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 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “wherein each of the two actuator arms mechanically coupling with…” is grammatically incorrect and should be “wherein each of the two actuator arms mechanically couple with…” or alternatively “wherein each of the two actuator arms are mechanically coupled with…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “the trailer angle decoder” should be “the trailer angle encoder” as introduced in claim 19. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 4, 10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations; appropriate correction is required:
Claims 4 and 10 recite the limitation " the jaws".
Claims 15 and 17 recite the limitation " the platform".
Claim 17 recites the limitation " the yoke".
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 1-2, 4, 9-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by PEITZ (US-20210347420-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, PEITZ teaches a trailer angle encoder (Sensor Device 10, Fig. 1) for determining an angle between a tractor and a trailer coupled thereto (Para. [0001]), comprising:
a mounting bracket (Bearing Base 52A, Fig. 4) for coupling with an underside of a fifth-wheel (Vehicle Coupling 60, Fig. 5; Bearing Base 52A being coupled with the underside of Vehicle Coupling 60 as understood by Fig. 4) of the tractor;
a bottom plate (Follower 20, Figs. 3-4 and 6), for mounting an optical encoder (Sensor 11, Fig. 6, taught as an optical sensor in Para. [0190]), that is movable relative to the mounting bracket (Para. [0173] teaches that the Follower 20 is movable by Holding Device 40, such that it is understood to move relative to Bearing Base 52A, Figs. 3 and 4); and
a deployment mechanism (Holding Device 40, Fig. 3) for moving the bottom plate (20) to engage a magnet (Magnet 23, Fig. 4), mounted to a rotatable shaft (Rotational Axis Body 31, Fig. 6) of the optical encoder (11), with a bottom surface (End Face 88, Fig. 6) of a kingpin (Pin 82, Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 2, PEITZ further teaches the deployment mechanism (40) comprising an actuator arm (Positioning Elements 51, Fig. 4) attached by a pivot (Axis Element 52B, Fig. 4) to the mounting bracket (52A), and a vertical rod (Rotational Axis Body 31 being a rod disposed vertically and mechanically coupling Follower 20 to Positioning Elements 51 via Carrier 35, Figs. 3-4 and 6) mechanically coupling between the bottom plate (20) and the actuator arm (51), wherein the actuator arm (51) is positioned for actuation by a locking mechanism (Locking Device 75, Fig. 6) of the fifth-wheel (Para. [0211] teaches that when Locking Body 76 of Locking Device 75 is detected to be in a closing position Control Device 56 moves Follower 20 into a following position- i.e. an actuated position).
Regarding Claim 4, PEITZ further teaches the deployment mechanism (40) moving the bottom plate (20) towards {jaws} (Locking Body 76, Fig. 6) when the actuator arm (51) is actuated by the locking mechanism (Follower 20 moving upwards towards Locking Body 76 as understood by Figs. 3-6).
Regarding Claim 9, PEITZ further teaches the deployment mechanism (40) further comprising a horizontal shaft (Drive Body 38, Fig. 4) that mechanically couples the actuator arm (51) with the vertical rod (Drive Body 38 mechanically coupling Positioning Elements 51 with Rotational Axis Body 31 via Carrier 35).
Regarding Claim 10, PEITZ further teaches that deployment mechanism (40) engages the magnet (23) with the bottom surface (88) of the kingpin (82) when the locking mechanism (75) locks {jaws} (76) closed (Para. [0211] teaches that Follower 20 of comprising Magnet 23 moves into a follower position only when Locking Body 76 is detected to be in a closed position).
Regarding Claim 11, PEITZ further teaches that the mounting bracket (52A) attaches to the fifth-wheel (60) to align the magnet (23) with a position of the kingpin (82) when the trailer is coupled with the tractor (Bearing Base 52A being understood to be connected to Vehicle Coupling 60 and Magnet 23 aligning with Pin 82 as illustrated in Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding Claim 12, PEITZ further teaches a cleaning block (Support Body 72, Figs. 5 and 6) positioned to interact with the bottom surface (88) of the kingpin (82) during hitching of the tractor to the trailer (Support Body 72 being disposed in close proximity with the path of Pin 82, it is understood to be able to interact with the End Face 88 of Pin 82, see also Para. [0156] which teaches Pin 82 being inserted past Support Body 72).
Regarding Claim 13, PEITZ further teaches that the interaction of the cleaning block (72) with the kingpin (82) wipes dirt from the bottom surface (88) of the kingpin (Support Body 72 being understood to be capable of wiping dirt from End Face 88 of Pin 82 as they make contact during a hitching operation).
Regarding Claim 14, PEITZ further teaches a two-axis positioning table (Carrier 35, Figs. 3-4) mounted to provide two-axis movement of the bottom plate (20) such that the magnet (23) moves with the kingpin (Para. [0184] teaches that Carrier 35 allows multiple rotational degrees of freedom).
Regarding Claim 16, PEITZ further teaches the two-axis positioning table (35) maintaining alignment of the magnet (23) with the kingpin (82) (as understood by Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 18, PEITZ further teaches that attachment of the trailer angle encoder to the fifth-wheel does not impede operation of the fifth-wheel (Paras. [0156]-[0161] teach coupling and towing operations performed by the connection between Pin 82 and Vehicle Coupling 60 such that it is understood that the attachment of Sensor Device 10 is understood to not impede operation of the connection).
Regarding Claim 19, PEITZ teaches a method for deploying a trailer angle encoder in a fifth-wheel (Para. [0197] teaches adjusting a Follower 20 of a Sensor Device 10 into a follower position- i.e. a deployed position), comprising:
transferring a force from a locking mechanism (Locking Device 75) of the fifth-wheel (Vehicle Coupling 60) to a deployment mechanism (Holding Device 40) of the trailer angle encoder (Sensor Device 10) (Para. [0159] teaches a motorized Locking Device 77 driving- i.e. moving with force- Locking Body 76 of Locking Device 75, and Drive Train 55 applies a force to Holding Device 40 based on a signal of Sensor 56 which detects the movement of Locking Body 76 of Locking Device 75, Para. [0211]);
using the force to move a bottom plate (Follower 20) of the trailer angle encoder (10) towards jaws (Locking Body 76) of the fifth-wheel (60) (Para. [0211] teaches moving Follower 20 into a following position, which is understood to be towards Locking Body 76, Fig. 6); and
magnetically coupling a magnet (Magnet 23) of the trailer angle encoder (10) with a bottom surface (End Face 88) of a kingpin (Pin 82) positioned in the fifth-wheel (60) (Magnet 23 being disposed on a top surface of Follower 20 that contacts Pin 82, it is understood to magnetically couple with it).
Regarding Claim 20, PEITZ further teaches that the trailer angle {encoder} (10) is deployed after the jaws (76) close around the kingpin (82) (Para. [0211] teaches that Follower 20 of Sensor Device 10 moves into a follower position only when Locking Body 76 is detected to be in a closed position).
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 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEITZ.
Regarding Claim 3, PEITZ does not teach, in the previously cited deployment mechanism (Holding Device 40 and embodiment illustrated in Figs. 1-6), a locking mechanism spring that deploys the trailer angle encoder.
PEITZ teaches another deployment mechanism (Actuator 150, Fig. 7) having a Locking Mechanism (Locking Device 156, Fig. 7) wherein a force supplied to the locking mechanism (156) by a spring (Spring 155A, Figs. 7 and 8) is used to deploy the trailer angle encoder (Figs. 7 and 8 illustrate Spring 155A applying a force to Locking Mechanism 156 through Body 30, and deploying the Follower 20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of PEITZ in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify PEITZ’s trailer angle encoder to include a locking mechanism spring that deploys the trailer angle encoder as suggested by the alternate Actuator embodiment of PEITZ. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of deploying the sensor mechanism through mechanical means that would beneficially make a simpler assembly.
Regarding Claim 7, PEITZ further teaches the actuator arm (51) being L-shaped (as illustrated in Fig. 4) with a lateral portion (the substantially horizontal portion, Fig. 4) and an extended portion (the portion extending at least partially vertically, Fig. 4)
PEITZ does not teach that the lateral and extended portions meet at the pivot.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the lateral and extended portions of PEITZ’s trailer angle encoder such that they meet at the pivot, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEITZ in view of Van de Wetering (US-20150084311-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, PEITZ further teaches the deployment mechanism (40) comprising two actuator arms (Positioning Elements 51, Fig. 4).
PEITZ does not teach two vertical rods.
Van de Wetering teaches a trailer angle encoder (Sensor Unit 11, Fig. 1) with at least two vertical rods (Guide Pins 21, Figs. 6 and 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of PEITZ and Van de Wetering in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify PEITZ’s trailer angle encoder to include two vertical rods as suggested by Van de Wetering. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a means of vertical guidance to the sensor that would beneficially make a more robust assembly.
Regarding Claim 15, PEITZ does not teach a pair of springs that return a platform to a center position.
Van de Wetering teaches at least two springs (Springs 23, Figs. 6 and 7) to cause a platform (Sensor Unit 11, Fig. 6) to return to a nominal laterally-center position (the position of Figs. 6 and 7) when it is not coupled with a kingpin (it is understood by Figs. 6 and 7 that Springs 23 maintain Sensor Unit 11 in a nominal and laterally-center position when not in contact with King Pin 5 as in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of PEITZ and Van de Wetering in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify PEITZ’s trailer angle encoder to include a pair of springs that return a platform to a center position as suggested by Van de Wetering. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a means of maintaining a stable sensor position when disengaged that would beneficially make a more robust assembly.
Claims 4, 10, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEITZ in view of Reimer (US-20150102583-A1).
Regarding Claim 17, PEITZ further teaches {a} platform (Follower 20) being able to drop, relative to the fifth-wheel (Follower 20 moving vertically with respect to Vehicle Coupling 60, Figs. 1-6), when {a jaw (Locking Body 76) of the fifth-wheel (60) unlocks} such that the kingpin (82) is prevented from contacting a side of the magnet (23) during hitching of the tractor to the trailer (Para. [0211] teaches that when Locking Body 76 is moved to a release position that Follower 20 is moved to a release position, which is understood to be away from Pin 82 such that Magnet 23 would not contact Pin 82 during a hitching operation).
PEITZ does not teach a yoke for unlocking jaws, however, yokes are old and well known in the art. Reimer teaches a fifth-wheel trailer coupler (Fifth Wheel 400, Figs. 4 and 5) having a yoke (U-Shaped Yoke 450, Figs. 4 and 5) which locks and unlocks jaws (Lock Jaws 455, being unlocked and locked by U-Shaped Yoke 450, Figs. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a yoke as is old and well known in the art and taught by Reimer, in order to providing a locking and unlocking operation for locking jaws.
Regarding Claims 4, 10, 17, and 19-20, additionally and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the Locking Body 76 of PEITZ could not be considered a jaw/ jaws as recited in each claim, it is noted that jaws are old and well known in the art. Reimer teaches jaws (Lock Jaws 455) which close around a kingpin (King Pin 220, Figs. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use jaws as is old and well known in the art and taught by Reimer, in order to provide a locking and unlocking operation for a fifth-wheel trailer hitch.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103 is not made because the claims are patentably distinguishable from the prior art of record. Every element of the claims is not taught by any of the references individually and the prior art of record fails to permissibly teach the overall combination as claimed. Even if one could construe the prior art of record such that the combination disclosed each and every limitation of the claims, the ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references in reference to themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The closest prior art of record, as highlighted above, PEITZ, Van de Wetering, and Reimer, generally disclose a trailer angle encoder and method for deploying a trailer angle encoder with similar features to the claimed invention.
However none of these specifically disclose an actuator arm, or an extended portion of an actuator arm, of a deployment mechanism that is mechanically connected to a yoke as required by claim 6 or a locking mechanism as required by claim 8.
Even if each and every element of the present invention were taught individually by the aforementioned references, combining the references as an ordered combination would not have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art because doing so would require improper hindsight reasoning in view of the present Specification, and furthermore there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the aforementioned references present in the aforementioned references themselves or in knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For at least these reasons, claims 6 and 8, as far as they include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are indicated as reciting allowable subject matter.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Ph.D. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights