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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hans (EP4012451) in view of Buyse (US20200231279) and Lacaze (US20240075778).
Regarding claim 1, Hans teaches a method of repositioning a sensor package mounted to a cabin of an autonomous vehicle and communicatively coupled to a computing system of the autonomous vehicle ([138] disclosing the sensor communicatively coupled to an autonomous vehicle. at least [185] disclosing the sensor is movable):
Removing the sensor package from the cabin (figs. 3a and 3b show the sensor is removable from the cabin and moved to the trailer, [134]-[138] disclosing the removing of the sensor from a first position to a second position wherein [185] disclosing the second position is the end of a trailer when a trailer is connected);
Moving the sensor package to a rear of the trailer ([134]-[138], [185] disclosing moving the sensor to the rear of the trailer);
Securing the sensor package on the trailer using a retainer (at least [151] disclosing the magnet as a retainer to hold the sensor secure at the trailer).
Hans does not teach the repositioning device. Moving in part on unspooling the cable. Determining that a trailer has been attached to the cabin of the autonomous vehicle. and a cable for communication.
Buyse teaches the repositioning device ([0036], [0045]-[0047] disclosing the drone repositions the cameras connected to it to fly over the vehicle and take images).
Moving, in part on unspooling the cable ([0036] disclosing a drone capable of flying from the vehicle by unspooling a cable);
And a cable for communication ([0036] disclosing the tether includes wired communication);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Buyse of moving in part of unspooling a cable and using a cable for communication in order to automate the sensor movement and allow for easy retraction and retrieval of a sensor via a spool as taught by Buyse [0036], [0045]-[0048] and further incorporating the sensors in a drone allows for easily moving the position of sensors improving repositioning of the sensors as shown by Buyse. Substituting the teaching of wired communication with the use of cable communication improves the reliability of the communication.
Lacaze teaches Determining that a trailer has been attached to the cabin of the autonomous vehicle ([0049] disclosing the repositioning can take place after the determination that the trailer is connected to the cabin).
Lacaze teaches automating a process for a tractor and trailer attachment, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lacaze with the teaching of Hans as modified by yielding predictable results, in order to allow the simplify the automation process by initiating when a predetermined condition is met thus allowing the autonomous operation to begin on its own improving autonomous placement.
Regarding claim 3, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the repositioning device includes a robotic arm mounted external to the cabin and removing the sensor package from the cabin includes grabbing the sensor package with the robotic arm (Lacaze [0045]-[0079] disclosing the arm attached to the cabin and grabs the sensor package).
Lacaze teaches automating a process for a tractor and trailer attachment, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lacaze with the teaching of Hans yielding predictable results, in order to allow the automation of the sensor placement thus improving the process for autonomous cars without the need for humans upon the determination that a trailer is connected.
Regarding claim 4, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the removing the sensor package from the cabin and moving the sensor package to the rear of the trailer are performed automatically upon determining that the trailer has been attached to the cabin (Hans teaches the removing a sensor package to install it in the rear of the trailer [134]-[138] and [185], Lacaze teaches the automation of the process automatically based on the determining that the trailer is attached [0049]).
Lacaze teaches automating a process for a tractor and trailer attachment, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lacaze with the teaching of Hans yielding predictable results, in order to allow the automation of the sensor placement thus improving the process for autonomous cars without the need for humans upon the determination that a trailer is connected. It is obvious to combine the teaching of performing the process automatically when a trailer is attached yielding predictable results allowing the efficient connection upon determining that the trailer is present and attached.
Regarding claim 5, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
Specifically, Buyse teaches Receiving a signal from a user to activate the repositioning device ([0059] disclosing a signal from a user to deploy the drone with the sensor for monitoring surrounding).
Wherein Removing the sensor package from the cabin and moving the sensor package are performed upon receiving the signal ([0059] disclosing a signal for removing the sensor package from the cabin and moving the sensor package).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Buyse of moving the sensor package upon receiving a signal in order to allow the user to control the drone per desire thus improving the sensing of the surrounding per user instruction increasing a trust in the vehicle driving when needed.
Regarding claim 8, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze further teaches the method of claim 1, comprising;
Specifically, Lacaze teaches Identifying a landing zone on the trailer containing the retainer ([0046] disclosing a camera to identify the receptacle “as a retainer” on the trailer to place the gladhand); and
Positioning the ([0047]-[0073] disclosing placing the gladhand).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Lacaze one of ordinary skill in the art to use the localization technique yielding predictable results and allowing the placement of the sensors in the desired location thus automating the sensor repositioning and allowing for precise and accurate placement of the sensor.
Regarding claim 9, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze further teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the landing zone is identified using a computer vision system of the repositioning device.
Specifically, Lacaze teaches wherein the landing zone is identified using a computer vision system of the repositioning device ([0287] disclosing a camera to detect the landing zone “receptacle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lacaze of camera sensor in order to allow the detection of a receptacle via the camera thus allowing the automation of process of repositioning a sensor as taught by Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, Hans teaches a sensor package including a plurality of sensors, the sensor package being mountable on a cabin of the autonomous vehicle and configured to be communicatively coupled to a computing system of the autonomous vehicle ([138] disclosing the sensor coupled to an autonomous vehicle. at least [185] disclosing the sensor is movable):
Removing the sensor package from the cabin (figs. 3a and 3b show the sensor is removable from the cabin and moved to the trailer, [134]-[138] disclosing the removing of the sensor from a first position to a second position wherein [185] disclosing the second position is the end of a trailer when a trailer is connected);
Moving the sensor package to a rear of the trailer ([134]-[138], [185] disclosing moving the sensor to the rear of the trailer);
repositioning the sensor package on the trailer (at least [151] disclosing the magnet as a retainer to hold the sensor secure at the trailer).
Hans does not teach the repositioning device.
Hans does not teach the repositioning device. Moving in part on unspooling the cable. Determining that a trailer has been attached to the cabin of the autonomous vehicle. and a cable for communication.
Buyse teaches the repositioning device ([0036], [0045]-[0047] disclosing the drone repositions the cameras connected to it to fly over the vehicle and take images).
Moving, in part on unspooling the cable ([0036] disclosing a drone capable of flying from the vehicle by unspooling a cable);
And a cable for communication ([0036] disclosing the tether includes wired communication);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Buyse of moving in part of unspooling a cable and using a cable for communication in order to automate the sensor movement and allow for easy retraction and retrieval of a sensor via a spool as taught by Buyse [0036], [0045]-[0048] and further incorporating the sensors in a drone allows for easily moving the position of sensors improving repositioning of the sensors as shown by Buyse. Substituting the teaching of wired communication with the use of cable communication improves the reliability of the communication.
Lacaze teaches Determining that a trailer has been attached to the cabin of the autonomous vehicle ([0049] disclosing the repositioning can take place after the determination that the trailer is connected to the cabin).
Lacaze teaches automating a process for a tractor and trailer attachment, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lacaze with the teaching of Hans as modified by yielding predictable results, in order to allow the simplify the automation process by initiating when a predetermined condition is met thus allowing the autonomous operation to begin on its own improving autonomous placement.
Regarding claim 15, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze teaches the system of claim 10, the cable connected to the sensor package and configured to be communicatively coupled to the computing system of the autonomous vehicle.
Specifically, Buyse teaches the cable connected to the sensor package and configured to be communicatively coupled to the computing system of the autonomous vehicle ([0036] disclosing the tether includes wired communication);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of using a cable for communication in order allow a more reliable communication [0036], [0045]-[0048] and further incorporating the sensors in a drone allows for easily moving the position of sensors improving repositioning of the sensors as shown by Buyse.
Regarding claim 19, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze further teaches the system of claim 10, comprising; a retainer configured to secure the sensor package (Hans [0151] disclosing the magnet to mount the sensor package);
Lacaze further teaches wherein the repositioning device Identifying a landing zone on the trailer containing the retainer ([0046] disclosing a camera to identify the receptacle as the landing zone on the trailer to place the gladhand); and
Positioning the ([0047]-[0073] disclosing placing the gladhand).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Lacaze one of ordinary skill in the art to use the localization technique yielding predictable results and allowing the placement of the sensors in the desired location thus automating the sensor repositioning and allowing for precise and accurate placement of the sensor.
Regarding claim 20, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze further teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the landing zone is identified using a computer vision system of the repositioning device.
Specifically, Lacaze teaches wherein the positioning device identifies a landing zone using a computer vision system of the repositioning device ([0287] disclosing a camera to detect the landing zone “receptacle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lacaze of camera sensor in order to allow the detection of a receptacle via the camera thus allowing the automation of process of repositioning a sensor as taught by Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze yielding predictable results.
Claims 12-14 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 3-5, respectively, see above rejection.
Claims 2, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hans (EP4012451) in view of Buyse (US20200231279) and Lacaze (US20240075778) and Zur (US20220318693) and Ganesh (US20210080960).
Regarding claim 2, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the repositioning device includes a drone capable of flight and moving the sensor package includes aerially transporting the sensor package to the rear of the trailer.
Specifically, Buyse teaches wherein the repositioning device includes a drone capable of flight and moving the sensor package includes aerially transporting the sensor package to the rear of the vehicle ([0036], [0045]-[0055] disclosing the drone for transporting a sensor attached to it aerially).
Buyse teaches the movement of the drone including the sensor package around the vehicle including the rear, thus It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Buyse to the trailer of Hamm which allows for autonomous moving the position of sensors improving repositioning of the sensors as shown by Buyse.
Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze does not teach, the drone secured to the sensor package prior to determining that a trailer has been attached to the cabin.
Ganesh teaches the drone secured to the sensor package prior to determining that a trailer has been attached to the cabin ([0036], [0048] disclosing the drone is used with the vehicle to monitor conditions of the vehicle and the trailer. [0055]-[0060] disclosing the sensors are attached to the drone always for monitoring even before the determination of the wheeled object as a trailer being movably shifted via the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Ganesh of the drone secured to the sensor package before the determination of the trailer has been attached in order to allow the drone to monitor the conditions of the vehicle even before determination of the connection thus improving drone monitoring and aiding in connecting the trailer.
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 2, see above rejection.
Claims 6, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hans (EP4012451) in view of Buyse (US20200231279) and Lacaze (US20240075778) and Koravadi (US20190225152).
Regarding claim 6, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze does not teach the method of claim 1, comprising: securing the unspooled cable.
Specifically, Koravadi teaches securing the unspooled cable ([0035] disclosing the securing of the cable).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze to incorporate the teaching of Koravadi of securing the cable in order to secure the cable and avoid the cable from getting tangled or cut or dangling from the truck which would endanger others including humans being strangled.
Regarding claim 16, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze does not teach the system of claim 15, comprising: magnets, electromagnetics, or hook and loop for securing the cable.
Specifically, Koravadi teaches magnets, electromagnetics, or hook and loop for securing the cable ([0035] disclosing magnetic means the securing of the cable).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze to incorporate the teaching of Koravadi of securing the cable in order to secure the cable and avoid the cable from getting tangled or cut or dangling from the truck which would endanger others including humans being strangled.
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hans (EP4012451) in view of Buyse (US20200231279) and Lacaze (US20240075778) and Koravadi (US20190225152) and Michel (US20210056245).
Regarding claim 7, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze and Koravadi teaches the method of claim 6, comprising:
securing the sensor package on the trailer (Hans [0138], [0151], [185] disclosing the securing of the sensor package to the trailer, Lacaze further teaches securing a cable).
Michel teaches Tightening the unspooled cable ([0008] disclosing retracting unused cable done autonomously by a retraction system).
The combination of Michel with the teaching of Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze and Koravadi is obvious to retract the cable after securing the sensor package yielding predictable results in order to reduce the amplitude of motion of the flexible retraction cable in its environment and avoid harmful contacts with the surrounding as taught by Michel [0008].
17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hans (EP4012451) in view of Buyse (US20200231279) and Lacaze (US20240075778) and Michel (US20210056245).
Regarding claim 17, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze teaches the system of claim 15, comprising:
A retainer configured to secure the sensor package on the trailer (Hans at least [151] disclosing the magnet as a retainer to hold the sensor secure at the trailer).
Buyse teaches the retainer containing a spool ([0036], [0045]-[0066]);
Michel teaches the retainer further configured for tightening the unspooled cable ([0008] disclosing retracting unused cable done autonomously by a retraction system).
Buyse teaches the retainer includes a spool for reeling the cable, thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teaching of Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze with the teaching of Michel yielding predictable results to retract the cable after securing the sensor package in order to reduce the amplitude of motion of the flexible retraction cable in its environment and avoid harmful contacts with the surrounding as taught by Michel [0008].
Regarding claim 18, Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze further teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the cable is positioned within a cable holder that laterally secures the cable.
Specifically, Michel further teaches wherein the cable is positioned within a cable holder that laterally secures the cable ([0008] disclosing retracting unused cable done autonomously by a retraction system within a housing that secures the cable “cable holder”).
The combination of Michel with the teaching of Hans as modified by Buyse and Lacaze is obvious to retract the cable after securing the sensor package yielding predictable results in order to reduce the amplitude of motion of the flexible retraction cable in its environment and avoid harmful contacts with the surrounding as taught by Michel [0008].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended independent claims and are considered moot since a new prior art Buyse teaches the amended limitations. Buyse in [0036]-0066] teaches unspooling a cable to change position of a move a sensor via a drone, see full rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20230312146 disclosing drones tethered to a tractor to monitor implements attached to it.
US11787346 disclosing drone as a sensor when landed on vehicle and flies to monitor around vehicle at different positions.
US20250187633 disclosing the relocating sensors along a trailer via rails.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 Information 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 PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR 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 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights