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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first sensor means in claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 30-38 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 30 recites “a target deceleration” and “an actual speed change”. It is not clear if these are the same as the target deceleration and current actual speed change added to parent claim 19, or additional deceleration/speed changes.
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.
Claims 19, 27-29 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel (US# 2019/0111900) in view of Mannherz et al (US# 2021/0146897).
Engel disclose a method for controlling the brakes of a vehicle combination (10), the method comprising: providing a vehicle combination (10) having a towing vehicle (16), an attached accessory device (14) or at least one trailer vehicle coupled to the towing vehicle (16), an electronic brake control system (28/32), wherein at least the towing vehicle (16) comprises a friction brake system (58) configured to be controlled by the electronic brake control system (28/32), and wherein at least the coupled attached accessory device (14) or the at least one trailer vehicle comprises second sensor means (42) for recognizing a need to brake the vehicle combination (1) and to signal a braking demand 79; communicating a signaled braking demand directly or indirectly to the electronic brake control system (28/32); and automatically actuating at least the friction brake system (58) of the towing vehicle (16) to apply the brake pressure. Engel further discloses that the electronic control system 28 controls the brake force of the brakes of either or both the work vehicle and the tow implement to control the speed of the work vehicle [0026], but lack the disclosure of a first sensor means for determining the driving speed, and calculating, in response to the signaled braking demand, and by the electronic brake control system, a current actual speed change of the vehicle combination based on the driving speed received by the first sensor unit; calculating a difference between a target deceleration and the current actual speed change of the vehicle combination; adapting, by the electronic braking system, a brake pressure so as to minimize a difference between the target deceleration and the current actual speed change. Mannherz et al teach a first sensor means 38/50, and calculating, in response to a signaled braking demand, and by an electronic brake control system 20, a current actual speed change aactual of the vehicle combination based on the driving speed received by the first sensor unit [0034]; calculating a difference between a target deceleration atarget and the current actual speed change aactual of the vehicle combination (66, [0039], step 76); adapting, by the electronic braking system, a brake pressure so as to minimize a difference between the target deceleration and the current actual speed change (Factual, step 82). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sensor means and deceleration control, such as taught by Mannherz et al, in the method of Engel to facilitate accurate brake control even with changing conditions such as load.
Regarding claim 27, the attached accessory device 14 or the at least one trailer vehicle has a trailer friction brake system 24 configured to be actuated by the brake control system 28/32, the method further comprising: actuating the trailer friction brake system 24 in response to communicating the signaled braking demand to the brake control system. Steps 110, 142, 176.
Regarding claim 28, the towing vehicle 16 has sensor means for recognizing the braking demand 87 and for signaling the braking demand, wherein the attached accessory device 14 or the at least one trailer vehicle has sensor means 79, and wherein communicating the braking demand is performed by the sensor means of the towing vehicle directly or indirectly to the brake control system and/or by the sensor means 79 of the attached accessory device 14 or the at least one trailer vehicle.
Regarding claim 29, Engel lacks the specific disclosure of overriding a braking demand of the attached accessory device 14 or the at least one trailer vehicle by a braking demand of the towing vehicle 16, or overriding a braking demand of the towing vehicle 16 by a braking demand of the attached accessory device 14 or the at least one trailer vehicle, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the larger braking demand to override the smaller braking demand, or a plausible braking demand to override an implausible braking demand to ensure appropriate braking the case of emergency or failure.
Regarding claim 39, Engel discloses an electronic brake control system 28 or 28/32 of a vehicle combination which comprises a towing vehicle 16 and an attached accessory device 14 and/or at least one trailer vehicle coupled to the towing vehicle, wherein the brake control system comprises sensor means and control means for determining a need to brake the vehicle combination and for the automatic actuation of a friction brake system 58 of the towing vehicle 16 and/or of the coupled attached accessory device 14 or trailer vehicle. Engel further discloses that the electronic control system 28 controls the brake force of the brakes of either or both the work vehicle and the tow implement to control the speed of the work vehicle [0026], but lack the disclosure of the control means determining the driving speed. Mannherz et al teach a first sensor means 38/50 determining driving speed [0029][0034]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use measure driving speed, such as taught by Mannherz et al, in the method of Engel to facilitate deceleration control which provides accurate brake control even with changing conditions such as load.
Regarding claim 40, Engel discloses an agricultural tractor 16 [0013] with an attached accessory device 14 and/or at least one trailer vehicle 14, the agricultural tractor having an electronic brake system 26/28/32 constructed in accordance with the equipment-related claims and configured to be operated so as to carry out a method in accordance with claim 19.
Claims 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel (US# 2019/0111900) and Sutton et al (US# 2024/0001894).
Engel discloses an electronic brake control system 28 or 28/32 of a vehicle combination which comprises a towing vehicle 16 and an attached accessory device 14 and/or at least one trailer vehicle coupled to the towing vehicle, wherein the brake control system comprises sensor means and control means for determining a need to brake the vehicle combination and for the automatic actuation of a friction brake system 58 of the towing vehicle 16 and/or of the coupled attached accessory device 14 or trailer vehicle. Engel further discloses that the electronic control system 28 controls the brake force of the brakes of either or both the work vehicle and the tow implement to control the speed of the work vehicle [0026], but lack the disclosure of the control means determining the driving speed. Sutton et al disclose a similar brake method and further teach a control means for determining the driving speed to facilitate speed control of a vehicle combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine speed, such as taught by Sutton et al, in the method of Engel to facilitate accurate speed control, thereby ensuring consistent seed distribution.
Regarding claim 40, Engel discloses an agricultural tractor 16 [0013] with an attached accessory device 14 and/or at least one trailer vehicle 14, the agricultural tractor configured to be operated so as to carry out a method in accordance with claim 19.
Claims 20-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel (US# 2019/0111900) and Mannherz et al (US# 2021/0146897), as applied to claim 19 above, in further view of Sutton et al (US# 2024/0001894).
Regarding claim 20, Engel, as modified above, discloses performing a cycle of processes at least once in response to communicating the braking demand to the brake control system 102, the cycle of processes comprising: determining a difference between a required braking and a current braking of the vehicle combination 108; producing and applying a brake pressure acting on friction brakes 58 of at least one vehicle axle of the towing vehicle as a function of the difference determined between the required braking and the current braking of the vehicle combination; and continuing automatically braking the vehicle combination until recognizing that the situation which gave rise to the braking demand no longer exists. Engel lacks the determination of a current driving speed of the vehicle combination and regulating a torque transmission in the drivetrain of the vehicle combination. Sutton et al further teach the determination of a current driving speed of a vehicle combination and regulating a torque transmission in the drivetrain of the vehicle combination. Figures 3-4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include transmission control, such as taught by Sutton et al, in the method of Engel to ensure the engine is operating at acceptable speeds and to minimize wear of the friction brake system.
Regarding claim 21, regulating the torque transmission includes interrupting the torque transmission. [0064] discloses a transmission ratio of 0. The interruption of torque is necessary for allowing the vehicle to completely stop.
Regarding claim 22, continuing automatically braking the vehicle combination includes braking the vehicle combination to a standstill. Engel discloses stopping the work vehicle and implement [0026][0031].
Regarding claim 24, Mannherz et al teach two wheel speed sensors 38/46 on an axle [0008] and a driving acceleration sensor 50.
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel (US# 2019/0111900), Mannherz et al (US# 2021/0146897), and Sutton et al (US# 2024/0001894), as applied to claim 22 above, in further view of Legier-Desgranges et al (US# 2023/0286745).
Engel, as modified above, disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to confirming that the vehicle combination is at the standstill; and automatically actuating a holding brake. Legier-Desgranges et al disclose a similar brake method and further teach confirming that the vehicle combination is at the standstill 104; and automatically actuating a holding brake 112. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the automatic holding brake of Legier-Desgranges et al, in the method of modified Engel, to prevent rollback on inclines, thereby improving vehicle safety.
Claims 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engel (US# 2019/0111900) and Mannherz et al (US# 2021/0146897, as applied to claim 19 above, in further view of Graham et al (US# 2021/0129808).
Engel, as modified above, disclose all the limitations of the instant claim with exception to producing an acoustic and/or visual warning signal for a vehicle driver at a beginning automatically braking the vehicle combination . Graham et al disclose a similar brake method and further teach an acoustic and/or visual warning signal for a vehicle driver at a beginning automatically braking a vehicle combination [0097]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a warning signal during automatic braking, such as taught by Graham et al, in the method of modified Engel to ensure the operator is aware of the state of the vehicle combination, thereby improving operator comfort and safety.
Regarding claim 26, Engel further lacks emitting an acoustic and/or visual “clear” signal after ending automatically braking the vehicle combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a clear signal in the method of modified Engel to provide positive confirmation that the automatic brake operation has ended, thereby further increasing awareness of the vehicle state.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-38 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant did not provide arguments specific to claim 39 and the newly cited Mannherz et al reference is relied upon for the new limitations.
Conclusion
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 BRADLEY T KING whose telephone number is (571)272-7117. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-5:00 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.
/BRADLEY T KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
BTK
Prosecution Insights