DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to reply dated June 4, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-13, 15, 16 and 18-23 are currently pending.
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 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, specifically claim 10, 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, specifically those in claim 10 and shown in Figure 3, 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zula (US 2016/0180605 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zula discloses a signal-enhancing apparatus for a vehicle train having a tractor and first and second towed vehicles coupled to the tractor (see at least Figure 1, items 12, 20, 22, 30 and 32), the signal-enhancing apparatus comprising:
a first signal-enhancing circuit associated with the first towed vehicle and for enhancing a transmitted signal from the first towed vehicle (see at least Figure 1, items 20 and 22 | [0011] note the first trailer or first towed vehicle 20 has a first towed vehicle controller 22 | [0018] note the components associated with the first towed vehicle controller 22 | [0026] note the first towed vehicle controller 22 receives at least a fault message transmitted from the first dolly or second towed vehicle 30 via a power line 15 | [0030] note the first towed vehicle controller 22 transmits the fault message of the first dolly or second towed vehicle 30 on the power line at a first period in time different than the second period in time with an increased amplitude within the specification of the particular communications protocol); and
a second signal-enhancing circuit associated with the second towed vehicle and for enhancing a transmitted signal from the second towed vehicle (see at least Figure 1, items 30 and 32 | [0012] note the first dolly or second towed vehicle 30 has a second towed vehicle controller 32 | [0019] | [0025] note the first dolly or second towed vehicle 30 periodically transmits at least a fault message at a second period in time via the power line 15 that is received by the first towed vehicle controller 22 | [0030] | [0029] note other controllers 42, 52, 62 that may be equipped with the method 80 of this invention that may already be repeating the fault message);
wherein each of the first and second signal-enhancing circuits is arranged to enhance its respective transmitted signal based upon the transmitted signal of the other towed vehicle (see at least [0030]),
each of the transmitted signals comprises a power line voltage detected in vicinity of its respective towed vehicle (see at least [0026] note as long as the fault message meets a predetermined minimum amplitude at the communications port 26, the fault message can be received and interpreted by the first towed vehicle control logic 24),
which corresponds to a spatial relationship between the tractor and the first and second towed vehicles (see at least [0029] note other controllers 42, 52, 62 that may be equipped with the method 80 of this invention that may already be repeating the fault message | [0030-0031] note each towed vehicle controller transmits in its own time slot, and when the tractor 12 receives a fault message, it is likely to be greater than a minimum amplitude due to the repetition of the fault message by the first towed vehicle control logic 24, that is, the messages received from the first towed vehicle are greater in amplitude than, and in a first timeslot, compared to messages from the second towed vehicle which are lower in amplitude and in a second timeslot | [0026]).
Regarding claim 3, Zula discloses wherein each of the first and second signal-enhancing circuits is arranged to adjust signal strength of its respective detected power line voltage (see at least [0030] note the fault message amplitude is increased back to an amplitude value within the specification of the particular communications protocol).
Regarding claim 6, Zula discloses wherein the spatial relationship between the tractor and the first and second towed vehicles comprises order of the first and second towed vehicles relative to the tractor (see at least [0029-0031] | [0026] | [0022]).
Regarding claim 7, Zula discloses wherein the order between the tractor and the first and second towed vehicles comprises position of the first towed vehicle relative to the tractor and position of the second towed vehicle relative to the tractor (see at least Figure 1, items 14, 15, 22, 32, 42, 52 and 62 | [0029-0031] | [0026] | [0022]).
Regarding claim 8, Zula discloses wherein the order between the tractor and the first and second towed vehicles comprises distance of the first towed vehicle relative to the tractor and distance of the second towed vehicle relative to the tractor (see at least Figure 1, items 14, 15, 22, 32, 42, 52 and 62 | [0029-0031] | [0026] | [0022]).
Regarding claim 9, Zula discloses wherein the first towed vehicle comprises a first trailer, and the second towed vehicle comprises a dolly (see at least Figure 1 | [0011-0012]).
