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 Arguments
Applicant Amendments and Remarks filed on 5/13/2026 in response to the Non-Final office action mailed on 12/17/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103: With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, Applicant has amended the independent claims and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application. Therefore, the Office has supplied new grounds of rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “selecting as the physical condition to be modified ride height of at least one air bag on the at least one trailer or a steering angle of a steerable axle of the at least one trailer” in claims 1 and 11 is unclear due to missing commas. Examiner suggests to amend the limitation as “selecting, as the physical condition to be modified, a ride height of at least one air bag on the at least one trailer or a steering angle of a steerable axle of the at least one trailer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2021/0370922 A1) in view of Stender et al. (DE 102012004290 A1, hereinafter “Stender”). The rejections below are based on the machine translation of Stender, a copy of which is attached to this Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form.
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a computer system of a tractor operating in an autonomous mode (Smith at para. [0002]: “The technology relates to articulated autonomous vehicles”; para. [0026]: “FIGS. 1A-B illustrate an example cargo vehicle 100, such as a tractor-trailer truck”), trailer sensor data from a plurality of trailer sensors located on at least one trailer, the at least one trailer being coupled to the tractor (Smith at para. [0028]: “the tractor and/or trailer may have one or more sensor units 112, 114 and 116 disposed therealong”), wherein the trailer sensor data comprises location data indicating a location of the at least one trailer in a lane (Smith at para. [0029]: “each sensor unit may include one or more sensors, such as lidar, radar, camera ( e.g., optical or infrared), acoustical (e.g., microphone or sonar type sensor), pressure (e.g., piezoelectric or mechanical), inertial (e.g., accelerometer, gyroscope, etc.) or other sensors (e.g., positioning sensors such as GPS sensors)”; para. [0060]: “the system may evaluate one or more of the poses of the tractor and the trailer ( e.g., with respect to their relative angle to one another), a time rate of change of the relative angle of different vehicle sections, a relative roll angle between the tractor and the trailer, etc. This provides contextual information about how different parts of the vehicle are currently behaving while driving along the roadway”; The sensor on the trailer provides the location of the trailer on the roadway (i.e. “location data indicating a location of the at least one trailer in a lane”));
receiving, at the computer system, road condition data from at least one sensor, the at least one sensor being located on at least one of the tractor and the at least one trailer (Smith at para. [0028]: “the tractor and/or trailer may have one or more sensor units 112, 114 and 116 disposed therealong”; para. [0039]: “the sensors may detect road conditions, like standing water, ice, or potholes, as well as the positions and orientations (pose) of different parts of the vehicle”; para. [0041]: “The raw data from the sensors and the aforementioned characteristics can be processed by the perception system 224 and/or sent for further processing to the computing devices 202 periodically or continuously as the data is generated by the perception system 224”),
identifying, via at least one processor of the computer system and based on the trailer sensor data and the road condition data, a physical condition of the at least one trailer to be modified (Smith at para. [0060]: “the system may evaluate one or more of the poses of the tractor and the trailer ( e.g., with respect to their relative angle to one another), a time rate of change of the relative angle of different vehicle sections, a relative roll angle between the tractor and the trailer, etc. This provides contextual information about how different parts of the vehicle are currently behaving while driving along the roadway”; para. [0061]: “The control system also evaluates the expected vehicle operation based on the planned route and/or vehicle trajectory. This can include analyzing a current segment of the route based on map information, a model of the vehicle, driving commands, weather information, and desired vehicle state”) by determining, based on the location data and the angle or camber of the road surface, that the at least one trailer is tracking toward an edge of the lane or is positioned unevenly within the lane (Smith at para. [0061]: “The control system also evaluates the expected vehicle operation based on the planned route and/or vehicle trajectory. This can include analyzing a current segment of the route based on map information, a model of the vehicle, driving commands, weather information, and desired vehicle state”; para. [0062]: “the planner module may factor in the model along with road shape ( e.g., straight or curved), incline or decline angle”; para. [0064]: “If the expectation does not match the actual information, or deviates beyond some threshold amount, then the system may determine that the vehicle is currently in a jackknifing situation or may shortly encounter a jackknifing situation”; The jackknifing situation indicates that the trailer is in an angular or uneven position (i.e., “positioned unevenly within the lane”)),
modifying, via an electrical signal transmitted from the computer system, the physical condition (Smith at para. [0061]: “Driving commands may include commands to any of the deceleration system ( e.g., an amount of braking to reduce the vehicle's speed to a selected speed), acceleration system (e.g., to increase the vehicle's speed to a selected speed), steering system ( e.g., to turn left or right by a determined amount to account for a curve in the roadway, exit or enter a freeway, change lanes, etc.), transmission system ( e.g., to shift gears based on an incline or decline in the roadway) or other vehicle systems” “The desired vehicle state can include, e.g., the planned speed and/or vehicle pose for the current road segment”) to center the at least one trailer within the lane (Smith at para. [0001]: “either the tractor or the trailer may swing around the articulation point (e.g., the fifth-wheel), which can result in a lane departure”; para. [0002]: “When the evaluation indicates a likelihood of jackknifing, an automated braking approach is implemented in which selective braking is used to stabilize the vehicle. The braking approach can depend on whether the situation involves tractor jackknifing or trailer jackknifing”; The purpose of the embodiments disclosed in Smith is to prevent the lane departure (i.e., “to center the at least one trailer within the lane”)).
However, Smith does not explicitly state:
wherein the road condition data comprises an angle or camber of a road surface;
selecting as the physical condition to be modified ride height of at least one air bag on the at least one trailer or a steering angle of a steerable axle of the at least one trailer.
In the same field of endeavor, Stender teaches:
wherein the road condition data comprises an angle or camber of a road surface (Stender at para. [0018]: “the detected reference variable is one of the following variables or a combination of a plurality of the following variables: • a) a sensorially detected value of the roadway gradient”);
selecting as the physical condition to be modified ride height of at least one air bag on the at least one trailer or a steering angle of a steerable axle of the at least one trailer (Stender at para. [0008]: “An air-sprung axle is understood to mean a vehicle axle which is supported with respect to the structure of the trailer vehicle via one or more air-suspension bellows and is therefore air-sprung. A lift axle can also be designed as an air-sprung axle”; [0032]: “The axles 7, 8, 9 can each be designed as a lift axle, a tow axle, an air-sprung axle or an air-sprung lift Axle”; para. [0034]: “the electronic control device 20 controls the axle loads 16, 17, 18 of the axles 7, 8, 9 in such a way that the axle load 14 of the drive axles 5, 6 is increased when a roadway 3 rising in the direction of travel is detected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith by adding the road condition data of Stender with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender is to provide trailer axle load distribution for stability.
Regarding claim 6, Smith in view of Stender teaches the method of claim 1.
Smith further discloses wherein the trailer sensor data comprises data indicating unstable movement of the at least one trailer within the lane (Smith at para. [0050]: “these sensors may be used to determine the vehicle's actual pose including, e.g., the orientation of the trailer with respect to the tractor unit of a cargo vehicle” “This can include orientation information about the state of different sections of the vehicle (e.g., tractor or trailer) in terms of position, roll, pitch, yaw, and associated time derivatives of such state information”; The trailer pose information of the trailer on the roadway indicates “unstable movement of the at least one trailer within the lane”), and wherein the modifying of the physical condition comprises applying brake pressure at a given wheel end of the at least one trailer to straighten out a load and keep the at least one trailer centered within the lane (Smith at para. [0059]: “depending on whether the situation is tractor or trailer jackknifing, the onboard autonomous control system is able to modulate or otherwise independently control the trailer brake system (e.g., deceleration system 262 of FIG. 2B) using current trailer state information from the sensors ( e.g., perception systems 224 and/or 268 of FIGS. 2A and 2B) and the intended trailer state ( e.g., from the planner module 223 and/or navigation system 220 of FIG. 2A)”; The purpose of controlling the trailer brake system (i.e., “applying brake pressure at a given wheel end of the at least one trailer”) is to prevent, reduce, or eliminate jackknifing (i.e., “to straighten out a load and keep the at least one trailer centered within the lane”)).
Regarding claim 7, Smith in view of Stender teaches the method of claim 1.
Smith further discloses wherein the tractor is configured to operate in both a manual mode and the autonomous mode (Smith at para. [0026]: “the tractor unit 102 includes the engine and steering systems (not shown) and a cab 106 for a driver and any passengers. In a fully autonomous arrangement, the cab 106 may not be equipped with seats or manual driving components, since no person may be necessary”).
Regarding claim 8, Smith in view of Stender teaches the method of claim 1.
Smith further discloses wherein the receiving of the trailer sensor data, the receiving of the road condition data, the identifying of the physical condition, and the modifying of the physical condition occur while the tractor and the at least one trailer are in transit (Smith at para. [0061]: “Driving commands may include commands to any of the deceleration system ( e.g., an amount of braking to reduce the vehicle's speed to a selected speed), acceleration system (e.g., to increase the vehicle's speed to a selected speed), steering system ( e.g., to turn left or right by a determined amount to account for a curve in the roadway, exit or enter a freeway, change lanes, etc.), transmission system ( e.g., to shift gears based on an incline or decline in the roadway) or other vehicle systems” “The desired vehicle state can include, e.g., the planned speed and/or vehicle pose for the current road segment”; Driving commands necessarily modify the physical condition occur while the tractor-trailer truck is driving (i.e., “in transit”)).
Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses an articulated vehicle comprising:
a tractor operating in an autonomous mode (Smith at para. [0002]: “The technology relates to articulated autonomous vehicles”; para. [0026]: “FIGS. 1A-B illustrate an example cargo vehicle 100, such as a tractor-trailer truck”);
at least one trailer coupled to the tractor (Smith at para. [0026]: “FIGS. 1A-B illustrate an example cargo vehicle 100, such as a tractor-trailer truck”);
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by the at least one processor (Smith at FIG. 2A and para. [0031]: “the block diagram 200 includes a control system having one or more computing devices 202. The control system may constitute an electronic control unit (ECU) of a tractor unit of the cargo vehicle 100. The computing devices 202 contain one or more processors 204, memory 206 and other components typically present in general purpose computing devices”), cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving trailer sensor data from a plurality of trailer sensors located on the at least one trailer (Smith at para. [0028]: “the tractor and/or trailer may have one or more sensor units 112, 114 and 116 disposed therealong”), wherein the trailer sensor data comprises location data indicating a location of the at least one trailer in a lane (Smith at para. [0029]: “each sensor unit may include one or more sensors, such as lidar, radar, camera ( e.g., optical or infrared), acoustical (e.g., microphone or sonar type sensor), pressure (e.g., piezoelectric or mechanical), inertial (e.g., accelerometer, gyroscope, etc.) or other sensors (e.g., positioning sensors such as GPS sensors)”; para. [0060]: “the system may evaluate one or more of the poses of the tractor and the trailer ( e.g., with respect to their relative angle to one another), a time rate of change of the relative angle of different vehicle sections, a relative roll angle between the tractor and the trailer, etc. This provides contextual information about how different parts of the vehicle are currently behaving while driving along the roadway”; The sensor on the trailer provides the location of the trailer on the roadway (i.e. “location data indicating a location of the at least one trailer in a lane”));
receiving road condition data from at least one sensor, the at least one sensor being located on at least one of the tractor and the at least one trailer (Smith at para. [0028]: “the tractor and/or trailer may have one or more sensor units 112, 114 and 116 disposed therealong”; para. [0039]: “the sensors may detect road conditions, like standing water, ice, or potholes, as well as the positions and orientations (pose) of different parts of the vehicle”; para. [0041]: “The raw data from the sensors and the aforementioned characteristics can be processed by the perception system 224 and/or sent for further processing to the computing devices 202 periodically or continuously as the data is generated by the perception system 224”),
identifying, based on the trailer sensor data and the road condition data, a physical condition of the at least one trailer to be modified (Smith at para. [0060]: “the system may evaluate one or more of the poses of the tractor and the trailer ( e.g., with respect to their relative angle to one another), a time rate of change of the relative angle of different vehicle sections, a relative roll angle between the tractor and the trailer, etc. This provides contextual information about how different parts of the vehicle are currently behaving while driving along the roadway”; para. [0061]: “The control system also evaluates the expected vehicle operation based on the planned route and/or vehicle trajectory. This can include analyzing a current segment of the route based on map information, a model of the vehicle, driving commands, weather information, and desired vehicle state”) by determining, based on the location data and the angle or camber of the road surface, that the at least one trailer is tracking toward an edge of the lane or is positioned unevenly within the lane (Smith at para. [0061]: “The control system also evaluates the expected vehicle operation based on the planned route and/or vehicle trajectory. This can include analyzing a current segment of the route based on map information, a model of the vehicle, driving commands, weather information, and desired vehicle state”; para. [0062]: “the planner module may factor in the model along with road shape ( e.g., straight or curved), incline or decline angle”; para. [0064]: “If the expectation does not match the actual information, or deviates beyond some threshold amount, then the system may determine that the vehicle is currently in a jackknifing situation or may shortly encounter a jackknifing situation”; The jackknifing situation indicates that the trailer is in an angular or uneven position (i.e., “positioned unevenly within the lane”)), and
modifying, via a transmitted electrical signal, the physical condition (Smith at para. [0061]: “Driving commands may include commands to any of the deceleration system ( e.g., an amount of braking to reduce the vehicle's speed to a selected speed), acceleration system (e.g., to increase the vehicle's speed to a selected speed), steering system ( e.g., to turn left or right by a determined amount to account for a curve in the roadway, exit or enter a freeway, change lanes, etc.), transmission system ( e.g., to shift gears based on an incline or decline in the roadway) or other vehicle systems” “The desired vehicle state can include, e.g., the planned speed and/or vehicle pose for the current road segment”) to center the at least one trailer within the lane (Smith at para. [0001]: “either the tractor or the trailer may swing around the articulation point (e.g., the fifth-wheel), which can result in a lane departure”; para. [0002]: “When the evaluation indicates a likelihood of jackknifing, an automated braking approach is implemented in which selective braking is used to stabilize the vehicle. The braking approach can depend on whether the situation involves tractor jackknifing or trailer jackknifing”; The purpose of the embodiments disclosed in Smith is to prevent the lane departure (i.e., “to center the at least one trailer within the lane”)).
However, Smith does not explicitly state:
wherein the road condition data comprises an angle or camber of a road surface;
selecting as the physical condition to be modified ride height of at least one air bag on the at least one trailer or a steering angle of a steerable axle of the at least one trailer.
In the same field of endeavor, Stender teaches:
wherein the road condition data comprises an angle or camber of a road surface (Stender at para. [0018]: “the detected reference variable is one of the following variables or a combination of a plurality of the following variables: • a) a sensorially detected value of the roadway gradient”);
selecting as the physical condition to be modified ride height of at least one air bag on the at least one trailer or a steering angle of a steerable axle of the at least one trailer (Stender at para. [0008]: “An air-sprung axle is understood to mean a vehicle axle which is supported with respect to the structure of the trailer vehicle via one or more air-suspension bellows and is therefore air-sprung. A lift axle can also be designed as an air-sprung axle”; [0032]: “The axles 7, 8, 9 can each be designed as a lift axle, a tow axle, an air-sprung axle or an air-sprung lift Axle”; para. [0034]: “the electronic control device 20 controls the axle loads 16, 17, 18 of the axles 7, 8, 9 in such a way that the axle load 14 of the drive axles 5, 6 is increased when a roadway 3 rising in the direction of travel is detected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Smith by adding the road condition data of Stender with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender is to provide trailer axle load distribution for stability.
Regarding claim 16, Smith in view of Stender teaches the articulated vehicle of claim 11.
Smith further discloses Smith further discloses wherein the trailer sensor data comprises data indicating unstable movement of the at least one trailer within the lane (Smith at para. [0050]: “these sensors may be used to determine the vehicle's actual pose including, e.g., the orientation of the trailer with respect to the tractor unit of a cargo vehicle” “This can include orientation information about the state of different sections of the vehicle (e.g., tractor or trailer) in terms of position, roll, pitch, yaw, and associated time derivatives of such state information”; The trailer pose information of the trailer on the roadway indicates “unstable movement of the at least one trailer within the lane”), and wherein the modifying of the physical condition comprises applying brake pressure at a given wheel end of the at least one trailer to straighten out a load and keep the at least one trailer centered within the lane (Smith at para. [0059]: “depending on whether the situation is tractor or trailer jackknifing, the onboard autonomous control system is able to modulate or otherwise independently control the trailer brake system (e.g., deceleration system 262 of FIG. 2B) using current trailer state information from the sensors ( e.g., perception systems 224 and/or 268 of FIGS. 2A and 2B) and the intended trailer state ( e.g., from the planner module 223 and/or navigation system 220 of FIG. 2A)”; The purpose of controlling the trailer brake system (i.e., “applying brake pressure at a given wheel end of the at least one trailer”) is to prevent, reduce, or eliminate jackknifing (i.e., “to straighten out a load and keep the at least one trailer centered within the lane”)).
Regarding claim 17, Smith in view of Stender teaches the articulated vehicle of claim 11.
Smith further discloses wherein the tractor is configured to operate in both a manual mode and the autonomous mode (Smith at para. [0026]: “the tractor unit 102 includes the engine and steering systems (not shown) and a cab 106 for a driver and any passengers. In a fully autonomous arrangement, the cab 106 may not be equipped with seats or manual driving components, since no person may be necessary”).
Regarding claim 18, Smith in view of Stender teaches the articulated vehicle of claim 11.
Smith further discloses wherein the receiving of the trailer sensor data, the receiving of the road condition data, the identifying of the physical condition, and the modifying of the physical condition occur while the tractor and the at least one trailer are in transit (Smith at para. [0061]: “Driving commands may include commands to any of the deceleration system ( e.g., an amount of braking to reduce the vehicle's speed to a selected speed), acceleration system (e.g., to increase the vehicle's speed to a selected speed), steering system ( e.g., to turn left or right by a determined amount to account for a curve in the roadway, exit or enter a freeway, change lanes, etc.), transmission system ( e.g., to shift gears based on an incline or decline in the roadway) or other vehicle systems” “The desired vehicle state can include, e.g., the planned speed and/or vehicle pose for the current road segment”; Driving commands necessarily modify the physical condition occur while the tractor-trailer truck is driving (i.e., “in transit”)).
Claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Stender teaches further in view of Nishikubo (US 2021/0120728 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Smith in view of Stender teaches the method of claim 1.
Smith further discloses wherein the plurality of trailer sensors are mounted to the at least one trailer (Smith at para. [0028]: “The trailer 104 may also have one or more sensor units 116 disposed therealong, for instance along a side panel, front, rear, roof and/or undercarriage of the trailer 104”).
However, Smith in view of Stender does not explicitly state using at least one sensor rail, where each sensor rail can be removably coupled to the at least one trailer.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishikubo teaches using at least one sensor rail, where each sensor rail can be removably coupled to the at least one trailer (Nishikubo at para. [0076]: “a position changer mechanism 80 that can change the position of the obstacle detector device 45; para. [0078]: “The position changer mechanism 80 includes a first support arm 101 and a second support arm 102”; para. [0079]: “the lock pin 103 can be inserted into the other through-hole. The lock pin 103 is a pin that can be inserted and removed from the through hole”; The limitation “can” only indicates possibility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender by adding the sensor rail of Nishikubo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
Regarding claim 3, Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo teaches the method of claim 2.
Nishikubo further teaches further comprising: transmitting, from the computer system to a trailer sensor within the plurality of trailer sensors, a command to change location on a sensor rail within the at least one sensor rail (Nishikubo at para. [0095]: “The motor 233 is fixed to the first support arm 201 and rotates the feeder screw 231. According to this configuration, the obstacle detector device 45 can be relocated to any detection position Q1 by rotating the feeder screw 231 forward or reverse by the motor 233”; para. [0097]: “As shown in FIG. 17B, a list of registered detection positions Q1 is displayed on the display device 70, and the operator selects a plurality of detection positions Q1 by operating the display device 70” “The position changer mechanism 180 may automatically change the detection position Q1 according to the width of the working device (implement) mounted on the tractor 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo by adding the command of Nishikubo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
Regarding claim 5, Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo teaches the method of claim 2.
Nishikubo further teaches wherein the at least one sensor rail is removably coupled to the at least one trailer in a horizontal configuration, with a first end of the at least one sensor rail located laterally to a second end of the at least one sensor rail (Nishikubo at para. [0090]: “when the third support arm 203 is inserted into the first support arm 201, the third support arm 203 holds the laser scanner 45A and sonar 45B so that the irradiation line L1 of the laser scanner 45A and sonar 45B is in an abbreviated horizontal direction”; para. [0091]: “plurality of through holes 202 are provided at predetermined intervals in the longitudinal direction (width direction) in each of the first support arm 201 and the second support arm 102, and the lock pin 213 can be inserted into the through hole 202”; The support arms are removable by decoupling the lock pin from the through hole).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo by adding the horizontal configuration of Nishikubo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
Regarding claim 12, Smith in view of Stender teaches the articulated vehicle of claim 11.
Smith further discloses wherein the plurality of trailer sensors are mounted to the at least one trailer (Smith at para. [0028]: “The trailer 104 may also have one or more sensor units 116 disposed therealong, for instance along a side panel, front, rear, roof and/or undercarriage of the trailer 104”).
However, Smith in view of Stender does not explicitly state using at least one sensor rail, where each sensor rail can be removably coupled to the at least one trailer.
In the same field of endeavor, Nishikubo teaches using at least one sensor rail, where each sensor rail can be removably coupled to the at least one trailer (Nishikubo at para. [0076]: “a position changer mechanism 80 that can change the position of the obstacle detector device 45; para. [0078]: “The position changer mechanism 80 includes a first support arm 101 and a second support arm 102”; para. [0079]: “the lock pin 103 can be inserted into the other through-hole. The lock pin 103 is a pin that can be inserted and removed from the through hole”; The limitation “can” only indicates possibility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender by adding the sensor rail of Nishikubo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
Regarding claim 13, Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo teaches the articulated vehicle of claim 12.
Smith further discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having additional instructions stored which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform additional operations comprising (Smith at FIG. 2A and para. [0031]: “the block diagram 200 includes a control system having one or more computing devices 202. The control system may constitute an electronic control unit (ECU) of a tractor unit of the cargo vehicle 100. The computing devices 202 contain one or more processors 204, memory 206 and other components typically present in general purpose computing devices”):
Nishikubo further teaches transmitting, to a trailer sensor within the plurality of trailer sensors, a command to change location on a sensor rail within the at least one sensor rail (Nishikubo at para. [0095]: “The motor 233 is fixed to the first support arm 201 and rotates the feeder screw 231. According to this configuration, the obstacle detector device 45 can be relocated to any detection position Q1 by rotating the feeder screw 231 forward or reverse by the motor 233”; para. [0097]: “As shown in FIG. 17B, a list of registered detection positions Q1 is displayed on the display device 70, and the operator selects a plurality of detection positions Q1 by operating the display device 70” “The position changer mechanism 180 may automatically change the detection position Q1 according to the width of the working device (implement) mounted on the tractor 1”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo by adding the command of Nishikubo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
Regarding claim 15, Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo teaches the articulated vehicle of claim 12.
Nishikubo further teaches wherein the at least one sensor rail is removably coupled to the at least one trailer in a horizontal configuration, with a first end of the at least one sensor rail located laterally to a second end of the at least one sensor rail (Nishikubo at para. [0090]: “when the third support arm 203 is inserted into the first support arm 201, the third support arm 203 holds the laser scanner 45A and sonar 45B so that the irradiation line L1 of the laser scanner 45A and sonar 45B is in an abbreviated horizontal direction”; para. [0091]: “plurality of through holes 202 are provided at predetermined intervals in the longitudinal direction (width direction) in each of the first support arm 201 and the second support arm 102, and the lock pin 213 can be inserted into the through hole 202”; The support arms are removable by decoupling the lock pin from the through hole).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo by adding the horizontal configuration of Nishikubo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo and Rogers et al. (US 2011/0241377 A1, hereinafter “Rogers”).
Regarding claim 4, Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo teaches the method of claim 2.
Nishikubo further teaches wherein the at least one sensor rail is removably coupled to the at least one trailer (Nishikubo at para. [0090]: “when the third support arm 203 is inserted into the first support arm 201, the third support arm 203 holds the laser scanner 45A and sonar 45B so that the irradiation line L1 of the laser scanner 45A and sonar 45B is in an abbreviated horizontal direction”; para. [0091]: “plurality of through holes 202 are provided at predetermined intervals in the longitudinal direction (width direction) in each of the first support arm 201 and the second support arm 102, and the lock pin 213 can be inserted into the through hole 202”; The support arms are removable by decoupling the lock pin from the through hole).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo by adding the sensor rail of Nishikubo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
However, Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo does not explicitly state in a vertical configuration, with a first end of the at least one sensor rail located directly above a second end of the at least one sensor rail.
In the same field of endeavor, Rogers teaches in a vertical configuration, with a first end of the at least one sensor rail located directly above a second end of the at least one sensor rail (Rogers at para. [0061]: “an array of sensors comprises a set of sensors 20C comprising a plurality of pressure sensors aligned in a vertical line at the corner 78 of the trailer. In addition, another set of plural sensors 20D are aligned in a vertical line along the corner 80 of the trailer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo by adding the vertical configuration of Rogers with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo and Rogers is to provide optimized sensor arrangement.
Regarding claim 14, Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo teaches the articulated vehicle of claim 12.
Nishikubo further teaches wherein the at least one sensor rail is removably coupled to the at least one trailer (Nishikubo at para. [0090]: “when the third support arm 203 is inserted into the first support arm 201, the third support arm 203 holds the laser scanner 45A and sonar 45B so that the irradiation line L1 of the laser scanner 45A and sonar 45B is in an abbreviated horizontal direction”; para. [0091]: “plurality of through holes 202 are provided at predetermined intervals in the longitudinal direction (width direction) in each of the first support arm 201 and the second support arm 102, and the lock pin 213 can be inserted into the through hole 202”; The support arms are removable by decoupling the lock pin from the through hole).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo by adding the sensor rail of Nishikubo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
However, Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo does not explicitly state in a vertical configuration, with a first end of the at least one sensor rail located directly above a second end of the at least one sensor rail.
In the same field of endeavor, Rogers teaches in a vertical configuration, with a first end of the at least one sensor rail located directly above a second end of the at least one sensor rail (Rogers at para. [0061]: “an array of sensors comprises a set of sensors 20C comprising a plurality of pressure sensors aligned in a vertical line at the corner 78 of the trailer. In addition, another set of plural sensors 20D are aligned in a vertical line along the corner 80 of the trailer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo by adding the vertical configuration of Rogers with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Nishikubo and Rogers is to provide optimized sensor arrangement.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Vaughan et al. (US 10,093,145 B1, hereinafter “Vaughan”) further in view of Cook et al. (US 2017/0113745 A1, hereinafter “Cook”).
Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses a method comprising: receiving, at a computer system of a tractor operating in an autonomous mode (Smith at para. [0002]: “The technology relates to articulated autonomous vehicles”; para. [0026]: “FIGS. 1A-B illustrate an example cargo vehicle 100, such as a tractor-trailer truck”), trailer sensor data from a plurality of trailer sensors located on at least one trailer (Smith at para. [0028]: “the tractor and/or trailer may have one or more sensor units 112, 114 and 116 disposed therealong”), the at least one trailer being coupled to the tractor (Smith at para. [0026]: “the truck includes a tractor unit 102 and a single cargo unit or trailer 104”), (Smith at para. [0028]: “the tractor and/or trailer may have one or more sensor units 112, 114 and 116 disposed therealong”; para. [0039]: “the sensors may detect road conditions, like standing water, ice, or potholes, as well as the positions and orientations (pose) of different parts of the vehicle”), wherein the road condition data comprises forward- facing camera data (Smith at para. [0050]: “Depending on the configuration, certain types of sensors may include multiple individual sensors with overlapping fields of view. Alternatively or additionally, other sensors may provide redundant 360° fields of view”; para. [0052]: “These and other sensors can detect not only the location of objects in the environment, but also their height and other information as well” “The sensor assembly may include one or more lidar, radar, camera or other sensors therein”).
However, Smith does not explicitly state:
wherein the trailer sensor data comprises height data of the at least one trailer,
wherein the road condition data comprises forward- facing camera data regarding an upcoming overpass and ground-clearance data for the upcoming overpass,
identifying, via at least one processor of the computer system and based on the trailer sensor data and the road condition data, a physical condition of the at least one trailer to be modified, including determining, based on the height data and the ground-clearance data for the upcoming overpass, that the at least one trailer will not clear the upcoming overpass; and
modifying, via an electrical signal transmitted from the computer system, the physical condition by lowering trailer suspension or adjusting ride height of an air bag on the at least one trailer while the tractor and the at least one trailer are in transit.
In the same field of endeavor, Vaughan teaches:
wherein the trailer sensor data comprises height data of the at least one trailer (Vaughan at col. 3, ln. 64 - col. 4, ln. 2: “The air management system may include one or more leveling sensors. Each leveling sensor may be configured to detect a vehicle height relative to the axle along a position of the vehicle and transmit the detected vehicle height to the control module as a vehicle leveling input”; col. 35, ln. 59-61: “All the configurations of the air management systems described herein may be incorporated with any type of vehicle, trailer”),
modifying, via an electrical signal transmitted from the computer system, the physical condition by lowering trailer suspension or adjusting ride height of an air bag on the at least one trailer while the tractor and the at least one trailer are in transit (Vaughan at col. 5, ln. 7-11: “The present invention may include a method for adjusting air pressure of an air management system of a vehicle comprising one or more air supply tanks, a first pneumatic circuit disposed on a first side of the vehicle, and a second pneumatic circuit disposed on a second side of the vehicle”; col. 21, ln. 62-64: “the controller may transmit commands to the leveling valve to operate in an active mode at any vehicle speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith by adding the height data of Vaughan with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Vaughan is to provide optimal stability for trailers.
However, Smith in view of Vaughan does not explicitly state:
wherein the road condition data comprises forward- facing camera data regarding an upcoming overpass and ground-clearance data for the upcoming overpass,
identifying, via at least one processor of the computer system and based on the trailer sensor data and the road condition data, a physical condition of the at least one trailer to be modified, including determining, based on the height data and the ground-clearance data for the upcoming overpass, that the at least one trailer will not clear the upcoming overpass.
In the same field of endeavor, Cook teaches:
wherein the road condition data comprises forward- facing camera data regarding an upcoming overpass and ground-clearance data for the upcoming overpass (Cook at para. [0040]: “Controller 56 also has data storage 70 for travel route data including overpass locations and their height clearances”),
identifying, via at least one processor of the computer system and based on the trailer sensor data and the road condition data, a physical condition of the at least one trailer to be modified, including determining, based on the height data and the ground-clearance data for the upcoming overpass, that the at least one trailer will not clear the upcoming overpass (Cook at para. [0037]: “If a particular overpass 62 is found to provide insufficient clearance and the particular setting of ride height adjustment system 44 would allow further reduction in ride height setting in a direction toward the minimum limit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith in view of Vaughan by adding the data regarding the upcoming overpass of Cook with a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically, it is obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the source of data (e.g., a sensor data, a route data, a map data, or the like) for obtaining the road condition data. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Vaughan further in view of Cook is to adjust trailer height to avoid collision with an overpass.
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses an articulated vehicle comprising: a tractor operating in an autonomous mode (Smith at para. [0002]: “The technology relates to articulated autonomous vehicles”; para. [0026]: “FIGS. 1A-B illustrate an example cargo vehicle 100, such as a tractor-trailer truck”); at least one trailer coupled to the tractor (Smith at para. [0026]: “the truck includes a tractor unit 102 and a single cargo unit or trailer 104”); at least one processor; and anon- transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: receiving trailer sensor data from a plurality of trailer sensors located on the at least one trailer (Smith at para. [0028]: “the tractor and/or trailer may have one or more sensor units 112, 114 and 116 disposed therealong”), (Smith at para. [0028]: “the tractor and/or trailer may have one or more sensor units 112, 114 and 116 disposed therealong”; para. [0039]: “the sensors may detect road conditions, like standing water, ice, or potholes, as well as the positions and orientations (pose) of different parts of the vehicle”), wherein the road condition data comprises forward-facing camera data (Smith at para. [0050]: “Depending on the configuration, certain types of sensors may include multiple individual sensors with overlapping fields of view. Alternatively or additionally, other sensors may provide redundant 360° fields of view”; para. [0052]: “These and other sensors can detect not only the location of objects in the environment, but also their height and other information as well” “The sensor assembly may include one or more lidar, radar, camera or other sensors therein”).
However, Smith does not explicitly state:
wherein the trailer sensor data comprises height data of the at least one trailer,
wherein the road condition data comprises forward-facing camera data regarding an upcoming overpass and ground-clearance data for the upcoming overpass,
identifying, based on the trailer sensor data and the road condition data, a physical condition of the at least one trailer to be modified, including determining, based on the height data and the ground-clearance data for the upcoming overpass, that the at least one trailer will not clear the upcoming overpass; and
modifying, via a transmitted electrical signal, the physical condition by lowering trailer suspension or adjusting ride height of an air bag on the at least one trailer while the tractor and the at least one trailer are in transit.
In the same field of endeavor, Vaughan teaches:
wherein the trailer sensor data comprises height data of the at least one trailer (Vaughan at col. 3, ln. 64 - col. 4, ln. 2: “The air management system may include one or more leveling sensors. Each leveling sensor may be configured to detect a vehicle height relative to the axle along a position of the vehicle and transmit the detected vehicle height to the control module as a vehicle leveling input”; col. 35, ln. 59-61: “All the configurations of the air management systems described herein may be incorporated with any type of vehicle, trailer”),
modifying, via a transmitted electrical signal, the physical condition by lowering trailer suspension or adjusting ride height of an air bag on the at least one trailer while the tractor and the at least one trailer are in transit (Vaughan at col. 5, ln. 7-11: “The present invention may include a method for adjusting air pressure of an air management system of a vehicle comprising one or more air supply tanks, a first pneumatic circuit disposed on a first side of the vehicle, and a second pneumatic circuit disposed on a second side of the vehicle”; col. 21, ln. 62-64: “the controller may transmit commands to the leveling valve to operate in an active mode at any vehicle speed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Smith by adding the height data of Vaughan with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Vaughan is to provide optimal stability for trailers.
However, Smith in view of Vaughan does not explicitly state:
wherein the road condition data comprises forward-facing camera data regarding an upcoming overpass and ground-clearance data for the upcoming overpass,
identifying, based on the trailer sensor data and the road condition data, a physical condition of the at least one trailer to be modified, including determining, based on the height data and the ground-clearance data for the upcoming overpass, that the at least one trailer will not clear the upcoming overpass.
In the same field of endeavor, Cook teaches:
wherein the road condition data comprises forward-facing camera data regarding an upcoming overpass and ground-clearance data for the upcoming overpass (Cook at para. [0040]: “Controller 56 also has data storage 70 for travel route data including overpass locations and their height clearances”),
identifying, based on the trailer sensor data and the road condition data, a physical condition of the at least one trailer to be modified, including determining, based on the height data and the ground-clearance data for the upcoming overpass, that the at least one trailer will not clear the upcoming overpass (Cook at para. [0037]: “If a particular overpass 62 is found to provide insufficient clearance and the particular setting of ride height adjustment system 44 would allow further reduction in ride height setting in a direction toward the minimum limit”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Vaughan by adding the data regarding the upcoming overpass of Cook with a reasonable expectation of success. Specifically, it is obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the source of data (e.g., a sensor data, a route data, a map data, or the like) for obtaining the road condition data. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Vaughan further in view of Cook is to adjust trailer height to avoid collision with an overpass.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Stender further in view of Hanchett et al. (US 2022/0258616 A1, hereinafter “Hanchett”) and Straub et al. (EP 3922524 A1, hereinafter “Straub”).
Regarding claim 10, Smith in view of Stender teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Smith in view of Stender does not explicitly state wherein the road condition data comprises wind data for winds hitting the at least one trailer, and wherein the modifying of the physical condition comprises modifying a steerable axle of the at least one trailer or adjusting ride height of at least one air bag on one side of the at least one trailer to tilt the at least one trailer toward the winds and maintain the at least one trailer centered within the lane.
Nevertheless, Smith at least suggests the idea of controlling the tractor-trailer truck based on weather information (see Smith at para. [0061]).
In the same field of endeavor, Hanchett teaches:
wherein the road condition data comprises wind data for winds hitting the at least one trailer (Hanchett at para. [0082]: “An accelerometer may detect environmental forces that act on the vehicle. For example, an accelerometer may detect buffeting of the vehicle by wind”), and wherein the modifying of the physical condition comprises modifying a steerable axle of the at least one trailer or adjusting ride height of at least one air bag on one side of the at least one trailer (Hanchett at para. [0100]: “In a vehicle that includes rear steering or a trailer whose wheels may be steered, the rear steering system of the vehicle and/or the trailer may be adjusted to decrease the sway of the trailer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender by adding the wind data of Hanchett with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Hanchett is to provide a trailer adjusting systems in accordance with the information regarding the trailer.
However, Smith in view of Stender further in view of Hanchett does not explicitly state:
wherein the modifying of the physical condition comprises modifying a steerable axle of the at least one trailer or adjusting ride height of at least one air bag on one side of the at least one trailer to tilt the at least one trailer toward the winds and maintain the at least one trailer centered within the lane.
In the same field of endeavor, Straub teaches:
wherein the modifying of the physical condition comprises modifying a steerable axle of the at least one trailer or adjusting ride height of at least one air bag on one side of the at least one trailer to tilt the at least one trailer toward the winds and maintain the at least one trailer centered within the lane (Straub at para. [0014]: “A feedback control scheme may comprise a disturbance rejection control, DRC, or setpoint tracker, ST, adapted e.g. for keeping the vehicle within a driving lane”; para. [0033]: “Depending on the wind situation, a counteraction may include steering against the wind”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Hanchett by adding the modifying the steerable axle of the Straub with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Hanchett and Straub is to provide wind compensation.
Regarding claim 20, Smith in view of Stender teaches the articulated vehicle of claim 11.
However, Smith in view of Stender does not explicitly state wherein the road condition data comprises wind data for winds hitting the at least one trailer, and wherein the modifying of the physical condition comprises modifying a steerable axle of the at least one trailer or adjusting ride height of at least one air bag on one side of the at least one trailer to tilt the at least one trailer toward the winds and maintain the at least one trailer centered within the lane.
Nevertheless, Smith at least suggests the idea of controlling the tractor-trailer truck based on weather information (see Smith at para. [0061]).
In the same field of endeavor, Hanchett teaches:
wherein the road condition data comprises wind data for winds hitting the at least one trailer (Hanchett at para. [0082]: “An accelerometer may detect environmental forces that act on the vehicle. For example, an accelerometer may detect buffeting of the vehicle by wind”), and wherein the modifying of the physical condition comprises modifying a steerable axle of the at least one trailer or adjusting ride height of at least one air bag on one side of the at least one trailer (Hanchett at para. [0100]: “In a vehicle that includes rear steering or a trailer whose wheels may be steered, the rear steering system of the vehicle and/or the trailer may be adjusted to decrease the sway of the trailer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender by adding the wind data of Hanchett with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Hanchett is to provide a trailer adjusting systems in accordance with the information regarding the trailer.
However, Smith in view of Stender further in view of Hanchett does not explicitly state:
wherein the modifying of the physical condition comprises modifying a steerable axle of the at least one trailer or adjusting ride height of at least one air bag on one side of the at least one trailer to tilt the at least one trailer toward the winds and maintain the at least one trailer centered within the lane.
In the same field of endeavor, Straub teaches:
wherein the modifying of the physical condition comprises modifying a steerable axle of the at least one trailer or adjusting ride height of at least one air bag on one side of the at least one trailer to tilt the at least one trailer toward the winds and maintain the at least one trailer centered within the lane (Straub at para. [0014]: “A feedback control scheme may comprise a disturbance rejection control, DRC, or setpoint tracker, ST, adapted e.g. for keeping the vehicle within a driving lane”; para. [0033]: “Depending on the wind situation, a counteraction may include steering against the wind”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Hanchett by adding the modifying the steerable axle of the Straub with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Stender further in view of Hanchett and Straub is to provide wind compensation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the attached PTO-892 form.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JISUN CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-0710. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached at (571)270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JISUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
7/27/26
Prosecution Insights