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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by van Thiel (US 20240075918 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Thiel discloses a system for determining a pneumatic connection status of a trailer relative to a tractor (4), wherein said system comprises: a control unit (14) for controlling the operation of a service brake valve (26) and/or a parking brake valve (62); at least one acoustic sensor (208) for detecting sounds and transmitting corresponding acoustic data; a processing unit (200) that is in data communication with the acoustic sensor (208) for receiving said acoustic data, wherein said processing unit (200, 81) is configured for processing said acoustic data and for determining a pneumatic connection status of the trailer at least on the basis of said acoustic data, characterized in that said at least one acoustic sensor (208) is arranged: at a trailer service brake control line of the tractor (4), between the service brake valve (26) and a control line coupling head (80) (see Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Thiel discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit (200, 81) is integrated with the control unit (14) (see [0034]).
Regarding Claim 5, Thiel discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit (200, 81) is configured to provide an alert and/or to prevent take-off, when the determined pneumatic connection status is disconnected or leaking (see Fig. 1, [0017], [0022]).
Regarding Claim 8, Thiel discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein every component of the system is arranged on the tractor (4) (see Fig. 3).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Thiel (US 20240075918 A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Eberling (US 20170174197 A1) and further in view of Krabot (DE 102014010624 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Thiel discloses the system according to claim 1.
Thiel does not disclose the acoustic sensor arranged within a trailer supply line of the tractor between a parking brake valve and a supply line coupling head.
Eberling teaches a sensor (72) arranged within a trailer supply line of the tractor (12) between a parking brake valve (66) and a supply line coupling head (54) (see Fig. 1, [0013], [0015-0016]).
It would have been obvious to combine the sensor arrangement of Eberling with the system of Thiel in order to provide information to the control unit about the status of the parking brake system and trailer supply line connection.
Thiel modified by Eberling does not teach the sensor arranged within a trailer supply line of the tractor, between a parking brake valve and a supply line coupling head, being an acoustic sensor.
Krabot teaches an acoustic sensor within a pneumatic line and the substitution of pressure sensors and acoustic sensors in pneumatic lines in order to detect a leak within pneumatic lines (see Fig. 1, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to use the teaching of Krabot to substitute the pressure sensor arranged within a trailer supply line, between a parking brake valve and a supply line coupling head of Thiel modified by Eberling with an acoustic sensor in order to increase safety redundancies by utilizing multiple types of sensors (see US 20240075918 A1 [Thiel]; [0073], DE 102014010624 A1 [Krabot]; [0002]).
Claims 4, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Thiel (US 20240075918 A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Farres (US 20230024317 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Thiel discloses the system according to Claim 1, further comprising a pressure sensor (75) that is connected to a trailer service brake control line of the tractor (4) (see Fig. 1).
Thiel does not explicitly disclose the pressure sensor (75) being between the service brake valve (26) and the control line coupling head (80) or between the parking brake valve (62) and the supply line coupling head (80).
Farres teaches a pressure sensor (81) that is connected to the trailer service brake control line of the tractor, between the parking brake valve (3) and the supply line coupling head (41b) (see Fig. 2, [0004]).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of a pressure sensor between the supply line coupling head and parking brake valve of Farres with the system of Thiel in order to provide more information for determining the trailer connection status and improving safety (see US 20230024317 A1 [Farres]; [0014], [0025]).
Regarding Claim 9, Thiel discloses a method for determining a pneumatic connection status of a trailer relative to a tractor (4), wherein said method comprises: comprises: receiving a trigger signal (see [0065]), releasing compressed air via a pneumatic line so as to produce a sound (see “first predetermined activity” ; [0060], [0065]), detecting the sound produced by the release of compressed air and converting the sound to data signals (see “first diagnostic system reaction”; [0013], [0065], “noise sensor”; [0074), transmitting the data signals to a processing unit (see [0065-0066]), processing the data signals so as to produce derived data (see [0066-0069]), determining the pneumatic connection status of the trailer at least on the basis of the derived data (see “decision is then made”; [0069-0070], Fig. 1);
Although Thiel appears to anticipate Claim 9, it does not explicitly detail the trailer connection being part of the system diagnostic analysis.
Farres teaches a method of determining the pneumatic connection status of the tractor and trailer utilizing pressure sensors in the pneumatic lines (see [0008], [0025]).
It would have been obvious to combine the method of determining the pneumatic connection status of the tractor and trailer of Farres with the method of system diagnostics of Thiel in order to include the safety and functionality of the trailer in the scope of the analysis, preventing human injury and vehicle system damage (see US 20230024317 A1 [Farres]; [0014]).
