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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, lines 1 – 2, “to the kingpin a configured” should be “to the kingpin and configured”.
Appropriate correction 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.
(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 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by international patent document number WO 2020/107125 A1 to Layfield et al. (hereinafter referred to as Layfield).
Regarding claim 19, Layfield discloses a road vehicle system (active converter dolly apparatus 14) comprising:
a chassis (frame 24) defining a longitudinal axis;
a first vehicle coupling (hitch 26) mounted at a forward end of the chassis relative to the longitudinal axis;
a second vehicle coupling (second trailer connector assembly 6) mounted to a superior surface of the chassis rearwardly of the forward end relative to the longitudinal axis (See Fig. 2a);
an electric powertrain (kinetic energy recovery device 30), comprising:
a battery (energy storing device 32) mounted to the forward end of the chassis (frame 24);
a steering actuator (controller 502);
a drive axle (two drive shafts 110 and 111); and
a traction motor (electric motor/generator 36) coupled to the drive axle; and
a vehicle sensor suite (force sensors 80) comprising a first sensor coupled to the first vehicle coupling (hitch 26) and configured to measure a longitudinal force between the first vehicle coupling and the chassis (Paragraph [0105] and Fig. 14); and
[Claim 20] wherein the drive axle (two drive shafts 110 and 111) is a split-drive axle (differential 116 indicates a split drive axle, Fig. 16; Paragraph [00103]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 13, and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layfield, in view of patent application publication number US 4,070,033 to Weir et al. (hereinafter referred to as Weir).
Regarding claim 1, Layfield discloses an electric vehicle (EV) system (active convertor dolly apparatus 14) configured to connect between a semi-tractor (towing vehicle 13) and a trailer (second trailer 12b), the EV system comprising:
a chassis (frame 24);
a first vehicle coupling (hitch 26) configured to couple the chassis to a fifth wheel of the semi-tractor;
a secondary fifth wheel (second trailer connector assembly 6) mounted to the chassis and configured to couple the trailer (second trailer 12b) to the chassis;
an electric drivetrain (kinetic energy recovery device 30) comprising:
a traction motor (electric motor/generator 36) and a drive axle (two drive shafts 110 and 111);
a battery system (battery array 632) comprising a set of battery cells and a charge port (inherent in charging a battery; Paragraph [00183]); and
a set of landing gear (crank 650 and detachable trailer jack 627) mounted to the chassis (frame 24) forward of the drive axle (two drive shafts 110 and 111).
However, Lay field does not disclose a kingpin configured to couple the chassis to a fifth wheel of the semi-tractor. Weir discloses a transport system of highway vehicles comprising a king pin (31) coupling a chassis (frame 25) to a fifth wheel of a semi-tractor (highway tractor 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Layfield’s device to have a kingpin, as taught by Weir, to enable larger capacity towing.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Layfield, modified by Weir, discloses the EV system of claim 1, but does not disclose:
[Claim 4] wherein a distance between the kingpin and the secondary fifth wheel is adjustable; and
[Claim 5] wherein a mounting position of the secondary fifth wheel is adjustable relative to the chassis.
However, Weir further discloses:
[Claim 4] a distance between the kingpin and the secondary fifth wheel is adjustable (fifth wheel plate 47 is slidable; Col. 2, Lns. 63 thru Col. 3, Ln. 1); and
[Claim 5] wherein a mounting position of the secondary fifth wheel is adjustable relative to the chassis (fifth wheel plate 47 is slidable; Col. 2, Lns. 63 thru Col. 3, Ln. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Layfield such that the fifth wheel hitch is adjustable, to accommodate variances in trailer geometry.
Regarding claim 9, Layfield, modified by Weir, discloses an EV system of claim 1, further comprising an electronic braking system (EBS) (regenerative braking ; Paragraph [0099]) coupled to the drive axle (two drive shafts 110 and 111).
Regarding claim 13, Layfield, modified by Weir, discloses the EV system of claim 1. Layfield further discloses a load cell (force sensors 80) connected to a pintle hook and configured to measure a longitudinal force at the pintle hook (Fig. 14 and Paragraph [00105]). Layfield does not disclose a kingpin and the force sensor connected to the kingpin to measure longitudinal forces at a kingpin.