Regarding claim 10, Zula discloses an apparatus for a vehicle train having a tractor and a plurality of towed vehicles coupled to the tractor (see at least Figure 1, items 10, 12, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 | [0010-0012] note the tractor 12, the first trailer or first towed vehicle 20, the first dolly or second towed vehicle 30, etc. | [0030]), the apparatus comprising:
a power line (see at least [0010] note the power line 15); and
means for (see at least Figure 1, items 14, 22, 32, 42, 52, 62 | [0010-0011] note each vehicle 12, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 has a controller 14, 22, 32, 42, 52, 62 | [0017-0018] note each controller 14, 22, 32, 42, 52, 62 has associated electrical components) enabling each of the plurality of towed vehicles to
(i) detect voltage of the power line in vicinity of its respective towed vehicle (see at least [0026] note as long as the received fault messages meet a predetermined minimum amplitude at the communications port 18, 26, 36, 46, 56, 66, the fault message can be received and interpreted by the towed vehicle controllers 14, 22, 32, 42, 52, 62, such as fifty millivolts peak to peak | [0029] note other controllers 22, 32, 42, 52, 62 that may be equipped with the method 80 of this invention that may already be repeating the fault message),
(ii) transmit the respective detected voltage to other towed vehicles of the plurality of towed vehicles (see at least [0030] note the vehicle controllers 22, 32, 42, 52, 62 do not alter the content of the fault message but rather repeat the fault message exactly as it was received, such that the fault message amplitude is increased back to an amplitude value within the specification of the particular communications protocol), and
(iii) adjust the respective transmitted voltage based upon at least one signal characteristic associated with the respective transmitted voltage relative to transmitted voltages of the other towed vehicles of the plurality of towed vehicles (see at least [0030] note the fault message amplitude is increased back to an amplitude value within the specification of the particular communications protocol),
wherein each transmitted voltage of the power line in vicinity of the respective towed vehicle corresponds to position of the respective towed vehicle relative to the tractor (see at least [0022] note a fault message transmitted by the control logic 64 is transmitted at a fifth period in time, which is different than the first period in time, second period in time, third period in time and fourth period in time | [0029] other controllers 22, 32, 42, 52, 62 that may be equipped with the method 80 of this invention that may already be repeating the fault message | [0031] note the fault message is likely to be greater than a minimum amplitude due to the repetition of the fault message by the first towed vehicle control logic 24, which is located in closer proximity to the tractor 12 than the second towed vehicle 30).
Regarding claim 11, Zula discloses wherein the at least one signal characteristic associated with the respective transmitted voltage comprises signal strength of the respective transmitted voltage (see at least [0030] note the fault message amplitude is increased back to an amplitude value within the specification of the particular communications protocol).
Regarding claim 13, Zula discloses wherein (i) a vehicle battery comprises the power line, and (ii) the plurality of towed vehicles comprises first and second trailers and a dolly interconnecting the first and second trailers (see at least Figure 1 | [0010-0013] | [0017] note the power line 15 is typically connected to ignition power, which is received from a twelve volt DC battery).
Regarding claim 15, Zula discloses wherein each transmitted voltage of the power line in vicinity of the respective towed vehicle corresponds to distance of the respective towed vehicle relative to the tractor (see at least [0022] note a fault message transmitted by the control logic 64 is transmitted at a fifth period in time, which is different than the first period in time, second period in time, third period in time and fourth period in time | [0029] other controllers 22, 32, 42, 52, 62 that may be equipped with the method 80 of this invention that may already be repeating the fault message | [0031] note the fault message is likely to be greater than a minimum amplitude due to the repetition of the fault message by the first towed vehicle control logic 24, which is located in closer proximity to the tractor 12 than the second towed vehicle 30).
Regarding claim 16, Zula discloses a method of operating each towed vehicle of a plurality of towed vehicles coupled to a tractor (see at least Figure 1, items 10, 12, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 | Figure 8 | [0010-0012] note the tractor 12, the first trailer or first towed vehicle 20, the first dolly or second towed vehicle 30, etc. | [0030]), the method comprising:
enhancing at the towed vehicle a characteristic of a transmitted signal from the towed vehicle based upon a spatial relationship between the tractor and the plurality of towed vehicles wherein the transmitted signal comprises a power line voltage detected in vicinity of its respective towed vehicle (see at least [0029] note other controllers 22, 32, 42, 52, 62 that may be equipped with the method 80 of this invention that may already be repeating the fault message | [0030] note the fault message amplitude is increased back to an amplitude value within the specification of the particular communications protocol, and it repeats the fault message at a period in time different than the period in time used by the towed vehicle controller 22, 32, 42, 52, 62 that originally transmitted the fault message | [0031] | [0026]); and
enhancing at the towed vehicle a characteristic of a transmitted power line voltage in vicinity of the towed vehicle based upon differences in transmitted power line voltages associated with the towed vehicle and other towed vehicles of the plurality of towed vehicles (see at least [0030] note the fault message amplitude is increased back to an amplitude value within the specification of the particular communications protocol | [0025] note fault messages have a specific amplitude of 4V peak to peak | [0026] note each towed vehicle’s transmitted fault message degrades and ones that exceed fifty millivolts peak to peak, which is a predetermined minimum voltage, can be received and processed).
