailers (“12 Ton Single Axle Jeep”, http://web.archive.org/web/20220403071308/http://nuttalltrailers.com/id114.html), Layfield et al. (US 2023/0312029 A1) and Sandblom et al. (US 2020/0180691 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Busse (US 2020/0010059 A1) as supporting document.
For claim 5, Rydstrom, as modified, discloses the method of claim 4, but does not specifically disclose wherein the model-based envelope protections comprise an anti-windup scheme based on a set of kinematic branch constraints. However, anti-windup scheme is a known technique in control system in the art and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the known control system function with a high expectation of success that improve the vehicle combination control with advantages provided by the control scheme. Busse in the same field of the art utilizes a closed-loop kinematic controller in a driver assistance system that implements anti-windup function to prevent excessive windup in the system (Para. 0046, 0054, 0055).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydstrom et al. (US 2022/0355860 A1), Nuttalltrailers (“12 Ton Single Axle Jeep”, http://web.archive.org/web/20220403071308/http://nuttalltrailers.com/id114.html) and Layfield et al. (US 2023/0312029 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Hejase et al. (US 2020/0001920 A1).
For claim 8, Rydstrom, as modified, discloses the method of claim 6, but does not specifically disclose wherein the target relationship is associated with a minimization of a rotation error of the point cloud model relative to the reference. Hejase in the same field of the art discloses the target relationship is associated with a minimization of trailer’s tracking error associate with its articulation angle measured, where the reference is the articulation point (Para. 0034, 0052-0054). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rydstrom and Hejase where the target relationship is associated with a minimization of a rotation error of the point cloud model relative to the reference with a high expectation of success because minimizing the rotation error or tracking error of the vehicle combination during the backing of the vehicle combination would improve the accuracy and maneuverability of the vehicle system.
For claim 9, Rydstrom discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the steering angle is autonomously controlled using a linear controller which minimizes error relative to the target relationship. Hejase in the same field of the art discloses wherein the steering angle is autonomously controlled using a linear controller which minimizes error relative to the target relationship (Para. 0029, where the path tracking controller for tracking backward motion may employ different controllers including PI controller, which is a linear controller). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rydstrom and Hejase to autonomously control the steering angle using a linear controller which minimizes error relative to the target relationship and optimizes the control of the vehicle system.
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydstrom et al. (US 2022/0355860 A1), Nuttalltrailers (“12 Ton Single Axle Jeep”, http://web.archive.org/web/20220403071308/http://nuttalltrailers.com/id114.html), and Layfield et al. (US 2023/0312029 A1), and further in view of Haemmerling et al. (US 2007/0090688 A1) as supporting document.
For claim 13, Rydstrom discloses a vehicle system comprising: a chassis (Fig. 3); a sensor suite (Fig. 6, abstract, para. 0037);
a secondary fifth wheel configured to couple the chassis to a trailer; a steering axle of the chassis, wherein the steering axle is mounted to the chassis (Fig. 1, 3, para. 0031, where the vehicle system chassis includes a steering axle and fifth wheel configured to couple the chassis to a trailer); and
a computing system communicatively coupled to the sensor suite, the computing system configured to: determine a vehicle state estimate based on inputs from the sensor suite (Para. 0044, 0059, 0060); and based on the vehicle state estimate, autonomously control the steering axle to achieve a target relationship between the semi-tractor and the chassis (Para. 0007, 0015, 0035, 0044, where the vehicle combination autonomously control steering axle during reversal assist to adjust the steering angle of the vehicle system).
Rydstrom discloses coupling the chassis to a semi-tractor (Fig. 1), but does not specifically disclose a kingpin configured to couple the chassis to a fifth wheel of a semi-tractor and the steering control based on a kinematic vehicle model. However, it is well known in the field of art to utilize kinematic vehicle model of the vehicle configuration to be controlled to properly operate the vehicle autonomously. Even so, Haemmerling in the same field of the art discloses autonomously controlling vehicle combination system based on kinematic vehicle model (Fig. 4, para. 0023, 0025, 0032, 0037). Nuttalltrailers in the same field of the art discloses a chassis of a trailer dolly configured with a kingpin to couple the chassis to a fifth wheel of a semi-tractor (as shown in picture and drawing below). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Rydstrom to employ the known trailer dolly configuration of a kingpin couple to a fifth wheel of a semi-tractor, taught by Nuttalltrailers to allow coupling the dolly to a fifth wheel of a standard semi-tractor.
Rydstrom further does not specifically disclose the semi-tractor controls maintains propulsion control of the combination vehicle during reversal of the combination vehicle. Layfield in the same field of the art discloses the semi-tractor controls maintains propulsion control of the combination vehicle during reversal of the combination vehicle (Para. 0086, 0091, 0125, 0126, where the active dolly assists the tractor trailer controlling the reversing of the vehicle combination). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Rydstrom to allow the semi-tractor controls maintains propulsion control of the combination vehicle during reversal of the combination vehicle, as taught by Layfield to perform traditional vehicle combination backing method with active dolly assist to accurately reverse the vehicle combination.
PNG
media_image1.png
620
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 14, Rydstrom, as modified, discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the target relationship is a virtual kinematic relationship with the semi-tractor and chassis in alignment along a longitudinal axis (Haemmerling – Fig. 4, para. 0023, 0025, 0032, where the kinematic relationship between the semi-tractor and the coupled vehicle in alignment is virtually determined/calculated) (Layfield – para. 0086, controls the chassis and the tractor along the longitudinal axis in alignment).
For claim 16, Rydstrom, as modified, discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the steering axle comprises at least one steering actuator which is connected to a power source onboard the chassis of the vehicle system (Para. 0006, 0015, 0031, 0037).
For claim 17, Rydstrom, as modified, discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the computing system is configured to operate independently of semi-tractor steering command signals and a semi-tractor CAN bus (Fig. 4, para. 0037, 0050, 0061, where the vehicle system is self-powered and independently controlled).
For claim 18, Rydstrom, as modified, discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the chassis is a converter dolly chassis (Fig. 3, 4, para. 0015, 0031, 0035, 0050).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rydstrom et al. (US 2022/0355860 A1), Nuttalltrailers (“12 Ton Single Axle Jeep”, http://web.archive.org/web/20220403071308/http://nuttalltrailers.com/id114.html) and Haemmerling et al. (US 2007/0090688 A1) as supporting document as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hejase et al. (US 2020/0001920 A1).
For claim 15, Rydstrom, as modified, disclose the system of claim 13, where the wheel slip angle is minimized associated with the tractor (para. 0013, 0059), but does not specifically disclose wherein the target relationship is a minimized rotation error of a rear end of the semi-tractor about an axis of the kingpin. Hejase in the same field of the art discloses the target relationship is associated with a minimization of trailer’s tracking error associate with its articulation angle measured, where the kingpin is the articulation point (Para. 0034, 0052-0054). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rydstrom and Hejase where the target relationship is associated with a minimization of a rotation error of the rear end of the semi-tractor about the axis of the kingpin with a high expectation of success because minimizing the rotation error or tracking error of the vehicle combination during the backing of the vehicle combination would improve the accuracy and maneuverability of the vehicle system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2022/0185329 A1) Deragarden discloses a self-powered dolly independently operate and assist trailer movements.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657