However, Weir does disclose the kingpin (31) as previously mentioned.
Therefore, it would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to add the force sensor of Layfield to the kingpin from Weir, on the now modified hitch, to provide Layfield’s system with a kingpin hitch that can sense longitudinal loads on the trailer and provide that data to improve tractor-trailer driving.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Layfield, modified by Weir, discloses the EV system of claim 1. Layfield does not teach;
[Claim 15] wherein the chassis comprises a pair of monocline-shaped frame rails; and
[Claim 16] wherein the chassis comprises a unibody.
However, Weir further discloses:
[Claim 15] a chassis (frame 25) comprises a pair of monocline-shaped frame rails (longitudinally extending frame members 28, Figs. 2 and 3); and
[Claim 16] the chassis (frame 25) comprises a unibody (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify Layfield to have a monocline-shaped and unibody frame, as taught by Weir, to increase the strength of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 17, Layfield discloses an electric vehicle (EV) system (active convertor dolly apparatus 14) configured to connect between a semi-tractor (towing vehicle 13) and a trailer (second trailer 12b), the EV system comprising:
a chassis (frame 24);
a first vehicle coupling (hitch 26) configured to couple the chassis to a fifth wheel of the semi-tractor;
a secondary fifth wheel (second trailer connector assembly 6) mounted to the chassis and configured to couple the trailer (second trailer 12b) to the chassis; and
an electric drivetrain (kinetic energy recovery device 30) comprising:
a traction motor (electric motor/generator 36) and a drive axle (two drive shafts 110 and 111).
However, Layfield does not disclose a kingpin configured to couple the chassis to a fifth wheel of the semi-tractor. Weir discloses a transport system of highway vehicles comprising a king pin (31) coupling a chassis (frame 25) to a fifth wheel of a semi-tractor (highway tractor 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Layfield’s device to have a kingpin, as taught by Weir, to enable larger capacity towing.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layfield and Weir, in view of patent application publication number US 2011/0074132 A1 to Banwart.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Layfield discloses the EV system of claim 1, but does not teach:
[Claim 2] wherein the set of landing gear comprises a set of front wheels; and
[Claim 3] wherein the front wheels are steerable.
Banwart discloses a powered converter dolly and securing device wherein:
[Claim 2] a set of landing gear (steerable landing gear assembly 82) comprises a set of front wheels (landing gear wheels 98); and
[Claim 3] the front wheels are steerable (steering control module; Paragraph [0010]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Layfield’s system to include landing gear as taught by Banwart, above, to aid in steering the tractor-trailer in addition to driving it.
Claims 6, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Layfield and Weir, and further in view of patent application publication number US 2018/0346042 A1 to Elliott et al. (hereinafter referred to as Elliott).
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 14, Layfield, modified by Weir, discloses the EV system of claim 1, but they do not disclose:
[Claim 6] wherein the electric drivetrain comprises a trailing arm suspension;
[Claim 7] wherein the drive axle comprises a steering drive axle coupled to the trailing arm suspension; and
[Claim 14] wherein the drive axle comprises a split-drive axle mounted to the chassis by a trailing arm suspension.
However, Elliott discloses a vehicle hitch mounting trailer (double-decker trailer 10) comprising wheel axles (axle 70) mounted to the trailer by trailing-arm suspension (Paragraph [0031]; Figs. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Layfield’s trailer to have attached thereto a trailing arm suspension, as taught by Elliott, to avoid damaging the trailer frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10 – 12, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, Layfield, modified by Weir, discloses the EV system of claim 1, but they do not teach wherein the set of battery cells is arranged above the kingpin. Claim 18 includes similar limitations, and therefore, is allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, Layfield, modified by Weir, discloses the EV system of claim 1, but they do not teach the kingpin is integrated with a multi-axis force sensing assembly. Other prior art does not teach this in singly or in combination. Claims 11 and 12 depend from claim 10, and therefore, are also allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Felicia L Brittman-Alabi whose telephone number is (313)446-6512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/Felicia L. Brittman-Alabi/ Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611