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 Applicant’s Rebuttal
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination. Since the applicant did not amend any of the prior claims (except to correct the 35 USC 112(b) rejection applied to claims 12 and 13), the Office Action remains unchanged with respect to rejections made under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103. The claims presented above remain rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 as indicated below and are represented without repeating how they were rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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 1-4, and 7-15 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Steele et al., WO 2020/051619. (The details/specifics of the rejection can be found in the Non Final Action dated 7/30/2025).
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al., WO 2020/051619. (The details/specifics of the rejection can be found in the Non Final Action dated 7/30/2025).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Claim 1 claims, in part: “lock the tractor vehicle parking brake in an engaged position if at least one of the elements is in a different position than the others or in the third position.”
The applicant’s rebuttal asserts: “Claim 1 differs from Steele in that, in claim 1, it is the tractor vehicle parking brake that is enabled to be released or locked in an engaged position. Indeed, Steele mentions that the brake release components 310, in the form of physical restraints, that may be located on the prime mover 110 and/or on the semi-trailer 12. In Steele, it is the brake release components 310 which are activated or deactivated if correct coupling or decoupling is achieved. However, Steele always mentions that the brake release components 310 are applied to the trailer parking brakes 340, and not to the prime mover parking brakes 305. The paragraph p.12 1.26-34 (sic) offers a general explanation on how parking brakes work, and does not describe the prime mover parking brakes 305 to be locked or unlocked by the brake release components 310.”
In short, the applicant’s rebuttal asserts Steele does not disclose recitations anticipating the part of claim 1 disclosed above. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 is essentially requiring the trailer parking brake be in an engaged position if at least one of the elements is in…the third position. As the Examiner explained the meaning of the claimed “third position” in the rejection of claim 1:
“(the claimed "third position" is interpreted to be the same as an "unsafe position." See applicant's specification at [0075] The elements 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 may also be in a third position, which is distinct from the first safe position and from the second safe position. The third position can be for example the kingpin 31 and the fifth wheel 32 are not coupled properly, or only partially coupled, the electrical line 33 is improperly connected to the semi-trailer 22, such as not fully plugged or plugged in a socket different from the dedicated electrical socket, the pneumatic hose 34 is not properly coupled such that, for example, a leak is present, or plugged in a pneumatic port different from the dedicated pneumatic port, or when the support legs 35 are in an intermediate configuration between their retracted and deployed configurations).”
Compare the applicant’s specification against these passages found in Steele:
Page 16, lines 13-19, Furthermore, according to some embodiments, PLC 270 may be configured to only activate brake release components 310 when correct coupling is detected, and/or when no alarms or alerts have been raised. This may reduce the risk of a driver of prime mover 110 operating prime mover 110 with an improperly connected trailer 120, or with another technical issue, since brake release components 310 are controlled by PLC 270 to restrict the supply of air to trailer brakes 340 until correct coupling has been detected by PLC 270. (emphasis added)
Page 7, lines 24-31 In-vehicle control unit 140 may be a telematics based control unit, and may be integrated into prime mover 110 using J1939 CAN, OBDII, or another diagnostic 25 communications standard. In-vehicle control unit 140 may be in communication with sensors 115 located on prime mover 110, and with controllable components 117 and brake release components 310 of prime mover 110, as shown in Figure 3. In some embodiments, in-vehicle control unit 140 communicates with sensors 115 and components 117 and 310 through a programmable logic controller (PLC) 270, as 30 described below with reference to Figure 3
Thus, it is clear the Steele embodiment prevents the release of air supply to trailer brakes 340 and brake release components 310 (which are brakes on prime mover 110) because of the improper coupling between the tractor and the trailer rig, which means because of the improper coupling, the trailer parking brake 340 AND brake release component 110 remains engaged. This goes against the applicant’s argument: “However, Steele always mentions that the brake release components 310 are applied to the trailer parking brakes 340, and not to the prime mover parking brakes 305.”
Because Steele’s embodiment reads upon the claim limitation in question as evidenced in Steele, the applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAL EUSTAQUIO whose telephone number is (571)270-7229. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Zimmerman, can be reached at (571) 272-3059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application lnformation Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAlR only. For more information about the PAlR system, see http:/lpair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAlR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-91 99 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CAL J EUSTAQUIO/Examiner, Art Unit 2686
/BRIAN A ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2686