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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/721,047 , with an effective filing date of 6/17/2024. Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Priority
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application which was filed 6/17/2024, claiming priority to BR 1020210256788 and PCT/BR2022/050510, filed 12/17/2021 and 12/19/2022, respectively. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The application contains claims 1-17.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the
disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
Applicant is also reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
1.) The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Contains phrases which can be implied in lines 1, 3, 7, and 13 (i.e., “The present invention describes”, “the present invention comprises”, “the present invention allows”, “The present invention is located”, respectively);
the abstract contains 189 words, and over 200 words when including the title; and
the use of legal phraseology in line 5 “autonomous tractor vehicle by means of static data”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
2.) The disclosure is also objected to because of the following informalities.
In [0062] the control configuration is defined as a pre-setup list of parameters, but in [0001] and [0099] the implement “performs control configurations…”. Furthermore, in [0018-19] (as an example) “executes at least one control configuration”. It is unclear to the Examiner how a system would actually “perform” or “execute” a list of parameters, or is this intended to be mean setting up.
Furthermore, the use of the term ARTag ([0011] line 5), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 7, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 (line 3) and 13 (line 4), contains a typo where the identification of the drived vehicle should be an
claim 1 (line 1) and claim 7 (line 1), contains a typo where the limitation for autonomous cargo transport vehicle should be corrected to for an autonomous cargo transport vehicle;
claim1 (line 6), claim 2 (line 3), claim 7 (lines 7-8), claim 12 (lines 4-5), claim 13 (line 10), claim 15 (line 3), claim 16 (line 2) describe performing or executing a control configuration, but in light of the specification a control configuration is defined as a list of parameters and it is unclear to the Examiner how one would perform or execute a list of parameters;
claim 2 (line 7), contains a typo where vicinity point of the drive vehicle should be vicinity point of the drived vehicle;
claim 15 (lines 2-3), to be in proper form the limitation the method comprises a step of execution… should be corrected to step of executing…;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
road implement in claims 9-12 (e.g., claim 9 line 1) as described in the Applicant’s specification in [0056] the "drived vehicle” is a road implement or implement, being a trailer or a semi-trailer.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 14-16 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.
Claim 14, line 2, the limitation “the static data is previously defined” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear at which time the static data is defined prior to.
Claim 15 recites the limitation considers the execution of the control algorithm in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because in independent claim 13 (line10) the limitation performing at least one control configuration is recited, and it is unclear whether this “execution” is the same step as the “performing” or whether it is a new step.
Claim 16 is also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, and for the same reasons as claim 15 above because the claim also recites control configuration execution in line 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1and 13 are directed to a method and a system of controlling a cargo vehicle (i.e., a process, machine). Therefore, claims 1 and 13 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection, including that of independent claim 13.
Claim 1 recites:
A smart system for autonomous cargo transport vehicle, the autonomous vehicle comprises a drived vehicle and an autonomous tractor vehicle, wherein the smart system provides at least the identification of the drived vehicle for the tractor vehicle [mental process/step], wherein the smart system comprises:
a. a target comprising at least one static data of the drived vehicle
b. a processor that executes at least one control configuration of the tractor vehicle based on the static data from the target.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “identification…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement or identification. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A smart system for autonomous cargo transport vehicle, the autonomous vehicle comprises a drived vehicle and an autonomous tractor vehicle, wherein the smart system provides at least the identification of the drived vehicle for the tractor vehicle, wherein the smart system comprises:
a. a target comprising at least one static data of the drived vehicle [insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors or stored data]; and
b. a processor that executes at least one control configuration of the tractor vehicle based on the static data from the target [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module].
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a target comprising at least one static data…,” the Examiner submits that this limitation is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor and memory) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving static data step from the sensors and/or from the memory are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering tractor and drived vehicle data for use in the identification step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “processor that executes at least one control configuration…,” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of performing calculations and outputting a signal based on parameters) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This is substantiated in [0061] of Applicant’s specification where it states the control configuration is a set of configurations, a set of commands, one or more routines or subroutines that feed the autonomous control algorithm, so that these control configurations are directly related to the drived vehicle (3).Control configurations are stipulated based on characteristics and/or parameters of the drived vehicle (3), being previously defined by an operator, programmer or machine equipped with a neural network. Further, in [0062] the control configuration is a pre-configuration or subroutine for the vehicle's main control algorithm. In other words, the control configuration is an initial pre-setup for the tractor vehicle (4) control algorithm. Lastly, in [0065] it states that the control configuration requirements are related (emphasis added) to the operation of the vehicle (i.e., acceleration or deceleration, steering, breaking, coupling etc.), but does not clearly articulate actuating an operation of said drived vehicle. Therefore, the system is merely evoking nominal use of the term control.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the identification… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The system is merely evoking nominal use of the term control and not demonstrating actual physical control over the vehicle and is thereby not a practical application. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “a target comprising at least one static data…,” the Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Hence, claims 1 and 13 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-6 and 14-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they provide for further examples of mental processes such as detecting and identifying and additional limitations that also do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application such as perform control configuration. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 and 14-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13.
Therefore, claims 1-6 and 13-17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 1-17 are rejected under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 20190302764 A1), hereinafter referred to as Smith.
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses:
A smart system for autonomous cargo transport vehicle, the autonomous vehicle comprises a drived vehicle and an autonomous tractor vehicle ([0001] This invention relates to autonomous vehicles and more particularly to autonomous trucks and trailers therefor, for example, as used to haul cargo around a shipping facility, a production facility or yard, or to transport cargo to and from a shipping facility, a production facility or yard), wherein the smart system provides at least the identification of the drived vehicle for the tractor vehicle ([0008] sentence (s.) 4, Identification of trailers in a yard and navigation with respect to such trailers is automated, which trailer is construed by the Examiner as a “drived vehicle” or “road implement” for a tractor and the automated which is construed as a smart system), wherein the smart system comprises:
a. a target comprising at least one static data of the drived vehicle ([0029] s.1, a system and method for identifying and orienting with respect to container wells on railcars in a yard comprises a scanner that scans rail cars, based on relative motion between the railcars and the scanner, and compares the tags to stored (necessarily stored in memory) information with respect to the railcars, [0047] s.4 processor identifies and analyzes data points (e.g. 3D point clouds) generated by the sensing device with respect to at least one of the kingpin, landing gear legs of the trailer and wheel sets of the trailer so as to, thereby, determine the relative location of the kingpin which is construed as static data of a physical magnitude nature, [0191] (i) confirming the identity of the trailer through reading the trailer number or scanning a QR, bar, or other type of coded identifier; and (ii) Aligning the truck's connectors with the corresponding trailer receptacles, which is construed as other forms of static data to identify a targeted trailer, and [0345-346] refers to moving and engaging a target and delivery motion hardware to utilize multiple images of a target area while coupling); and
b. a processor that executes at least one control configuration of the tractor vehicle based on the static data from the target (see Fig. 2 below regarding tractor executing control based at least on data, [0012] s.2, where a processor facilitates autonomous movement of the AV yard truck, substantially free of human user control inputs to onboard controls of the truck, and connection to and disconnection from trailers in the yard and [0306] system then queries the stored data).
PNG
media_image1.png
502
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses:
The smart system according to the claim 1, wherein:
a. the processor is embedded in the tractor vehicle and is provided with at least one autonomous control algorithm of the tractor vehicle, wherein the processor executes the autonomous control algorithm taking into consideration the control configuration ([0290] last sentence, autonomy system has determined the vehicle should remained stationary, it can command full application of brakes and configure the base vehicle to remove power from drive motors altogether, which is construed as demonstrating autonomous control execution through certain configurations based on desired result); and
b. the target is related to the drived vehicle, being positioned on the drived vehicle itself or at a vicinity point of the drive vehicle (see claim 1 specifically [0191] (ii) Aligning the truck's connectors with the corresponding trailer receptacles, which is construed as a target being related to the drived vehicle or trailer).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses:
The smart system according to the claim 2, wherein the control configuration is a control pre-setup accessed by the autonomous control algorithm before a movement of one of the drived or tractor vehicles ([0034] sentence 1, system executes a function prior to initial movement of the tractor).
Claim 16 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 3 above, therefore claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Smith discloses:
The smart system according to the claim 1, wherein the control configuration is relative to at least one static data, wherein a data memory stores at least one control configuration (see claim 1 regarding stored data that is queried and utilized during control of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 5, Smith discloses:
The smart system according to the claim 4, wherein the data memory is associated with at least one of:
a. drived vehicle (see claim 1 regarding static data);
b. tractor vehicle ([0296] discloses monitoring, (a) the tractor longitudinal acceleration, and (b) the tractor forward distance traveled);
c. target (see claim 1 regarding static data);
d. a remote location ([0276] use of a remote processor (e.g. the server) for data storage and querying); and/or
e. a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses:
Smart system according to the 1, wherein the static data comprises at least one of:
a. a physical magnitude data (see claim 1 regarding position data for alignment);
b. a catalogue information data (see claim 1 regarding use of code to ID trailer);
c. a control configuration (see claim 2 regarding an example of a control configuration); and/or
d. a combination thereof.
Claim 10 recites a method having substantially the same features of claim 6 above, therefore claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses:
A configuration system for autonomous cargo transport vehicle, in which the autonomous vehicle comprises a drived vehicle and an autonomous tractor vehicle provided with an embedded processor (see claim 1 regarding autonomous cargo transport vehicle comprising a tractor and a trailer, [0035] on-board controller, which is construed by the Examiner as a processor, and [0195] s. 3-4, controller can reside at any acceptable location on the truck, which is construed by the Examiner as an embedded processor on the autonomous tractor), wherein the configuration system comprises:
a. a target comprising at least one static data of the drived vehicle (see claim 1 above regarding static data of the drived vehicle); and
b. a data memory communicating with the processor ([0016] where a processor can verify input identification data, based upon stored information, which is construed by the Examiner as memory communicating with a processor);
wherein the processor, based on the static data from the target , performs at least one control configuration stored in the data memory (see claim 1 regarding performing control configuration).
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses:
The configuration system according to the claim 7, in that the configuration system comprises a detector for identifying the drived vehicle (see claim 1 specifically regarding [0191] (i) confirming the identity of the trailer through reading the trailer number or scanning a QR, bar, or other type of coded identifier, which is construed by the Examiner as a detector for identifying a drived vehicle or trailer).
Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses:
A road implement comprising an identifying system of the road implement for a tractor vehicle, wherein the road implement comprises a target related to at least one static data of the road implement (see claim 1 regarding a trailer comprising a target with static data), wherein:
- the target is capable of interacting with at least one vehicle tractor reading device (see claim 1 regarding [0191] and the reading of a trailer number or code); and
- the static data is related to at least one control configuration of the tractor vehicle (see claim 1 where static data is related to the control configuration).
Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses:
The road implement according to the claim 9, wherein the static data
comprises an autonomous control algorithm for the tractor vehicle (see claim 1 regarding autonomous vehicle operations and [0263], [0267], [0270], and [0355] where various autonomous control algorithms of a tractor vehicle considers specific configurations and execute autonomous control).
Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses:
An autonomous dolly comprising an identifying system for a road implement and a processor provided with at least one autonomous control algorithm of the tractor vehicle (see claim 1 regarding [0191] and claim 2 regarding control algorithm for an autonomous vehicle), wherein the processor executes:
a. at least one control configuration of the autonomous dolly, based on at least one static data of the road implement, the static data from one target (see claim 1); and
b. the autonomous control algorithm taking into consideration the control configuration (see claim 2 regarding an autonomous control algorithm taking into consideration a control configuration).
Regarding claim 13, Smith discloses:
An identification method for an autonomous cargo transport vehicle, wherein the autonomous vehicle comprises a drived vehicle and an autonomous tractor vehicle with an embedded processor (see claim 7 regarding an embedded processor), wherein the method provides at least the identification of the drived vehicle to the tractor vehicle (see claim 1 regarding [0191]), wherein the method comprises steps of:
a. detecting an event for initializing the identification of the drived vehicle to the tractor vehicle ([0020] third sentence from last, a processor that causes the framework to move in response to control command, which is construed by the Examiner as an initializing event that defines the moment for the start of the identification process);
b. identifying the drived vehicle from reading at least one static data of the drived vehicle (see claim 1); and
c. performing at least one control configuration of the tractor vehicle by means of the processor, based on the static data of the drived vehicle (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Smith discloses:
The identification method according to claim 13, wherein the static
data is previously defined, being related to the drived vehicle (see claim 5 and [0015] a height determination process computation can include a determination of a required trailer height to provide clearance for a predetermined location based on at least one of (a) a height of the trailer, and (b) if landing gear of the trailer is engaged or disengaged from the ground).
Regarding claim 15, Smith discloses:
The identification method according to claim 13, wherein the method comprises a step of execution of an autonomous control algorithm of the tractor vehicle, which considers the execution of the control configuration (see claim 11 regarding control algorithm and also claims 1 and 3 where the execution considers at least one control configuration).
Regarding claim 17, Smith discloses:
The identification method according to claim 13, wherein the event is detected by the drived vehicle or by tractor vehicle, wherein the event defines a moment for the start of identification of the drived vehicle to the tractor vehicle ([0020] third sentence from last, a processor that causes the framework to move in response to control command, which is construed by the Examiner as an initializing event that defines the moment for the start of the identification process).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO Form-892 for references cited regarding this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665