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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2024.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 16-17 recites the limitation “securing means” and “tightening means” with the structure in specifications “magnet” and “spool”, respectively. It is being interpreted as means plus function.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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.
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, 6, 8-9, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hans (EP4012451) in view of Lacaze (US20240075778) and Koravadi (US20190225152).
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. Determining that a trailer has been attached to the cabin of the autonomous vehicle. and a cable for communication.
Lacaze teaches the repositioning device ([0045]-[0079] disclosing the repositioning device for automating positioning of a gladhand on a trailer from a cabin).
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 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.
Koravadi teaches a cable for communication connected to the sensor (Fig. 3 and [0035]-[0036] disclosing the cable communicatively coupled to the control device or processor of the vehicle towing the trailer).
Cable connection is an obvious way for communication, it would have been obvious to combine/substitute the teaching of Koravadi yielding predictable results in order to connect the camera to a wireless antenna to avoid the degradation of signal by being attached to the rear of a trailer as taught by Koravadi [0005].
Regarding claim 3, Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi 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 Lacaze and Koravadi 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 6, Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi teaches the method of claim 1, comprising: securing the cable.
Specifically, Koravadi teaches securing the 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 Lacaze and Koravadi 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 8, Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi 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 Lacaze and Koravadi 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 Lacaze and Koravadi yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Hans as modified by Lacaze teaches the system of claim 10, comprising: configured to be communicatively coupled to the computing system of the autonomous vehicle ([138] disclosing the sensor coupled to an autonomous vehicle).
Koravadi teaches a cable for communication connected to the sensor and communicatively coupled to a computing system (Fig. 3 and [0035]-[0036] disclosing the cable communicatively coupled to the control device or processor of the vehicle towing the trailer).
Cable connection is an obvious way for communication, it would have been obvious to combine/substitute the teaching of Koravadi yielding predictable results in order to connect the camera to a wireless antenna to avoid the degradation of signal by being attached to the rear of a trailer as taught by Koravadi [0005].
Regarding claim 16, Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi teaches the system of claim 15, comprising: means securing the cable.
Specifically, Koravadi teaches means 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 Lacaze and Koravadi 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 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hans (EP4012451) in view of Lacaze (US20240075778) and Koravadi (US20190225152) and Zur (US20220318693).
Regarding claim 2, Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi teaches the method of claim 1, Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi does not teach 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.
Zur teaches wherein the repositioning device includes a drone capable of flight and moving the sensor package includes aerially transporting the sensor package ([0090] disclosing the drone transporting the sensor assemblies, see [0094] the drone transports and repositions monitoring assemblies by flying).
Hans teaches moving the sensor to the rear of the trailer, which is automated via the teaching of Lacaze, thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi to substitute the teaching of transporting the sensors via a drone as taught by Zur yielding predictable results and automating the transportation via a portable drone eliminating the need for a robotic arm to be in the same place thus improving efficiency by using the drone.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hans (EP4012451) in view of Lacaze (US20240075778) and Koravadi (US20190225152) and Pomish (US20220016947).
Regarding claim 5, Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
Removing the sensor package from the cabin and moving the sensor package upon are performed upon receiving a signal (in the rejection of claim 1, Hans teaches moving the sensor to the rear of trailer 134]-[138], and Lacaze teaches the automation of the process [0045]-[0079], motivation in claim 1).
Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi does not teach receiving a signal from a user to activate the repositioning device and performed upon receiving the signal.
Pomish teaches receiving a signal from a user to activate the repositioning device and performed upon receiving the signal ([0049] disclosing automatically repositioning a device in response to receiving a user input).
It would be obvious to combine the method of Pomish with the positioning of sensors as taught by Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi yielding predictable results and allowing a user to selectively start the process thus providing the user with the option to automate the process or to not if the user does not wish to drive the vehicle upon attaching the trailer and improving driver convenience and personalization of vehicle behavior.
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hans (EP4012451) in view of Lacaze (US20240075778) and Koravadi (US20190225152) and Michel (US20210056245).
Regarding claim 7, Hans as modified by 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 cable upon ([0008] disclosing retracting unused cable done autonomously by a retraction system).
The combination of Michel with the teaching of Hans as modified by 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].
Claims 10, 12-13, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hans (EP4012451) in view of Lacaze (US20240075778)
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.
Lacaze teaches the repositioning device ([0045]-[0079] disclosing the repositioning device for automating positioning of a gladhand on a trailer from a 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 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.
Regarding claim 12, Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi further teaches the system of claim 10, 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 13, Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi teaches the system of claim 10, 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 19, Hans as modified by 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 Lacaze and Koravadi 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 Lacaze and Koravadi yielding predictable results.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hans (EP4012451) in view of Lacaze (US20240075778) and Zur (US20220318693).
Regarding claim 11, Hans as modified by Lacaze teaches the system of claim 10, Hans as modified by Lacaze does not teach 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.
Zur teaches wherein the repositioning device includes a drone capable of flight and moving the sensor package includes aerially transporting the sensor package ([0090] disclosing the drone transporting the sensor assemblies, see [0094] the drone transports and repositions monitoring assemblies by flying).
Hans teaches moving the sensor to the rear of the trailer, which is automated via the teaching of Lacaze, thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Hans as modified by Lacaze to substitute the teaching of transporting the sensors via a drone as taught by Zur yielding predictable results and automating the transportation via a portable drone eliminating the need for a robotic arm to be in the same place thus improving efficiency by using the drone.
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hans (EP4012451) in view of Lacaze (US20240075778) and Pomish (US20220016947).
Regarding claim 14, Hans as modified by Lacaze teaches the system of claim 10, comprising:
Removing the sensor package from the cabin and moving the sensor package upon are performed upon receiving a signal (in the rejection of claim 10, Hans teaches moving the sensor to the rear of trailer 134]-[138], and Lacaze teaches the automation of the process [0045]-[0079], motivation in claim 10).
Hans as modified by Lacaze does not teach receiving a signal from a user to activate the repositioning device and performed upon receiving the signal.
Pomish teaches receiving a signal from a user to activate the repositioning device and performed upon receiving the signal ([0049] disclosing automatically repositioning a device in response to receiving a user input).
It would be obvious to combine the method of Pomish with the positioning of sensors as taught by Hans as modified by Lacaze yielding predictable results and allowing a user to selectively start the process thus providing the user with the option to automate the process or to not if the user does not wish to drive the vehicle upon attaching the trailer and improving driver convenience and personalization of vehicle behavior.
17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Hans (EP4012451) in view of Lacaze (US20240075778) and Koravadi (US20190225152) and Michel (US20210056245) and Smith (US20210053407).
Regarding claim 17, Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi teaches the system of claim 15, comprising:
A retainer configured to secure the sensor package on the trailer (at least [151] disclosing the magnet as a retainer to hold the sensor secure at the trailer).
Michel teaches means for tightening the cable ([0008] disclosing retracting unused cable done autonomously by a retraction system).
The combination of Michel with the teaching of Hans as modified by 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].
Smith teaches the means for retracting is a spool “per specification” ([0188] disclosing a motorized spool to pull a cable).
it would be obvious to substitute the spool of Smith for the retraction system of Michel yielding predictable results and as an obvious design choice of retraction systems.
Regarding claim 18, Hans as modified by Lacaze and Koravadi and Michel and Smith 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 Lacaze and Koravadi and Michel and Smith 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].
Conclusion
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.
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