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 .
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 1-7, 11, 12, 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Gunderson et al [US 6,268,803] in view of Beck et al [US 2025/0197106] and Horn et al [US 2021/0197816] and Florian et al [DE 102018206571 A1]
Consider claim 1. A collision warning device for a truck trailer (see Fig. 2, abstract),
comprising:
wherein the sensor communicates with a trailer nose box via a data bus in the trailer
(the rear sensors 14 data information communicate and power between the to the trailer
via the two-wire cable (see Figs. 2, 5a, 5b, 8b, 16, col. 3, lines 44-67, col. 4, lines 37-
57col. 10, lines 50-52, col. 11, lines 27-31);
a control circuit (the control module 12, see Fig. 1, col. 3, line 37-38, col. 4, lines 20-63,
col. 5, lines 23-67, col. 6, lines 1-10) responsive to the rear-facing sensor, wherein the
control circuit is configured to determine a collision parameter selected from the group
consisting essentially of:
(a) time to collision (the time, see col. 6, lines 43-47, 56-59);
(b) distance between the sensor and the following vehicle (the distance/range, see col.
6, lines 43-65]);
(c) closure rate between the sensor and the following vehicle (the closing rate, see col.
6, lines 43-47, 55); and
(d) combinations thereof (the combining, see col. 6, lines 50-56]); and
a rear-facing warning device responsive to the control circuit, wherein the rear-facing
warning device is directly rearward and operable to emit a visible warning signal toward
the following vehicle of the following vehicle to alert the driver of the following vehicle of
a potential collision with the trailer (the control module 12 is connected to the detector
digit data signals from the sensors 14, see and to generate an alarm to warn bystanders
that the truck is backing via the rear warning lights 98 to alert the bystander, object,
person or behind/following vehicle (see Figs. 1, 3, 5a, 5c, 7, 23, col. 1, lines 34-35, col.
4, lines 15-25, col. 7, lines 49-53, col. 11, lines 15-21, 27-31);
detector digit data signals from the sensors 14 is/are connect to the control module
12 via cable or two-wire cable in the trailer, see Figs. 1, 3, 5a, 8a, 23, col. 11, lines 15-
21, 27-31). But
Gunderson et al fails to disclose wherein the sensor communicates with a trailer nose
box via a data bus in the trailer. However,
Gunderson et al teaches that the two boxes 70 provide the portable transducer
function. Each box 70 includes an antenna sticking out the side. Each box 70 mounts
under the trailer and clamps to the frame of the trailer. Inside each box 70 is an
ultrasonic transmitter and receiver, electronic circuitry, and a radio transmitter and
receiver. A two-wire cable connects battery from the trailer to the electronic circuitry to
provide power. A cable between each box provides common control signals from the
radio transmitter/receiver such that signals from either rear mounted antenna control
both Transducer Assemblies and display distance to objects behind the vehicle (see
Figs. 4a-c, 8a, 8b, col. 10, lines 18-43).
Therefore, it is obvious to one skill in the art to recognize that the cable connected
between the boxes for communicating control signals and the detected data information
signals is functionally equivalent to the data bus in the trailer vehicle.
Gunderson et al fails to disclose a rear-facing sensor defining a detection zone
extending at least about 290 feet behind the trailer in a rearward direction, wherein the
rear-facing sensor is operable to detect a following approach vehicle the trailer within
the detection zone behind the trailer. However,
Gunderson et al teaches that FIG. 5b represents the top view of a tractor trailer rig with a post located far behind the trailer. The post represents a hazard unless the driver has sufficient information to aid in maneuvering around the obstacle. The sensor 14 such as ultrasonic sensor, micropower impulse radar MIR sensor and/or Doppler radar sensor on the right rear of the trailer senses the post at a distance of 21.0 feet. The sensor 14 on the left rear of the trailer senses the post at a distance of 22.1 feet. The control module 12 to detect objects up to 25 feet behind the vehicle, (see col. 5, lines 23-40).
Beck et al suggests that the collision manager 1412 may be configured to detect a threshold velocity at a maximum distance away from the refuse vehicle 100. For example, the threshold velocity 1420 represented by the white arrow may include 75 mph or greater in the direction of the refuse vehicle 100 at a distance between 250-400 feet behind the refuse vehicle 100. Further, the collision mitigation system 1400 using radar sensors 922 may detect one or more objects behind the refuse vehicle 100 such as a first object 1421 (e.g., sedan 1421), a second object 1422 (e.g., sedan 1422), a third object 1423 (e.g., sedan 1423), a fourth object 1424 (e.g., pedestrian 1424) and so on (see Fig. 40, para [0183, 0184]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the radar sensors to detect objects, pedestrians, vehicles surrounding area behind the truck vehicle between 250-400 feet of Beck et al to the micropower impulse radar MIR sensor and/or Doppler radar sensor of Gunderson et al for providing early and time for a truck vehicle to alert and avoid of an accident or collision with behind or rearward obstacles such as animal, object or vehicle obstruction behind the area/zone of the truck vehicle.
Gunderson et al fails to disclose wherein the control circuit is operable to determine the
collision parameter when the following vehicle is approaching the trailer at a closure rate
of at least 10 miles per hour. However,
Gunderson et al teaches that in the control module 12 software embodied in collision
avoidance systems 10 and 30, there are several advanced features built-into the
software to minimize false alarms, including (a) the combination of multiple sensors
comparing signals for same objects and using sensor antenna patterns to derive
angular position, (b) the use of a N out of M tracking algorithm, and c) the fusion of data
from multiple sensors. In one embodiment of the Forward-Looking Detector (FLD), the
returns of both sensors at the same frequencies can be used to do False Alarm Rate
(FAR) Reduction. Depending on the angle to an object, the frequency and amplitude will change. Stationary objects on the side of the road at close ranges will appear stronger in one sensor and at frequencies lower than the speed of the vehicle (see Figs. 3, 5b, col. 13, lines 25-38).
Horn et al suggests that the determination of whether the radar has detected oncoming cars made in block 332. A determination of whether the radar has detected an oncoming car is based upon a sensed rate or approach to the motorcycle 10 and/or time calculated to possible impact. For example, the radar assembly 250 may sense a vehicle approaching the motorcycle at a relative speed of 20 miles per hour (MPH) and that the vehicle is 290 is 60 feet away. Thus, a determination may be made that the vehicle 290 is only about 2 seconds from impact. Any appropriate selected time to impact may be selected, however, for determination of impact (see Fig. 4, para [0075, 0086]).
Detection of an approaching vehicle may include various determinations, such as noted above including relative speed of the sensed external object or vehicle, rate of change in speed, distance, etc. Detection or a positive determination of a detected vehicle may be that the speed of the external vehicle, such as object 290 (FIG. 4) is greater than 5 miles per hour faster than the motorcycle. Alternatively or additionally, if it is determined that the external vehicle is less than a certain time away, such as less than 2 seconds away given a speed, distance, and/or change in speed. (See Fig. 10, para [0105]).
After following the YES path 494, a first driver indication can be made in block 500. The first indication in block 500 may be when the external object is traveling at selected low rate of speed (e.g. between 5 and 15 miles per hour), is at a selected distance away, is determined to be a selected time away, is traveling at a selected rate of speed relative to the motorcycle 10, or combinations of the above. (See Fig. 10, para [0106]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to modify or implement the determine the approaching rear vehicle at a selected speed between 5, 15 and 20 miles per hour before the impact or collision of Horn et al to the control module of Gunderson et al for providing early warning to avoid of impact or collision based on the detection data information such as relative distances, relative speed and time between the front/host vehicle and the rear approaching vehicle while to minimize of false alarms.
Gunderson et al fails to disclose and wherein the sensor receives power from a
metallic power cable of the trailer that provides more than 18 volts directly to the sensor. However,
Gunderson et al teaches that the electronic circuitry, including radio transmitter and
receiver are mounted inside the extrusion. In one embodiment, a two-wire cable
connects battery from the trailer to provide power to the electronic circuitry and truck's
electrical system and trailer via a connector arrangement (see Fig. 8b, col. 10, lines 50-
52, col. 11, lines 27-31).
Florian et al suggests that the sensor module (18) of an adjustment part (8) of a motor vehicle (2), in particular an electromotive door adjustment (6), comprising a sensor (20) and a control unit (22), and a first operating mode (37) and a second operating mode (32), in the first operating mode (37) is monitoring for a collision of the adjusting part (8) with an obstacle (4). (see abstract).
The sensor module expediently a suitable connection, in particular a plug, and works expediently at least partially according to the bus standard. Suitably, the sensor module is connected in the assembled state to an electrical system of the motor vehicle, which carries an electrical voltage of 12 V, 24 V or 48 V. For this purpose, the sensor module in particular has a suitable interface and is expediently operated with this electrical voltage. (see para [0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filed
date of the invention to modify and/or implement the vehicle electrical system to connect and provide 12V, 24V or 48V to the sensor module of Florian et al to the cable and/or two-wire cable connects battery from the trailer to provide power to the electronic
circuitry and truck's electrical system and trailer and sensors via a connector arrangement of Gunderson et al for providing secured cables and wires arrangement to provide sufficient electric power or voltages to one or more particular sensors as designed and to prevent of malfunction, and wherein the vehicle multicore wiring, as a cabling or flat multicore cable is functionally as the data bus cable to carry power lines and other communication lines.
Consider claim 2. The device of claim 1, wherein the rear-facing sensor and the rear-
facing warning device are mounted adjacent the rear of the trailer (the rear warning
lights 98 or the rear brake lights (see Gunderson et al, Fig. 3, col. 4, lines 15-25).
Consider claim 3. The device of claim 1, wherein the data bus is a CAN bus (reads
upon the systems 10 and 30, information relating to driver performance that is detected
with systems 10 and 30 is captured and downloaded into the on-board computer SO
that when the fleet owner gets a download from the on-board computer, it contains
additional information provided by systems 10 and 30. So, with an interface through a
single cable, systems 10 and 30 can tie into the on-board computer and provide real
time information, see Gunderson et al, Figs. 3, 7, 23, col. 8, lines 47-60).
Consider claim 4. The device of claim 1, wherein the power cable of the trailer provides
more than 24 V to the sensor (as the combination between and in respect to claim 1
above, wherein the voltage variable between 8 and 18 V may adopt other values, as for
example 21 and 50V in case of 42 V nets and dual nets (14V-42V), of vehicles, and of
18 and of 32V in case of 24 V nets used in trucks, see Gunderson et al, para [0027]).
Consider claim 5. The device of claim 1, wherein the rear-facing sensor is operable to
detect a distance from the truck trailer to the following vehicle and/or the speed of the
following vehicle (reads upon the purpose of the Data Fusion Algorithm is to reduce all
of the tracks and detections down to a small set of object tracks representing the
objects surrounding the host vehicle. Each radar module and sensor set may detect the
same object. It is the task of the Data Fusion Algorithm to sort this out. The algorithm
uses a technique called Deepest Hole to combine the data from multiple sensor and
Kinematics Combination to fuse this data together (see Gunderson et al, Figs. 5a-c, 9a-d, col. 14, lines 8-26). The track data from the tracks which are linked are merged in this function. The speeds of each track are averaged together (see Gunderson et al, col. 14, lines 36-38).
Consider claim 6. The device of claim 1, wherein the control circuit is operable to
determine a speed differential based on input received from the rear-facing sensor and
wherein the speed differential is defined as a difference in speed between the truck
trailer and the following vehicle (the sensors 14 are micropower impulse radar MIR
devices, each rear-looking sensors 14 include a small integrated antenna to detect the
speed of following vehicle 110 (see Gunderson et al, Figs. 2, 5a-c, 9a-d, col. 3, lines
54-67, col. 9, lines 51-63, col. 14, lines 36-38).
Consider claim 7. The device of claim 1, wherein the warning device includes an amber
lamp, a red lamp, or any combination thereof (read upon the rear warning lights 98 or
the rear brake lamps having amber and/or red colors to warn of following vehicles, see
Gunderson et al, Fig. 3, col. 4, lines 15-25).
Consider claim 11. The device of claim 1, comprising: an operator indicator mounted in
a cab of a truck coupled to the trailer, and wherein the operator indicator is responsive
to the control circuit to display a warning for the driver of the truck when the collision
warning is triggered (the driver/operator interface 32 with display screen, see
Gunderson et al, Figs. 3, 4a-c, 6a-c, abstract, col. 4, lines 51-67, col. 5, lines 1-67, col.
6, lines 1-10).
Consider claim 12. The device of claim 11, wherein the operator indicator includes a
computer that is operable to display a notification received by the computer, and
wherein the computer is operable to receive collision warning notifications sent by the
control circuit when a collision warning is triggered (the operator interface 32 on the on-
board computer of the control module 12, see Gunderson et al, Figs. 3, 4a-c, 6a-c, col.
4, lines 15-50, col. 5, lines 64-67, col. 6, lines 1-42, col. 8, lines 47-67, col. 9, lines 1-9).
Consider claim 20. The device of claim 1, wherein: the trailer includes a camera (the
video camera installed in the back of the truck, see Gunderson et al, col. 1, lines 40-44) defining a field of view that includes the area behind the trailer; the camera is electrically connected to the data bus and is operable to activate in response to control commands sent from the nose box and received via the data bus; the nose box is configured to send a control command activating the camera in response to a collision warning received from the control circuit (as cited in respect to claim 1 above).
Consider claim 21. The device of claim 1, wherein the control circuit includes a memory
and is configured to collect and store sensor data from the rear-facing sensor in the
memory when the control circuit emits the warning signal (as cited in respect to claim 1
above, and including the memory of programmable control module 12, see Gunderson
et al, Figs. 3, 10, col. 8, lines 64-67, col. 9, lines 1-5, col. 16, lines 1-5).
Claims 8-10, 22, 23, 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Gunderson et al [US 6,268,803] and Beck et al [US 2025/0197106] and Horn et al [US 2021/0197816] and Florian et al [DE 102018206571 A1] and further in view of Kashefy [US 2021/0221369]
Consider claim 8. Gunderson et al fails to disclose wherein the control circuit is
configured to determine a time to collision for the following vehicle, to compare the time
to collision to triggering criteria, and to trigger a collision warning when the triggering
criteria are satisfied, and wherein the triggering criteria include predetermined
thresholds specifying a first warning when the time to collision is less than six seconds,
a second different warning when the time to collision is less than four seconds, and a
third different warning when the time to collision is less than two seconds. However,
Gunderson et al teaches that when the driver is going to back up, if there is an
object within range, one of three scenarios will happen. First, if the system senses a
truck or other object real close to it on either side, systems 10 and 30 will give him an
alert. The system knows that there is no collision potential here, but just alerts him that there is something there. In one embodiment systems 10 and 30 provide one set of tones to the driver for an alert. Second, if there is an object in the range of 5-10 feet as soon as the driver throws it into reverse, systems 10 and 30 sense the object and provide the driver with a different alarm (e.g., a different set of tones or a different flashing light). This alarm is called a hazard alarm. And again, that's to alert the driver so he can take action on the hazard alarm. Third, if there is an object within 5 feet, the driver receives an emergency alarm (i.e., a third set of tones, or a third flashing light). Systems 10 and 30 therefore provide feedback indicative of the distance to an object behind the driver. In one such embodiment, audible or visual feedback tells the driver he's getting closer; the pulses go faster and faster to the point where, when he's within a foot, the pulses are continuous. In one embodiment, control module 12 is highly programmable and dealers and fleet owners are given an ability to program key
parameters that the system can use to more adequately address the needs of that
application and that customer (see Fig. 5c, col. 7, lines 54-67, col. 8, lines 1-31).
Kashefy suggests that system and a method are provided for calculating variable
forward and backward unsafe distances between two tailgating vehicles for generating
variable forward and backward staged reaching critical Time-to-Collision (TTC) pulses
in real-time driving. The system uses the staged backward Time-to-Collision pulses and
the backward distance reduction rate pulses for producing distance warning signals on
the rear of its host vehicle (see abstract, TABLE 2, para [0065]).
Where the calculated value of wD reveals an unsafe headway (i.e: physical or time
distance) between the two vehicles FV and Y. The system will compare the wD with
radar measured distance (radD) between the two vehicles for determining whether
the radD between the two vehicles should be considered as unsafe distance in order
indicate onset of a Time-to-Collision (TTC) or (STTC-1) between the two vehicles. So
that the TTC is duration of time that is greater than the duration of time that the FV
needs to travel the distance (prD) (with its current speed or the speed of the FV at the
moment that the wD is calculated) during the established perception-reaction time (prT)
of drivers (see Figs. 1, 7, 15, para [0055, 0090]).
The driver of the FV may miss the warning signals of the orange lights 01 and 02 and
may reach the threshold of the unsafe distance wD and the system may generate the
STTC-2 pulse. The onset of the STTC-2 ends the first stage of the unsafe distance wD
for preventing the orange light O2 from flashing. While the second stage lasts, the
system flashes an orange light (O3) at a fixed frequency of 2 Hz within the third quarter
of the wD for warning the driver of the FV that the FV is dangerously close to its lead-
vehicle Y while the Y is not braking. The orange light 03 encourage the driver of FV to
increase the distance of the FV from the host vehicle Y (see Figs. 2, 3, 10, para [0101,
0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filed
date of the invention to add or implement the comparing of time TTC or STTCs to
determine of an unsafe or critical to provide warning of flash signals at predetermined
threshold distance and after a predetermined average time of 2.4 second to 3.3
seconds of Kashefy to the programmed control module and distance alerts of
Gunderson et al and Beck et al and Horn et al and Florian et al for providing precisely alerts based on the critical closing distances and times between the front vehicle and rearward vehicle for avoiding and preventing of collision.
Consider claim 9. The device of claim 8, wherein the control circuit activates one or
more amber lamps of the warning device when the first warning is triggered, one or
more red lamps of the warning device when the second warning is triggered, and one or
more red and amber lamps of the warning device when the third warning is triggered (as
the combination between Gunderson et al and Beck et al and Horn et al and Florian et al and Kashefy in respect to claims 7 and 8 above, such as the programmed different sets of tones and/or flashes/pulses of the rear warning lights 98 in red as of the brake light, see Gunderson et al, Fig. 3, col. 7, lines 60-68, col. 8, lines 1-7).
Consider claim 10. The device of claim 8, wherein lamps of the warning device are
activated at a first intensity for the first warning, at a second higher intensity for the
second warning, and at third intensity for the third warning that is higher than the first or
second intensities (as the combination between Gunderson et al and Beck et al and Horn et al and Florian et al and Kashefy in respect to claims 7-9 above, such as the different intensities or flashes or pulses of the warning lights 98).
Consider claim 22. A collision warning device for a truck trailer, comprising: a sensor
facing a rear direction and a control circuit responsive to the sensor, wherein the control circuit is configured to determine a time to collision for the following vehicle, to compare the time to collision to triggering criteria, and to trigger a collision warning when the triggering criteria are satisfied; a warning indicator facing the rear direction that is responsive to the control circuit, wherein the warning indicator has one or more lamps that are directly rearward and arranged and configured to emit a visible warning signal away from the rear of the trailer toward a driver of the following vehicle to alert the driver of the following vehicle of a potential collision with the trailer, wherein the triggering criteria include predetermined thresholds specifying activation of one or more amber lamps when the time to collision is less than six seconds, activation of one or more red lamps when the time to collision is less than four seconds, and activation of the one or more red and amber lamps when the time to collision is less than two seconds; and a housing containing the sensor, the warning indicator, the one or more lamps, and the control circuit, wherein the housing is mountable at the rear of the trailer and electrically connected to a metallic power cable and a data bus of the trailer (as the combination between Gunderson et al and Beck et al and Horn et al and Florian et al and Kashefy and in respect to claims 1, 7-9 above). But
Gunderson et al fails to disclose defining a detection zone extending at least 88 feet behind the trailer, wherein the sensor is configured to detect a following vehicle approaching the trailer within the detection zone behind the trailer.
Beck et al suggests that the collision manager 1412 may be configured to detect a threshold velocity at a maximum distance away from the refuse vehicle 100. For example, the threshold velocity 1420 represented by the white arrow may include 75 mph or greater in the direction of the refuse vehicle 100 at a distance between 250-400 feet behind the refuse vehicle 100. The collision manager 1412 may be configured to detect a threshold velocity at a maximum distance away from the refuse vehicle 100. For example, the threshold velocity 1420 represented by the white arrow may include 75 mph or greater in the direction of the refuse vehicle 100 at a distance between 250-400 feet behind the refuse vehicle 100. (see Fig. 40, para [0183]).
Similarly, the collision manager 1412 may determine that the percent likelihood of a collision decreases as the detected object's speed, size, and proximity decrease and the angle of travel relative to the vehicle 10 increases. In other embodiments, the collision manager 1412 is configured to alert an operator of a possible collision event by detecting whether an object is traveling towards the vehicle 10 above a threshold velocity from a designated direction. The threshold velocity may vary based on the distance of the object from the vehicle 10. For example, for a distance far away from the vehicle 10 (e.g., 600 feet, 500 feet, etc.) the threshold velocity may be relatively high (e.g., above 75 mph given that the stopping distance of a standard vehicle at 75 mph is approximately 360 feet). Similarly, for a relatively small distance between the detected object and the vehicle (e.g., 80 feet, 60 feet, a distance where comparatively less space is available for the object to slow down/avoid the refuse vehicle 100), the threshold velocity may be relatively low (e.g., 20 mph, 30 mph, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify or substitute the radar sensors to detect objects, pedestrians, vehicles surrounding area behind the truck vehicle between 80 feet to 250 feet and 400 feet depending on the threshold velocity of the approaching vehicle and the size of the vehicle of Beck et al to the micropower impulse radar MIR sensor and/or Doppler radar sensor of Gunderson et al for providing early and time for a truck vehicle to alert and avoid of an accident or collision with behind or rearward obstacles such as animal, object or vehicle obstruction behind the area/zone of the truck vehicle.
Consider claim 23. The device of claim 22, wherein a cab warning device is responsive
to the control circuit, wherein the cab warning device is located in a cabin of a vehicle
coupled to the trailer, and wherein the control circuit is configured to activate the cab
warning device when a collision warning is triggered (as cited in respect to claims 11
and 12 above).
Consider claim 25. The device of claim 22, comprising: a camera defining a field of view
that includes the area behind the trailer, wherein the camera is responsive to the control
circuit, wherein the camera is operable to capture and wherein the camera is mounted
inside the housing and electrically connected to the data bus for activation in response
to the control circuit via the nose box (as cited in respect to claims 1 and 20 above).
Consider claim 26. The device of claim 22, wherein the red and amber lamps are
mounted in the housing (as cited in respect to claim 7 above).
Consider claim 27. The device of claim 22, comprising: one or more red, white, or
amber strobe lamps operable to flash in response to a collision warning generated by
the control circuit, wherein the one or more strobe lamps are mounted in the housing
(as cited in respect to claim 7 above, such as the flashed of the rear warning lights 98 in
amber/red color, see Gunderson et al, Fig. 7, col. 7, lines 26-65).
Consider claim 28. The device of claim 22, wherein the control circuit includes a
memory and is configured to collect and store sensor data, including time-to-collision
values received via the data bus, from the rear-facing sensor in the memory when the
control circuit emits the warning signal (as cited in respect to claims 1 and 21 above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gunderson et al [US 6,268,803] and Beck et al [US 2025/0197106] and Horn et al [US 2021/0197816] and Florian et al [DE 102018206571 A1] and further in view of Caperell [US 2016/0330593]
Consider claim 13. Gunderson et al fails to disclose wherein the control circuit is
configured to send collision warning notifications to a remote server via that data bus
electrically connected to a communications interface in the trailer nose box. However,
Gunderson et al teaches that the trailer signals to and from the boxes 70 are
wirelessly communicated to the control module 12 of the collision avoidance system via
the Wireless Communicator to detect, measure, and display distance to objects behind
the trailer (see Fig. 8b, col. 10, lines 40-52). The trailer control module 12 generates
alert signals to the rear warning lights 98 (see Figs. 2, 3, col. 4, lines 15-25).
Caperell suggests that the alert system providing the notification to the user is via an
alarm, a text message, a vibration, a change of color screen, a vehicle alarm
system, vehicle lights, vehicle horn, vehicle emergency lights, vehicle turn signals,
a vehicle sound system, or a combination thereof (see para [0013]).
The alert system 100 comprises a wireless transmission signal receiving device 160"
can be located at any area so long as it can communicate with the wireless transmitter
122". For Example, as shown in FIG. 5B, it can be attached to the cabinet 170 or it can
be attached to a wall in a house or an office. The wireless transmission signal receiving
device 160" can be connected to the internet "as a server" via router and/or WiFi
network 165 that can send information to a user 700 phone application (see Figs. 5A,
5B, para [0130]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filed
date of the invention to add or implement the alert system wirelessly communicating
with remote police or user by the Internet or server of Caperell to the programmed
control module with wireless communication of Gunderson et al and Beck et al and Horn et al and Florian et al for providing quickly sending an alert to the remote authority such as police when there is an emergency or collision between the trailer and other object vehicles, since the Internet and server are available to electronic communication devices such as cellular, smart phone and electronic control unit built in the trailer and vehicle.
Claims 14, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gunderson et al [US 6,268,803] and Beck et al [US 2025/0197106] and Horn et al [US 2021/0197816] and Florian et al [DE 102018206571 A1] and further in view of Kutila et al [US 2019/0294167]
Consider claim 14. Gunderson et al fails to disclose wherein the rear-facing sensor
emits electromagnetic energy to detect the following vehicle that has a frequency
ranging between 100 MHz and 100 PHz. However,
Gunderson et al teaches that the sensors 14 are micropower impulse radar (MIR) devices. In one embodiment, MIR devices such as those described in the white paper entitled "Microwave Impulse Radar (MIR) Technology Overview", available from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, are used. The advantage of such devices are
that they are low power and fairly inexpensive. In addition, a single device can be used
as both transmitter 16 and receiver 18, see Figs. 2, 9a-d, col. 3, lines 54-61).
Kutila et al suggests that today, the automotive industry uses radar systems that
operate at 24 GHz or 77 GHz and cameras that operate on visible light and near the
infrared region (see para [0042, 0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filed
date of the invention to substitute the radar systems that operate at 24 GHz or
77 GHz of Kutila et al to the MIR devices of Gunderson et al and Beck et al and Horn et al and Florian et al for operating the MIR devices to minimize and reduce of electromagnetic interference and losing signal caused by surrounding radio electromagnetic signals.
Consider claim 24. The device of claim 22, wherein the rear-facing sensor emits
electromagnetic energy to detect the following vehicle that has a frequency ranging
between 100 MHz and 100 PHz (as the combination between Gunderson et al and Beck et al and Horn et al and Florian et al and Kutila et al in respect to claim 14 above).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gunderson et al [US 6,268,803] and Beck et al [US 2025/0197106] and Horn et al [US 2021/0197816] and Florian et al [DE 102018206571 A1] and further in view of Balton et al [US 2021/0229510]
Consider claim 15. Gunderson et al fails to disclose wherein: the truck trailer includes a metallic ground cable; the data bus includes at least one metallic communications cable; and an aggregate cross-sectional area of the metallic power cable, the metallic ground cable, and each of the metallic communications cable when present, is at least ten percent (10%) less than the about 32 mm? present in a conventional J-560 compliant trailer wiring system calculated as the aggregate of: (i) four metallic 12 AWG cables each with a cross-sectional area of about 3.3 mm/?, (ii) two metallic 10 AWG cables each with a cross-sectional area of about 5.3 mm/?, (iii)one metallic 8 AWG cables each with a cross-sectional area of about 8.4 mm', Totaling the about 32 mm? in aggregate cross-sectional area of metallic cable. However,
Gunderson et al teaches that the systems 10 and 30, information relating to driver performance that is detected with systems 10 and 30 is captured and downloaded
into the on-board computer so that when the fleet owner gets a download from the on-
board computer, it contains additional information provided by systems 10 and 30. So,
with an interface through a single wire cable systems 10 and 30 can tie into the on-
board computer and provide real time information (see Figs. 2, 8a, 8b, col. 8, lines 47-
63, col. 10, lines 18-39).
Balton et al suggests that the tractor trailer 100 in which sensors detect conditions in
one or more detection regions according to one or more embodiments. A first rear
proximity sensor 108a positioned toward a first lateral side 114a on the rear side 110 of
the trailer 104 has a detection region 202 and a second rear proximity sensor 108b
positioned toward a second lateral side 114b on the rear side 110 has a detection
region 204. The powerline communication controller is coupled to receive signals from
the rear proximity sensors 108a and 108b indicating the proximity of objects in the
detection regions 202 and 204 (see Figs. 2, 3, para [0028]). The socket 400 and the
cable 402 conform to one or more industry or government standards, such as the SAE
standards (e.g., J-560, J-1067) and/or ISO standards (see Figs. 4-8, para [0049, 0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filed
date of the invention to use or substitute the standard trailer/truck SAE standard J-560,
J-1056 bus cable of Balton et al to the wire cables of Gunderson et al and Beck et al and Horn et al and Florian et al and Kutila et al for securing and safety to the trailer
and tractor as required by the trailer and truck and government standards.
Consider claim 16. The device of claim 1, wherein the rear-facing sensor is coupled to
the metallic power cable and the data bus by a single connector having at least one
power terminal electrically connected to the power cable, at least two communication
terminals electrically connected to the data bus, and a ground cable electrically
connected to a metallic ground cable of the truck trailer (as the combination between
Gunderson et al and Beck et al and Horn et al and Florian et al and Kutila et al and Balton et al in respect to claim 15 above, and further including a single connector or socket 400, see Balton et al, Figs. 4-8, para [0048-0058]).
Consider claim 17. The device of claim 1, wherein: the nose box includes a master
control circuit that is electrically connected to multiple power terminals of a truck tractor,
the metallic power cable, and a metallic ground cable; the data bus includes at least one
communication cable; and the master control circuit is configured to generate control
commands for controlling the rear-facing sensor and to send the control commands to
the rear-facing sensor via the data bus (as the combination of the data bus cable J-560
between Gunderson et al and Beck et al and Horn et al and Florian et al and Kutila et al and Balton et al in respect to claims 1 and 15 above, and wherein the programmed control module 12 controls guided operation of the two rear-mounted sensors and sequentially commands each transmitting device, which is functionally equivalent to the claimed master control circuit, see Gunderson et al, Figs. 11, 12, claims 17, 24, col. 16, lines 6-27).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gunderson et al and Beck et al [US 2025/0197106] and Horn et al [US 2021/0197816] and Florian et al [DE 102018206571 A1] and further in view of Balton et al [US 2021/0229510] and further in view of Ditty et al [US 2019/0258251]
Consider claim 18. Gunderson et al fails to disclose wherein: the trailer includes
a trailer component connector that is electrically connected to the power, ground, and
the at least one communication cable; the trailer component connector includes a slave
control circuit that is configured to receive the control commands sent by the master
control circuit and to selectively control the rear-facing sensor according to the control
commands; the slave control circuit includes a mode identifier, and the control
commands sent by the master control circuit include a target mode identifier; and
the slave control circuit is configured to compare the target mode identifier in the control
commands with the mode identifier of the slave control circuit, and to activate and
deactivate aspects of the rear-facing sensor when the target mode identifier matches
the mode identifier of the slave control circuit. However,
Gunderson et al teaches that the control module 12 is connected to the detector
digit data signals from the sensors 14, see and to generate an alarm to warn bystanders
that the truck is backing via the rear warning lights 98 (see Figs. 1, 3, 5a, 23, col. 1,
lines 34-35, col. 11, col. 4, lines 15-25, lines 15-21, 27-31).
Ditty et al suggests that the one or more Controllers 100(1)-100(3) provide autonomous
self-driving capabilities in response to signals continuously provided in real-time from an
array of sensors, such as radar and/or lidar sensors 70 disposed at the rear of the
vehicle (see Fig. 4, para [0120, 0141, 0731]). A network inside modern cars used to
control brakes, acceleration, steering, windshield wipers, etc. The CAN bus can be
configured to have dozens of nodes, each with its own unique identifier (CAN ID). In a
preferred embodiment, the CAN network can comprise more than a hundred different
CAN node IDs. The bus can be read to find steering wheel angle, ground speed, engine
RPM, button positions, and other vehicle status indicators. The functional safety level
for a CAN bus interface is typically ASIL B. Other protocols may be used for communicating within a vehicle, including FlexRay and Ethernet (see para [0122]). The
controllers include plurality memories, each pair of memory blocks preferably includes
an Advanced Peripheral Bus ("APB") interface (604), configuration circuitry (605),
Controller (602), and MUX (603). Any type of memory may suffice. The PVA and DLA
masters preferably access the memory through a backbone (406) that provides the
masters with reliable, high-speed access to memory. In one embodiment, the backbone
is a Computer Vision Network-on-Chip ("CVNOC"), that interconnects masters to the
memory. The CVNOC preferably uses APB (408) to connect the CVSRAM (600) to the
PVA (402) and DLA (401) masters. The CVNOC also preferably an interface that
provides that before transmission of any control signal/address/data, both master (either
the PVA or DLA) and slave (CVSRAM) must provide via ready and valid signals. Such
an interface provides for separate phases and separate channels for transmitting control
signal or address and data, as well as burst-type communications for continuous data
transfer. Example implementations incorporate reliability and functional safety features
required to meet automotive ISO 26262 or IEC 61508 standards; other interconnect
standards and protocols may also be used (see Fig. 6, para [0217-0219]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filed
date of the invention to add or substitute the multiple controllers including a master and
slave for controlling to identify CAN network ID of each operation functions such as
components and sensors of Ditty et al to the control module of Gunderson et al and Beck et al and Horn et al and Florian et al and Kutila et al and Balton et al for providing quickly response to the detecting and avoiding of collision, while minimizing of errors, since the references in the field of endeavor of the trailer, truck and/or vehicle controls to avoid of accident or collision with surrounding objects and/or following vehicles.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gunderson et al and Beck et al [US 2025/0197106] and Horn et al [US 2021/0197816] and Florian et al [DE 102018206571 A1] and further in view of Balton et al [US 2021/0229510] and further in view of MacArthur [US 2015/0130607]
Consider claim 19. Gunderson et al fails to disclose wherein a truck coupled to
the trailer includes a truck controller that is in communication with the master control
circuit via a communication link, and wherein the truck controller is configured to
automatically adjust brakes of the truck and trailer, or tension on a seat belt of the truck,
in response to a collision warning received by the truck controller from the master
control circuit.
MacArthur suggests that the programmed microprocessors calculated closing velocity
102 of the trailing vehicle relative to the lead vehicle, comparing the values derived
against a preprogrammed maximum. The system uses the transmitter/receiver signals
generate range measurements, which are then used to calculate the closing velocity of
the trailing vehicle. Closing velocity is used to determine if the trailing vehicle is closing
at an excessive rate that would reduce its ability to timely apply its brakes or brake
pedal 301 and slow or stop prior to a rear-end collision. This is particularly critical at
higher speeds, but is similarly important in low speed traffic where fender benders are
common (see Figs. 2-4, para [0039-0042, 0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filed
date of the invention to use or utilize the programmed microprocessors calculate closing
velocity of the trailing vehicle relative to the lead vehicle for applying brake slow or stop
(as an automated braking system) of MacArthur to the programmable control module of
Gunderson et al and Beck et al and Horn et al and Florian et al and Kutila et al and Balton et al for avoiding and prevention of collision effectively and as to keep a safety space between the driving and the following vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the response, filed 06/23/20206, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-28 under Gunderson et al and Chao et al and Daura Luna have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made of Gunderson et al in view of Beck et al and Horn et al and Florian et al to make the rejection smoother.
Applicant’s arguments:
(A) The cited references do not teach or suggest a rear-facing sensor defining a detection zone extending at least 290 feet behind the trailer.
(B) The cited references do not teach or suggest a sensor receiving power from a metallic power cable that provides more than 18 volts directly to the sensor.
(C) Chao does not teach or suggest determining a collision parameter when the following vehicle is approaching the trailer a closure rate of at least 10 miles per hour,
(D) Each of these claims 14-19, 22 and 24 depends, directly or indirectly, from independent claim 1 or independent claim 22 and incorporates all of the limitations thereof. The additional references (Caperell, Kutila, Balton, Ditty, and MacArthur) were cited for features unrelated to the deficiencies identified above and are not relied upon to cure, and do not cure, those deficiencies. Accordingly, these dependent claims are patentable for at least the reasons set forth above, and further in view of the additional features each recites.
Response to the arguments:
(A) It is obvious to combine, modify and/or substitute the radar sensors to detect objects, pedestrians, vehicles surrounding area behind the truck vehicle between 250-400 feet of Beck et al to the micropower impulse radar MIR sensor and/or Doppler radar sensor of Gunderson et al for providing early and time for a truck vehicle to alert and avoid of an accident or collision with behind or rearward obstacles such as animal, object or vehicle obstruction behind the area/zone of the truck vehicle.
(B) It is obvious to combine, modify and/or implement the vehicle electrical system to connect and provide 12V, 24V or 48V to the sensor module of Florian et al to the cable and/or two-wire cable connects battery from the trailer to provide power to the electronic
circuitry and truck's electrical system and trailer and sensors via a connector arrangement of Gunderson et al for providing secured cables and wires arrangement to provide sufficient electric power or voltages to one or more particular sensors as designed and to prevent of malfunction, and wherein the vehicle multicore wiring, as a cabling or flat multicore cable is functionally as the data bus cable to carry power lines and other communication lines.
(C) It is obvious to combine, modify and/or implement the determine the approaching rear vehicle at a selected speed between 5, 15 and 20 miles per hour before the impact or collision of Horn et al to the control module of Gunderson et al for providing early warning to avoid of impact or collision based on the detection data information such as relative distances, relative speed and time between the front/host vehicle and the rear approaching vehicle while to minimize of false alarms.
(D) The dependent claims 14-19, 22 and 24 are obvious to combine with their respective references and obviously to the independent claim 1 discussed above.
Conclusion
Examiner is very regrettable to introduce a new Non-Final rejection based on the update search to maker the rejection smoother.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from 99number is (571) 2722972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached on (571) 272-3114.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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.
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 http://pair- direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/VAN T TRIEU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
07/01/2026
Prosecution Insights