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 .
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such limitations include:
“control unit …”, “angular measurement device …”, “sensor device …”, and “optical recognition device …” throughout the claims.
These claim limitations use the generic placeholder “device” and “system” and are further modified by functional language. These claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure to perform the functions of
“sense the orientation of the pulling vehicle and pulled vehicle or the relative orientation of the pulling vehicle and pulled vehicle”, “determine a relative position and/or a relative orientation between the pulling vehicle and the pulled vehicle”, “sense temperature and/or atmospheric pressure of the environment”, and “detect traffic signs” and so on.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In reviewing the specification, the disclosed structure corresponding to an “an angular measurement device” are measurement strips or a sensor (see Paragraph 0014). Therefore, the interpretation of an “angular measurement device” is a measurement strips or a sensor and the equivalents thereof.
In light of the specification and what would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, a control unit is interpreted to be a processor or computer or equivalents thereof. Therefore, the interpretation of a “control unit” is a general purpose processor or computer and the equivalents thereof.
In reviewing the specification, there is no disclosed structure corresponding to a “sensor device” or an “optical recognition device”. This will be addressed in the 112a and 112b rejection of claims 11 and 16.
If applicant does not intend to have 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 should be amended to recite “- the absolute position of the pulling vehicle ”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 should be amended to recite “- at least one distance between the pulling vehicle and the pulled vehicle” to be consistent in claim language.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 should be amended to recite “wherein the actuator is controlled further depending on ...”. Since the actuator is previously controlled depending on different limitations.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 should be amended to recite “the system comprises a sensor device”.
Claims 10, 11, 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10, 11, and 12 should be amended to recite “wherein the system further comprises”. Since the system previously comprises different limitations.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 18 should be amended to recite “wherein” to be consistent in claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification merely restates a “sensor device” and “optical recognition device", and some of the claimed functions of sensing “temperature ... pressure ...” and detecting “traffic signs”, respectively, without any direction between what specific modules are used for/as this device and how they are capable of its function (see [0047] of the amended specification, what’s the actual “structure” of the device?). If claimed function is meant to be computer-implemented, the specification must disclose both the computer and the algorithm for completing the claimed function.
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 2-4, 7-8, 10-12 and 14-15 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 2 recites the following limitations;
“- the angle of rotation at the coupling point
- the absolute position of the pulling vehicle and the
- the absolute position of the pulled vehicle
- the absolute orientation of the pulling vehicle, and
- the absolute orientation of the pulled vehicle”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the bolded limitations in the claims.
Claim 3 recites the following limitations;
“-… the outer contour of the pulling vehicle
-… 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…
- the air pressure on at least one flank…
- the air pressure in the roof area…
- the air pressure in the gap (S)…
- the braking condition, and
- the steering condition”.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the bolded limitations in the claims.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the position of a coupling point” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the bolded limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the orientation of the pulling vehicle and pulled vehicle” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the bolded limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the environment”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “the outer contour”, “the external contour”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the braking state”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the steering state”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected as they are dependent on rejected claims.
Claim limitations “sensor device” in claim 11 and “optical recognition device” in claim 16 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely restates a “sensor device” and “optical recognition device", and some of the claimed functions of sensing “temperature ... pressure ...” and detecting “traffic signs”, respectively, without any direction between what specific modules are used for/as this device and how they are capable of its function (see [0047] of the amended specification, what’s the actual “structure” of the device?). If claimed function is meant to be computer-implemented, the specification must disclose both the computer and the algorithm for completing the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 which claim 4 depends on does not require the limitations “parameter of the outer contour of the pulling vehicle [and] parameter of the outer contour of the pulled vehicle” due to the “at least one” language used; therefore, claim 4 reciting “wherein the parameter of the outer contour of the pulling vehicle and/or the pulled vehicle is at least one of the following: ...” is not further narrowing claim 3. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction of all the above under 35 USC 112 is required.
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 1-10, 12-13, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haines (US 4904015 A).
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).
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:
- the angle of rotation at the coupling point (K1, K2) between the pulling vehicle and the pulled vehicle
- at least one distance between the vehicles
- the absolute position of the pulling vehicle and the
- the absolute position of the pulled vehicle
- the absolute orientation of the pulling vehicle, and
- the absolute orientation of the pulled vehicle
(e.g. see Fig 6, angle “A” [Col 7 Ln 3-23])
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 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).
Regarding claim 10, Haines discloses wherein the system comprises an angular measurement device (e.g. see Col 8 Ln 12-13 – “sensing means”) that senses the orientation of the pulling vehicle and pulled vehicle or the relative orientation of the pulling vehicle and pulled vehicle (e.g. see Col 8 Ln 11-28 – “alignment between the tractor-trailer”).
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”).
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.
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.
Claims 11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haines (US 4904015 A) in view of Tenstam (US 20130173121 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Haines 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 Haines 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 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 Haines 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, Haines 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 Haines 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 Lacaze (US 20200320875 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Haines 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 Haines 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cab extender assembly method and apparatus, Farlow (US 20030227194 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHABEER SALAAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Faris S Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/K.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights