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
A new examiner has taken over for the prior examiner. Full faith and credit is given to the prior action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
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) 1-9, 12-13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Haines (US 4904015 A) in view of US 2021/0179208 A1 to Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Haines discloses a method for controlling a cover (e.g. see Col 2 Ln 48 – “fairings”) which at least partially covers a gap (S) formed between a pulling vehicle and a pulled vehicle (e.g. see Fig 5, gap and both vehicles are shown) of a truck-trailer combination (e.g. see Fig 5), by means of at least one actuator (e.g. see Fig 4) which is arranged to adjust the cover (e.g. see Col 3 Ln 45 – “side fairing actuation mechanism”), comprising the steps of: determining a relative position and/or a relative orientation between the pulling vehicle and the pulled vehicle (e.g. see Col 3 Ln 28 – “relative position between the towing vehicle and the trailer”) and controlling the actuator depending on the relative position and/or the relative orientation (e.g. see Col 7 Ln 3-23, describes a procedure for adjusting the fairings based on the relative position of the two vehicles).
Haines however is silent regarding:
Wherein in order to determine the relative position and/or the relative orientation, an angle of rotation at a coupling point between the pulling vehicle and the pulled vehicle is determined.
Kim is relied upon to teach, wherein in order to determine the relative position and/or the relative orientation, an angle of rotation at a coupling point between the pulling vehicle and the pulled vehicle is determined. In particular Kim teaches the use of a trailer steering angle sensor 128 that is configured to detect the steering angle of the trailer 20 when the guide king pin 210 rotates (0052-0054), this may be used to prevent jackknifing (0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Haines to utilize the monitoring of the angle of rotation at the coupling point in order to prevent a jackknifing incidient (0065-0058).
Regarding claim 2, Haines discloses wherein in order to determine the relative position and/or the relative orientation (e.g. see Col 3 Ln 28 – “relative position between the towing vehicle and the trailer”), at least one of the following primary parameters is determined:
- at least one distance between the puling vehicle and the pulled vehicle
- an absolute position of the pulling vehicle and the
- an absolute position of the pulled vehicle
- an absolute orientation of the pulling vehicle, and
- an absolute orientation of the pulled vehicle
(e.g. see Fig 6, angle “A” [Col 7 Ln 3-23] of Haines). Further Kim can tell the absolute oorientation of the pulling and pulled vehicles relative to one another in order to prevent jackknifing as discussed above0054-0058).
Regarding claim 3, Haines discloses wherein the actuator is controlled (e.g. see Col 7 Ln 8-10 - “in this case the right fairing 18B, will open”) depending on a parameter of an outer contour of the pulling vehicle and or parameter of an outer contour of the pulled vehciledepending on at least one of the following secondary parameters:
- a parameter of the outer contour of the pulling vehicle
- a parameter of the outer contour of the pulled vehicle
- the current speed of the combination
- the time elapsed since a speed limit value was exceeded
- the position of the combination
- the temperature of the environment
- the air pressure of the environment
- the dynamic pressure at the front side of the pulling vehicle
- the air pressure on at least one flank of the pulled vehicle or the pulling vehicle
- the air pressure in the roof area of the pulled vehicle or of the pulling vehicle
- the air pressure in the gap (S) between the pulling vehicle and the pulled vehicle
- traffic signs determined
- the braking condition and
- the steering condition
(e.g. see Col 7 Ln 25-39, describes ways the shape, size, and accessories impacts the actuation of the fairings), (e.g. see Col 7 Ln 25-39, describes ways the shape, size, and accessories impacts the actuation of the fairings), (e.g. see Col 6 Ln 33-56 – “at highway speeds”), (e.g. see Col 6 Ln 33-56 – “at highway speeds”), (e.g. see Col 7 Ln 3-23, describes a procedure for adjusting the fairings based on the relative position of the two vehicles), (e.g. see Col 7 Ln 3-23 – “turn”)
Regarding claim 4, Haines discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the parameter of the outer contour of the pulling vehicle and/or the pulled vehicle (e.g. see Col 7 Ln 25-39, describes ways the shape, size, and items impact the actuation of the fairings, these aspects make up the parameter) is at least one of the following:
- width of the vehicle
- height of the vehicle
- shape of the vehicle
- presence of an accessory device
- shape of the accessory device
- size of the accessory device; and
- the position of a coupling point (K1, K2) on the vehicle
(e.g. see Col 7 Ln 34-39 – “items … which could interfere with the outboard fairing if it were closed during the turn”), (e.g. see Col 7 Ln 34-39 – “refrigeration units”, the type of accessory tells the shape of the accessory).
Regarding claim 5, Haines discloses wherein the relative position and/or the relative orientation is continuously determined (e.g. see Fig 10, loop shows the angle is continuously calculated) and the actuator is continuously controlled depending on the relative position and/or the relative orientation (e.g. see Fig 10, loop shows the side covers are continuously controlled by opening and closing to different positions).
Regarding claim 6, Haines discloses wherein a plurality of covers (e.g. see Fig 2) each having at least one actuator are provided (e.g. see Fig 2), wherein the actuators are controlled independently and/or differently (e.g. Fig 10, 118 and 122 show the actuators being controlled independently and 122 shows the actuators being controlled differently).
Regarding claim 7, Haines discloses wherein the actuator is controlled in such a way that the cover abuts the pulled vehicle (e.g. see Col 7 Ln 40-53 – “contact with the side of the trailer”) with a fixed contact force (e.g. see Col 7 Ln 40-53 – “retention force”, “substantial binding or impingement”, this is tantamount to the fairing being controlled in such a way that the force at that degree of turn is a fixed amount that doesn’t cause binding or impingement).
Regarding claim 8, Haines discloses wherein the contact force is determined depending on at least one of the secondary parameters (e.g. see Col 7 Ln 40-53, the contact force is based on the position of the coupling point on the vehicle which is from the angle of the vehicle and the trailer, this is tantamount to the outer contour secondary parameter).
Regarding claim 9, Haines discloses a system for controlling a cover (e.g. see Col 2 Ln 43-60 – “air deflection system”, “fairings”) that at least partially covers a gap (S) formed between a pulling vehicle and a pulled vehicle of a truck-trailer combination (e.g. see Fig 5, fairings close the gap between the pulling vehicle and the pulled vehicle), comprising:
at least one actuator arranged to adjust the cover (e.g. see Fig 2, actuators shown connected to fairings for controlling them),
and a control unit connected to the actuator (e.g. see Fig 12 – “controller”), arranged to determine a relative position and/or a relative orientation between the pulling vehicle and the pulled vehicle (e.g. see Col 3 Ln 28 – “relative position between the towing vehicle and the trailer”)
and to control the actuator depending on the relative position and/or the relative orientation (e.g. see Col 7 Ln 3-23, describes a procedure for adjusting the fairings based on the relative position of the two vehicles).
Haines failes to disclose wherein the system further compruises and angular measurement device that senses and orientation of the pulling vehicle and pulled vehicle or a relative orientation of the pulling vehicle and pulled vehicle.
Kim is relied upon to teach, wherein in order to determine the relative position and/or the relative orientation, an angle of rotation at a coupling point between the pulling vehicle and the pulled vehicle is determined. In particular Kim teaches the use of a trailer steering angle sensor 128 that is configured to detect the steering angle of the trailer 20 when the guide king pin 210 rotates (0052-0054), this may be used to prevent jackknifing (0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Haines to utilize the monitoring of the angle of rotation at the coupling point in order to prevent a jackknifing incidient (0065-0058).
Regarding claim 12, Haines discloses wherein the system comprises a database (e.g. see Col 10 Ln 5 – “storage memory”) in which at least one characteristic curve (e.g. see Col 10 Ln 4-10 – “sensor changes”, these sensor changes include the position of the coupling point which is one of characteristic curves or contours) and/or at least one of the following parameters is stored for different vehicle types:
- a parameter of the outer contour of the pulling vehicle (e.g. see Col 10 Ln 4-10, the position of the coupling point is stored which is a parameter of the outer contour of the pulling vehicle)
- a parameter of the external contour of the pulled vehicle
Regarding claim 13, Haines discloses a truck-trailer combination comprising a pulling vehicle and a pulled vehicle (e.g. see Fig 5), wherein the pulling vehicle and the pulled vehicle form a gap (S) in between (e.g. see Fig 5), and wherein at least one cover is provided which at least partially covers the gap (S) (e.g. see Fig 5), and is controlled by the system according to claim 9 (e.g. see Col 2 Ln 43-60 – “air deflection system”, see claim 9 above).
Regarding claim 15, Haines discloses wherein the control unit (e.g. see Fig 12 – “controller”) is connected to a steering system of the pulling vehicle (e.g. see Col 8 Ln 41-66 – “connected to the fifth wheel”, the wheels are part of the steering system of the vehicle, the fifth wheel in particular contributes to the steering and maneuverability of the truck) and is arranged to determine the steering state (e.g. see Fig 10, the angle of the turn is tantamount to the steering state of the vehicle and is determined as shown in the flow chart).
Regarding claim 18, Haines discloses wherein the pulling vehicle is a tractor (e.g. see Fig 1) and the pulled vehicle is a semitrailer (e.g. see Fig 1), or in that the pulling vehicle is a truck (e.g. see Col 2 Ln 45-46 – “tractor-trailer combination”, a tractor trailer is a type of truck) and the pulled vehicle is a trailer (e.g. see Col 2 Ln 45-46 – “tractor-trailer combination”).
Claims 11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haines (US 4904015 A) in view of US 2021/0179208 A1 to Kim in further view of Tenstam (US 20130173121 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Haines in view of Kim, differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein the system comprises sensor device arranged to sense temperature and/or atmospheric pressure of the environment.
However, Tenstam teaches wherein the system comprises sensor device (e.g. see Paragraph 0018 – “detecting unit”, “air flow meter”) arranged to sense temperature and/or atmospheric pressure of the environment (e.g. see Paragraph 0018 – “variations in air resistance”, “detecting wind gusts”, “ambient biasing conditions”, given that an airflow meter is capable of detecting both atmospheric pressure and temperature, these ambient biasing conditions, air resistance variations, and wind gusts are taken to be tantamount to atmospheric pressure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the combination of Haines and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Tenstam which teaches wherein the system comprises sensor device arranged to sense temperature and/or atmospheric pressure of the environment since they are both directed to adjustment of gap covers on trucks and incorporation of the teachings of Tenstam would provide an arrangement and method for optimizing the position of an air deflector with minimal driver distraction (Tenstam, e.g. Paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 14, Haines and Kim differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein the control unit is connected to a braking system of the pulling vehicle and is arranged to determine the braking state.
However, Tenstam teaches wherein the control unit is connected to a braking system of the pulling vehicle (e.g. see Paragraph 0069 – “the vehicle driving control system monitors the velocity and the braking behavior of the vehicle”) and is arranged to determine the braking state (e.g. see Paragraph 0069 – “braking behavior”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the combination of Haines and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Tenstam which teaches wherein the control unit is connected to a braking system of the pulling vehicle and is arranged to determine the braking state since they are both directed to adjustment of gap covers on trucks and incorporation of the teachings of Tenstam would provide an arrangement and method for optimizing the position of an air deflector with minimal driver distraction (Tenstam, e.g. Paragraph 0013).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Haines and Kim differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein the control unit is connected to a navigation system of the pulling vehicle.
However, Tenstam teaches wherein the control unit is connected to a navigation system of the pulling vehicle (e.g. see Paragraph 0042 – “a detecting device such as … a navigation system”, the detecting device is part of the control of the system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the combination of Haines and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Tenstam which teaches wherein the control unit is connected to a navigation system of the pulling vehicle since they are both directed to adjustment of gap covers on trucks and incorporation of the teachings of Tenstam would provide an arrangement and method for optimizing the position of an air deflector with minimal driver distraction (Tenstam, e.g. Paragraph 0013).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haines (US 4904015 A) in view of US 2021/0179208 A1 to Kim in further view of Lacaze (US 20200320875 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Haines and Kim differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein the control unit is connected to an optical recognition device of the pulling vehicle, which is arranged to detect traffic signs.
However, Lacaze teaches wherein the control unit is connected to an optical recognition device of the pulling vehicle (e.g. see Paragraph 0004 – “camera”), which is arranged to detect traffic signs (e.g. see Paragraph 0012 – “detects and generates road information on a wide variety of road conditions such as stop signs, turn signals, turn signs, intersections, traffic circles,” Fig 1 shows a list of traffic signs the system can detect).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the combination of Haines and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Lacaze which teaches wherein the control unit is connected to an optical recognition device of the pulling vehicle, which is arranged to detect traffic signs since they are both directed to the detection of environmental factors on trucks and incorporation of the teachings of Lacaze would help to detect the road conditions and the appropriate speeds for each of these conditions (Lacaze, e.g. Paragraph 0066).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER B LONSBERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-7298. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, TC Director James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
HUNTER B. LONSBERRY
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights