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 . 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,993. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would not be possible for one of ordinary skill in the art to put into practice the claimed invention without infringing on the issued patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 1-3 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Da Deppo et al. (2021/0061027).
Regarding claim 1: Da Deppo discloses a trailer diagnostic and monitoring system, comprising:
a system controller having a controller body that is configured to be positioned along a vehicular trailer (Fig. 4a and Paragraph 153, hub 103 is positioned along a vehicle trailer);
a power unit that is configured to engage a wiring harness of the trailer (Paragraph 0153 and 0240, wherein hub 103 may provide vehicle control functions, doing so would require engagement with a wiring harness, in addition a camera may be included which is engaged to wiring harness for power);
a wireless communication device that is positioned within the controller body, said wireless communication unit including functionality for communicating with an external device (Paragraph 0153);
a plurality of hub sensor assemblies, that are communicatively linked to the system controller (Fig 3 and Paragraph 153), and
a machine learning module having at least one processor and memory that is in communication with the plurality of hub sensor assemblies (Paragraph 146),
wherein each of the plurality of hub sensor assemblies are positioned adjacent to a tire of the trailer (Fig 3 and Paragraph 153).
Regarding claim 2: Da Deppo discloses wherein each of the plurality of hub sensor assemblies further comprises:
a main body (Fig. 3, 6 and Paragraph 0171); and
a hub connector for securing the main body against an axle hub of the trailer (Paragraph 0230).
Regarding claim 3: Da Deppo discloses a temperature sensor that is positioned along the main body, said temperature sensor being configured to measure a temperature of the axle hub of the trailer (Paragraph 0034, 0052, 0149).
Regarding claim 14: Da Deppo discloses a trailer diagnostic and monitoring application, said application comprising machine readable instructions for execution on a computing device having a processor, a memory, and a display screen, wherein the application includes functionality for communicating with the wireless communication device of the system controller (Paragraph 0182 and 0183).
Regarding claim 15: Da Deppo discloses wherein the machine learning module is configured to identify patterns indicative of a performance of the vehicular trailer and to provide the patterns to the application (Paragraph 0146).
Regarding claim 16: Da Deppo discloses wherein the identified patterns are based on data provided to the controller by the plurality of hub sensor assemblies, and said data includes at least one of a tire pressure and a hub temperature (Paragraph 0145-0146).
Regarding claim 17: this claim contains the same features and limitations as claims 1-3 above and is therefore rejected under the same basis and rationale.
Regarding claims 18-20: these claims contain the same features and limitations as claims 15-16 and are therefore rejected under the same basis and rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-13 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: As discussed above, Da Deppo discloses the claimed invention except a serial forwarder device that is communicatively linked to the system controller, said forwarder device being configured to receive power and operating instructions from the system controller. Therefore, the prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious a serial forwarder device that is communicatively linked to the system controller, said forwarder device being configured to receive power and operating instructions from the system controller when taken in combination with all the features and limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D Lang whose telephone number is (571)270-3213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-11am and 2pm-6pm.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/MICHAEL D LANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667