Regarding Claim 10, Farres teaches detecting pressure in the pneumatic line and wherein determining the pneumatic connection status is also based on the determined pressure (see [0025]).
Regarding Claim 13, Farres teaches wherein the determination of the pneumatic connection status comprises determining whether a pneumatic line of the trailer is connected to a corresponding pneumatic line of the tractor or not (see [0006], 0025]).
Regarding Claim 15, Farres teaches wherein the trigger signal is automatically generated when initiation of a take-off maneuver by a driver is detected (see [0137], Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 16, Farres teaches wherein the trigger signal is manually generated by a driver (see [0020], [0071]).
Regarding Claim 17, Thiel modifed by Farres teaches wherein a further action is taken on the basis of the determined pneumatic connection status, wherein said further action is provision of an audible or visual alert to the driver or to a remote location, wherein said alert corresponds to the pneumatic connection status (see US 20240075918 A1 [Thiel]; [0030]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Thiel (US 20240075918 A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Flohr et. al. (US 20050212665 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Thiel discloses the system according to claim 5.
Thiel does not explicitly disclose the system further comprising a sensor for determining a mechanical connection status of the trailer.
Flohr teaches a brake system comprising a further sensor for determining a mechanical connection status of the trailer (14), wherein the mechanical connection status is either connected or disconnected, and wherein said further sensor is selected from a group comprising: a load sensor, an electro-mechanical switch and a proximity sensor (see Fig. 1, [0015-0018]).
It would have been obvious to combine the mechanical connection sensor of Flohr with the system of Thiel in order to in order to increase safety redundancies by utilizing multiple types of sensors, and reduce plug-in and vehicle component damage (see US 20240075918 A1 [Thiel]; [0073], see US 20050212665 A1 [Flohr]; [0035]).
Regarding Claim 7, Flohr teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to provide an alert and/or to prevent take-off, when the determined pneumatic connection status is not the same as the mechanical connection status (see [0035]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Thiel (US 20240075918 A1) as modified by Farres (US 20230024317 A1), in Claim 9, above, further in view of Flohr et. al. (US 20050212665 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Thiel modified by Farres teaches the method according to Claim 9.
While Thiel modified by Farres contemplates the detection of a mechanical connection (see US 20230024317 A1 [Farres]; [0006]), it does not teach whether the determined pneumatic connection status corresponds to the detection of the mechanical connection.
Flohr teaches detecting a mechanical connection and/or detecting proximity of the trailer to the tractor (see [0015-0018], [0035]), wherein it is further determined, whether the determined pneumatic connection status corresponds to the detection of the mechanical connection and/or to the detected proximity or not (see [0035]).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of detecting a mechanical connection and/or proximity of the trailer and determining if it corresponds to the pneumatic connection status in order to protect the plug-ins and vehicle system from damage (see US 20050212665 A1 [Flohr]; [0035]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Thiel (US 20240075918 A1) as modified by Farres (US 20230024317 A1) in Claim 9 above, further in view of Bseisu et. al. (US 5038614 A).
Thiel modified by Farres teaches the method according to Claim 9.
Thiel modified by Farres does not teach wherein processing of the data signal includes spectral analysis.
Bseisu teaches utilizing spectral analysis to process data signals, including the identification of characteristic features such as amplitude of a highest amplitude spectral component within a predetermined frequency range (see Fig. 2, 4:50-62).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of spectral analysis data process of Bseisu with the method of Thiel modified by Farres in order to identify and find leaks in the pneumatic system (see US 5038614 A [Bseisu]; 4:50-62).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Thiel (US 20240075918 A1) as modified by Farres (US 20230024317 A1) in Claim 9 above, further in view of Krabot (DE 102014010624 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Thiel modified by Farres teach the method according to Claim 9.
While Thiel modified by Farres teaches determining if there is a leak in the pneumatic line, it does not explicitly detail the leak detection being a part of the pneumatic connection status analysis (see US 20240075918 A1 [Thiel]; [0027]).
Krabot teaches the use of an acoustic or pressure sensor within a pneumatic line to detect a leak (see Fig. 1, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to combine the detection of a leak in the pneumatic line of Krabot with the pneumatic connection status analysis of Thiel modified by Farres in order to identify potential failure points for repair or continued monitoring, improving safety (see DE 102014010624 A1 [Krabot]; [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shea Irvin whose telephone number is (571)272-9952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 - 17:00.
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.
/S.W.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/Robert A. Siconolfi/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616