Regarding claim 18, Zula discloses wherein enhancing at the towed vehicle a characteristic of a transmitted power line voltage measurement in vicinity of the towed vehicle based upon differences in transmitted power line voltages associated with the towed vehicle and other towed vehicles of the plurality of towed vehicles includes: adjusting at the towed vehicle a signal strength characteristic of the transmitted power line voltage in vicinity of the towed vehicle (see [0030]).
Regarding claim 23, Zula discloses wherein the method is performed by a controller having a memory executing one or more programs of instructions which are tangibly embodied in a program storage medium readable by the controller (see at least [0017-0022] note each paragraph similarly discloses a controller, memory, computer executable instructions, etc.).
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.
Claims 4, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zula (US 2016/0180605 A1) in view of Udren (US 4,475,209 A).
Regarding claim 4, Zula does not specifically disclose wherein each of the first and second signal-enhancing circuits is arranged to adjust a signal-to-noise ratio output associated with its respective detected power line voltage.
It is known that less noise improves communication. For example, Udren teaches wherein a signal-enhancing circuit is arranged to adjust a signal-to-noise ratio output associated with its respective detected power line voltage (see at least col. 3, lines 1-10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Udren into Zula. This provides the ability for the first and second signal-enhancing circuits to prevent the accumulation of noise interference and improve overall system performance.
Regarding claim 12, Zula in view of Udren teach wherein the at least one signal characteristic associated with the respective transmitted voltage comprises a signal-to-noise ratio output of the respective transmitted voltage (see at least col. 3, lines 1-10 of Udren).
Regarding claim 19, Zula in view of Udren teach wherein enhancing at the towed vehicle a characteristic of a transmitted power line voltage in vicinity of the towed vehicle based upon differences in transmitted power line voltages associated with the towed vehicle and other towed vehicles of the plurality of towed vehicles includes: adjusting at the towed vehicle a signal-to-noise ratio output of the transmitted power line voltage in vicinity of the towed vehicle (see at least col. 3, lines 1-10 of Udren).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zula (US 2016/0180605 A1) in view of Ripley (US 9,227,607 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Zula does not specifically disclose transmitting an identifier associated with the towed vehicle and the transmitted signal along a communication line to other towed vehicles of the plurality towed vehicles.
It is known to transmit identifying information in signals. For example, Ripley teaches a system that transmits an identifier associated with the towed vehicle and the transmitted signal along a communication line to other towed vehicles of the plurality towed vehicles (see at least Figures 1-2 | col. 6, lines 30-44, note transmission of unique identification | col. 5, lines 59-67).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Ripley into Zula. This provides the ability for the tractor controller to further help distinguish between signals, thus improving communication.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zula (US 2016/0180605 A1) in view of Hayes (US 10,050,674 B1).
Regarding claim 21, Zula does not specifically disclose wherein enhancing at the towed vehicle a characteristic of a transmitted signal from the towed vehicle based upon a relationship between the tractor and the plurality of towed vehicles includes: enhancing at the towed vehicle a characteristic of a continuously changing transmitted signal from the towed vehicle.
It is known to enhance more than one type of signal. For example, Hayes teaches a system that enhances at the towed vehicle a characteristic of a continuously changing transmitted signal from the towed vehicle (see at least Figure 1, items 20, 221, 222 | col. 3, lines 9-34, note transmission (and reception) of data from one or more systems 22 on trailers 14 to a system 20 on a tractor, such as sensor readings, ABS readings, TPMS readings, collision avoidance readings, commands, etc. | col. 4, lines 46-50, note identifying protocols | col. 5, lines 40-58, note tuning the input signal and transmitting messages | col. 6, lines 12-57, note different types or levels of signal conditioning are required | col. 8, lines 25-33).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Hayes into Zula. This provides the ability to broadcast (continuously changing) sensor data and commands across the power lines of a vehicle train, and account for different protocols, amplification and different types or levels of signal conditioning prior to transmission, thus helping ensure reception.
Regarding claim 22, Zula in view of Hayes teach wherein enhancing at the towed vehicle a characteristic of a continuously changing transmitted signal from the towed vehicle includes: enhancing in real-time at the towed vehicle the characteristic of the continuously changing transmitted signal from the towed vehicle such that all transmitted signals from all towed vehicles of the plurality of towed vehicles are successfully received at the tractor (see at least Figure 1, items 20, 221, 222 of Hayes | col. 3, lines 9-34 of Hayes, note transmission (and reception) of data from one or more systems 22 on trailers 14 to a system 20 on a tractor, such as sensor readings, ABS readings, TPMS readings, collision avoidance readings, commands, etc. | col. 4, lines 46-56 of Hayes, note by identifying protocols controller 30 is able to decode messages using different communication protocols thereby facilitating use of devices on tractor-trailer 10 from a wider variety of manufacturers implementing different power line communication protocols | col. 5, lines 40-58 of Hayes, note tuning the input signal and transmitting messages | col. 6, lines 12-57 of Hayes, note different types or levels of signal conditioning are required | col. 8, lines 25-33 of Hayes).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states “In the rejection of claim 2, the Examiner points to Paragraph 26 in Zula which discloses ‘as long as the fault message meets a predetermined amplitude at the communications port 26, the fault message can be received and interpreted by the first towed vehicle control logic 24.’ (Zula, Para. 26.) However, Zula is disclosing the actual amplitude of the message itself, not a signal that is ‘comprising a power line voltage detected in vicinity of its respective towed vehicle.’ The presently claimed apparatus includes circuits that are ‘arranged to measure voltage of the power line in the vicinity of the first controller’ and include the actual voltage measurement as part of the message. (Porpora, Para. 37).”
In response, paragraph [0010] of Zula states “The tractor controller 14 is also connected to a power line 15. The power line 15 is electrically connected in parallel with each of the towed vehicles in the combination vehicle 10 through wires of different lengths and multi-pin connectors on each towed vehicle (not shown).” Paragraph [0026] of Zula states “In step 86, the fault message is received by the first towed vehicle 20 at the communications port 26. The fault message transmitted on the power line 15 may experience attenuation, mainly due to the loading on the power line 15 from the controllers 22, 32, 42, 52, 62 and other electrical equipment on the same power line 15. … The fault message amplitude may be degraded by several volts from the original amplitude due to any or all of these reasons. However, as long as the fault message meets a predetermined minimum amplitude at the communications port 26, the fault message can be received and interpreted by the first towed vehicle control logic 24. In one example, the predetermined minimum amplitude is about fifty millivolts peak to peak.” In view of the paragraphs above, it is clear that Zula discloses a power line voltage detected in vicinity of its respective towed vehicle. That is, the first towed vehicle can receive at least a fifty millivolt peak to peak signal across the power line. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the italicized features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The presently claimed apparatus includes circuits that are ‘arranged to measure voltage of the power line in the vicinity of the first controller’ and include the actual voltage measurement as part of the message.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further states “In the rejection of claim 5, the Examiner stated that Zula disclosed that there is a spatial relationship that can be determined from the messages. However Paragraph 29 of Zula discloses message loading, but does not disclose any mention of how the loading can be attributed to the distance relationships between each vehicle. Paragraph 26 of Zula discloses that there may be attenuation in the message due to the long power line, but Zula does not identify any relationship between the attenuation value and the knowledge of the position of the multiple vehicles in the vehicle train as in present claim 1. (Zula, para. 26 and 29). Since Zula does not include all of the limitations as arranged in amended claim 1, the withdrawal of the 102 rejection and allowance of claim 1 is respectfully requested.”
In response, currently amended claim 1 recites “…wherein each of the first and second signal-enhancing circuits is arranged to enhance its respective transmitted signal based upon the transmitted signal of the other towed vehicle, each of the transmitted signals comprising a power line voltage detected in vicinity of its respective towed vehicle, which corresponds to a spatial relationship between the tractor and the first and second towed vehicles.”
The claim simply defines that the detected power line voltage corresponds to a spatial relationship between the tractor and the first and second towed vehicles. That is, the detected power line voltage from the other towed vehicle is higher at the second towed vehicle than the first towed vehicle, the detected power line voltage from the second towed vehicle is higher at the first towed vehicle than the tractor, etc. In addition, the signal from the first towed vehicle is transmitted during a first period in time, the signal from the second towed vehicle is transmitted during a second (different) period in time, and the signal from the other towed vehicle is transmitted during a third (even different) period in time. Not only does the detected voltage attenuate over the length of the power line, but they are different in time (see [0022] | [0026]). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the italicized features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “However Paragraph 29 of Zula discloses message loading, but does not disclose any mention of how the loading can be attributed to the distance relationships between each vehicle. Paragraph 26 of Zula discloses that there may be attenuation in the message due to the long power line, but Zula does not identify any relationship between the attenuation value and the knowledge of the position of the multiple vehicles in the vehicle train as in present claim 1.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, the claim does not recite distance, and does not recite identifying any relationship between the attenuation value or the knowledge of the position of the multiple vehicles. The claim simply requires the detected voltage to correspond to a spatial relationship between the tractor and the first and second towed vehicles. Put differently, the detected voltage corresponds to, is a function of, its distance on the power line. Also, the tractor knows that the first towed vehicle transmits during the first period of time, the second towed vehicle transmits at the second period of time, etc. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further states “Zula does not disclose transmitting ‘the respective detected voltage to other towed vehicles’ but rather simply discloses that the fault message itself has a voltage amplitude. Similarly, Zula does not disclose that the voltage amplitude of the message itself ‘corresponds to a position of the respective towed vehicle relative to the tractor.’ For at least these reasons, Zula does not anticipate each and every element of claim 10. Withdrawal of the 102 rejection and allowance of claim 10 is respectfully requested.”
In response, paragraph [0025] of Zulu states the “fault message is encoded according to the physical layer protocol and sent with a certain message frequency, such as about once every 500 milliseconds, and the resultant signal on the power line has a specific amplitude, such as about 4V peak to peak.” Paragraph [0030] of Zulu states “the first towed vehicle control logic 24 transmits the fault message of the second towed vehicle 30 on the power line 15. The first towed vehicle control logic 24 does not alter the content of the fault message but rather repeats the fault message exactly as it was received.” That is, Zulu receives the detected voltage signal, transmits the respective detected voltage to other towed vehicles, and adjusts the respective transmitted voltage (see [0025] | [0030]).
With respect to the limitation “corresponds to a position of the respective towed vehicle relative to the tractor”, this simply describes that the voltage is a function of where the towed vehicle is located on the power line. Also, each towed vehicle transmits in its own defined time slot. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant states “As stated above for Claim 1, Zula does not disclose that the transmitted signal includes ‘a power line voltage detected in vicinity of its respective towed vehicle’. Furthermore, while Zula may increase the amplitude of a signal, Zula does not change the signal based on the power line voltage information embedded in the transmitted signal. As in the present invention description, ‘the signal transmitted from the first towed vehicle 200 is enhanced based upon the differences in transmitted power lie voltages.’ (Porpora, Para. 65). For at least these reasons, Zula does not anticipate each and every element of claim 16. Withdrawal of the 102 rejection and allowance of claim 16 is respectfully requested.”
In response, paragraph [0010] of Zula states “The tractor controller 14 is also connected to a power line 15. The power line 15 is electrically connected in parallel with each of the towed vehicles in the combination vehicle 10 through wires of different lengths and multi-pin connectors on each towed vehicle (not shown).” Paragraph [0026] of Zula states “In step 86, the fault message is received by the first towed vehicle 20 at the communications port 26. The fault message transmitted on the power line 15 may experience attenuation, mainly due to the loading on the power line 15 from the controllers 22, 32, 42, 52, 62 and other electrical equipment on the same power line 15. … The fault message amplitude may be degraded by several volts from the original amplitude due to any or all of these reasons. However, as long as the fault message meets a predetermined minimum amplitude at the communications port 26, the fault message can be received and interpreted by the first towed vehicle control logic 24. In one example, the predetermined minimum amplitude is about fifty millivolts peak to peak.” In view of the paragraphs above, it is clear that Zula discloses a power line voltage detected in vicinity of its respective towed vehicle. That is, the first towed vehicle can receive at least a fifty millivolt peak to peak signal across the power line. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the italicized features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Furthermore, while Zula may increase the amplitude of a signal, Zula does not change the signal based on the power line voltage information embedded in the transmitted signal. As in the present invention description, ‘the signal transmitted from the first towed vehicle 200 is enhanced based upon the differences in transmitted power lie voltages.’”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, DAVETTA GOINS can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights