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 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.
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 1-25 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.
In claim 1, line 3, “a pivotal connection” should be -the pivotable connection- because that feature was recited earlier in the claim.
Claim 2 is not presented as a method step or a modification of a method step so it is not clear how it limits the claimed method.
In claim 6, lines 2-3, “the towing vehicle clutch/transmission unit” and “the trailing vehicle clutch/transmission unit” lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim. Also, the use of and/or is unclear. In particular an interpretation of the claim using “and” would not be functional. That is, if both the towing and trailing vehicles were in the lowest gear they could not simultaneously be in an intermediate gear. The claim is also not clear that one of the vehicles is in the lowest gear and the other vehicle is in an intermediate gear.
In claim 19, line 7-8, “in particular” is a conditional term that renders the associated limitations indefinite.
In claim 23, applicant claims a “state determination assembly for configuring a pivotable connection between a towing vehicle and a trailer by way of a trailer coupling according to the method according to claim 1” is unclear. It is not clear if the state determination assembly is created according to the method or is programmed to carry out the method, or is the structure that could be used to carry out the method. It just isn’t clear what applicant means by that language. It is also unclear because the claim goes on to recite a “state determination unit configurated to” carry out steps that repeat the method steps of claim 1. It is not clear why the claim depends from claim 1 then repeats the subject matter of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15-16, and 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vikstrom (PGPub 2022/0324525).
Regarding claim 1, Vikstrom teaches a method for configuring a pivotable connection between a towing vehicle 10 and a trailer 120 by way of a trailer coupling (fifth wheel connection or hitch oiunt connection; para [0022]), wherein configured in a locked state of the trailer coupling is a pivotable connection between a towing vehicle-proximal coupling element on the towing vehicle and a trailer-proximal coupling element on the trailer, the method comprising: establishing a coupling state of the trailer coupling by at least one item of status information once the towing vehicle has approached the trailer (monitoring suspension level to indicate coupling is made; para [0012]) ; and causing a corrective movement such that the trailer and the towing vehicle move relative to one another, wherein the corrective movement is caused when it cannot, or cannot plausibly, be established by the at least one item of status information whether the locked stat
Regarding claim 2, wherein it cannot, or cannot plausibly, be established by the at least one item of status information whether the locked state of the trailer coupling is present when adjustment of the locked state of the trailer coupling is prevented (monitoring the suspension level does not directly test the locked state of the coupling so it does not plausibly establish the locking state).
Regarding claim 3, Vikstrom teaches that the corrective movement is automatically caused in that the towing vehicle and/or the trailer are/is at least momentarily set in motion (an automated pull test is applied, para [0046], and the pull test involves applying propulsion to the tractor, para [0049]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the corrective movement is caused in that a towing vehicle functional unit
Regarding cliam 5, Vikstrom teaches the corrective movement is caused in that the towing vehicle drive system and/or the trailer drive system are/is actuated by a jolting movement control signal (a signal to briefly initiate tractor propulsion while the railer brakes are applied) such that the towing vehicle and/or the trailer are driven in a jolting manner so as to cause a jolting movement of the towing vehicle and/or of the trailer (the pull test causes a jolting motion).
Regarding claim 7, Vikstrom teaches that in the presence of the jolting movement control signal (initiation of the pull test, para [0045]), the towing vehicle brake system and/or the trailer brake system are/is also actuated in order to decelerate the towing vehicle and/or the trailer such that the jolting drive of the towing vehicle and/or of the trailer is delimited (the trailer brake is actuated to create a detectable jolt/pull between the towing vehicle and trailing vehicle).
Regarding claim 8, Vikstrom teaches the corrective movement is caused in that the towing vehicle brake system and/or the trailer brake system are/is actuated by a release control signal such that the towing vehicle brakes and/or trailer brakes are released so as to move the towing vehicle and/or the trailer as a function of being inclined or braced (a coupling verification message the completes the test and allows the trailer brakes to release).
Regarding claim 10, individual trailer braking means and/or individual towing vehicle braking means are alternatingly released and applied again once or multiple times (trailer braking means are initiated once or multiple times).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the corrective movement is caused in that the towing vehicle level control system and/or the trailer level control system are/is actuated by a height control signal in such a manner that a height difference between the towing vehicle-proximal coupling element and the trailer- proximal coupling element is altered (Vikstrom para [0013], the pull test cause upward and downward movement that is detected by a level sensor).
Regarding claim 13, the corrective movement is caused in that the towing vehicle drive system and/or the trailer drive system are/is actuated by a drive control signal in such a manner that the towing vehicle moves away from the trailer so as to newly align the two in relation to one another.
Regarding claim 15, upon causing the corrective movement it is newly established by the at least one item of status information whether the trailer coupling in the locked state.
Regarding claim 16, Vikstrom teaches the towing vehicle drive system and/or the trailer drive system are/is actuated such that the towing vehicle moves away from the trailer, or vice versa, so as to newly align them in relation to one another (the pull test activated towing vehicle propulsion will cause the towing vehicle to pull away from the trailer and align the vehicles).
Regarding claim 23, Vikstrom teaches a state determination assembly (control system 100) for configuring a pivotable connection between a towing vehicle and a trailer by way of a trailer coupling
Regarding claim 24, Vikstrom teaches a commercial vehicle (tractor/trailer 100/120), comprising: a towing vehicle (tractor 100) and a trailer 120, wherein a pivotable connection between a towing vehicle-proximal coupling element on the towing vehicle and a trailer-proximal coupling element on the trailer can be configured by way of a trailer coupling when a locking mechanism of the trailer coupling is moved to a closed position; and the state determination assembly according to claim 23 for configuring the pivotable connection between the towing vehicle and the trailer by way of the trailer coupling.
Regarding claim 25, the trailer coupling embodied as a pin coupling in which an eyelet on a drawbar as the trailer-proximal coupling element, by way of a coupling pin as a locking mechanism is configured to be held in a clevis as the towing vehicle-proximal coupling element so as to configure the pivotable connection; or embodied as a fifth-wheel coupling in which a kingpin as the trailer proximal coupling element, by way of a coupling claw as a locking mechanism is configured to be held on a fifth-wheel plate as the towing vehicle-proximal coupling element so as to configure the pivotable connection (Vikstrom teaches the coupling can be a fifth wheel connection para [0022]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vikstrom.
Regarding claim 6, Vikstrom teaches initiating towing vehicle propulsion and towing braking but does not specify which gear level is used. It is well known to use gear resistance to the assist in braking a vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use gear resistance to brake or assist in braking the trailer during the pull test taught by Vikstrom in order to effectively create a detectable pull force between the vehicles.
Regarding claim 9, Vikstrom does not specify that the brakes of the towing vehicle are only the actuated by the release control signal so as to release the towing vehicle brakes, and the trailer brakes in the trailer brake system are applied or remain applied. However, it teaches creating a pull force by moving the towing vehicle while braking the trailing vehicle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controls to release towing vehicle brakes during the maneuver, in order to produce the pull required to create a detectable force between the towing vehicle and trailing vehicle.
Claim(s) 14, 17-19, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vikstrom in view of Niewiadomski (PGPub 2021/0061354).
Regarding claim 14, Vikstrom lacks a corrective movement involving steering.
Niewiadomski teaches a system that detects and corrects misalignment between tractor and trailer coupling elements. It uses multiple informational inputs (cameras 60 and proximity sensors 42) to determine whether the couplers are engaged and locked. It also teaches adjusting the position of the coupling elements by modifying steering angle (para [0040], last 3 lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to assist the alignment of the tractor/trailer coupling elements of Vikstrom by adjusting the steering of the towing vehicle using a steering control signal, in view of Niewadomski, in order to facilitate proper coupling without further intervention of the operator.
Regarding claim 17, Vikstrom teaches redundancy in determining whether the connection is properly aligned and locked, but it does not specify that the coupling state of the trailer coupling is established by at least two items of status information determined independently of one another, wherein it cannot, or cannot plausibly, be established whether the locked state of the trailer coupling is present when at least one of the items of status information determined independently of one another indicates that the locked state is not present. However, Niewiadomski teaches cameras and proximity sensors that operate independently of each other to determine if the coupling is properly locked. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use two independent sensors, in view of Niewiadomski, to establish if the coupling is in the locked state, thereby providing better assurance that the detected condition is correct.
Regarding claim 18, Vikstrom teaches the coupling state of the trailer coupling is established in at least the following steps: determining an item of coupling information, wherein the coupling information
Regarding claim 19, determination of the positioning information comprises: detecting at least one object in an environment by the wave-based sensor installation and emitting sensor signals, wherein the wave-based sensor installation is disposed on the towing vehicle or the trailer; and determining an item of location information of the detected object, in particular an actual position and/or an actual alignment of the detected object relative to the wave-based sensor installation or relative to the towing vehicle or the trailer on which the wave-based sensor installation is disposed wherein the at least one detected object is the towing vehicle and/or the trailer, or an object connected thereto in the environment which participates in configuring the pivotable connection (Niewiadomski teaches cameras and proximity sensors, which are wave-based, to detect objects, including the towing and trailing vehicles, in the environment of the coupling).
Regarding claim 21, Vikstrom teaches a speed sensor on the towing vehicle (para [0015]) and/or on the trailer (3); and/or an acceleration sensor on the towing vehicle and/or on the trailer, wherein the coupling information indicates that the trailer coupling could be in the locked state when the towing vehicle jolt and/or the trailer jolt advise that the trailer proximal coupling element has contacted the towing vehicle-proximal coupling element, that the towing vehicle jolt and/or the trailer vehicle jolt have/has reached or exceeded a jolt critical value (Vikstrom teaches using and speed sensor and measuring pull or jolt to determine proper coupling).
Regarding claim 22, the coupling result indicates that the pivotable connection between the towing vehicle and the trailer is configured when the coupling information (sensed information) and also the positioning information indicate that the trailer coupling could be in the locked state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deelizo teaches a control arrangement for ensuring proper alignment of a trailer coupling.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anne Marie M. Boehler whose telephone number is (571)272-6641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8-5pm.
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.
/ANNE MARIE M BOEHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/ab/
Prosecution Insights