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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2021/0370922 A1).
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”);
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”); and
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”).
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses the method of claim 1.
Smith further discloses wherein the modifying of the physical condition comprises at least one of:
applying brake pressure to at least one wheel supporting the at least one trailer;
modifying a steerable axle;
raising or lowering trailer suspension; and
adjusting ride height of an air bag on the at least one trailer (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”).
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses 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 discloses 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”);
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”); 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”).
Regarding claim 16, Smith discloses the articulated vehicle of claim 11.
Smith further discloses wherein the modifying of the physical condition comprises at least one of:
applying brake pressure to at least one wheel supporting the at least one trailer;
modifying a steerable axle;
raising or lowering trailer suspension; and
adjusting ride height of an air bag on the at least one trailer (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”).
Regarding claim 17, Smith discloses 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 discloses 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”)).
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 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Nishikubo (US 2021/0120728 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Smith discloses 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 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 by adding the sensor rail of Nishikubo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
Regarding claim 3, Smith 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 Nishikubo by adding the command of Nishikubo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
Regarding claim 5, Smith 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 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 Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses 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 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 by adding the sensor rail of Nishikubo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
Regarding claim 13, Smith 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 Nishikubo by adding the command of Nishikubo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
Regarding claim 15, Smith 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 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 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 Nishikubo further in view of Rogers et al. (US 2011/0241377 A1, hereinafter “Rogers”).
Regarding claim 4, Smith 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 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 Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
However, Smith 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 Nishikubo further in view of Rogers by adding the vertical configuration of Rogers with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Nishikubo further in view of Rogers is to provide optimized sensor arrangement.
Regarding claim 14, Smith 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 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 Nishikubo is to provide a mechanism for adjusting sensor location.
However, Smith 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 Nishikubo further in view of Rogers by adding the vertical configuration of Rogers with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Nishikubo further in view of 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 Cook et al. (US 2017/0113745 A1, hereinafter “Cook”).
Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Smith does not explicitly state wherein the road conditions data indicates the at least one trailer will not clear an overpass without modifying trailer suspension of the at least one trailer.
In the same field of endeavor, Cook teaches wherein the road conditions data indicates the at least one trailer will not clear an overpass without modifying trailer suspension of the at least one trailer (Cook at para. [0032]: “A ride height sensor 54 (FIG. 7) is associated with adjustment system 44 to measure ride height. The measurement is used by a controller 56 (also shown in FIG. 7) to accurately set ride height to a desired ride height within a range of ride heights extending from a minimum limit to a maximum limit”; para. [0036]: “Controller 56 comprises an on-board processor 66 which evaluates vertical distance from the highest point on tractor-trailer 10, 28 to the underlying roadway surface with respect to vertical clearance at each overpass 62 beneath which the tractor-trailer will pass during travel along a defined travel route on the roadway”).
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 Cook with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Cook is to adjust trailer height to avoid collision with an overpass.
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses the articulated vehicle of claim 11.
However, Smith does not explicitly state wherein the road conditions data indicates the at least one trailer will not clear an overpass without modifying trailer suspension of the at least one trailer.
In the same field of endeavor, Cook teaches wherein the road conditions data indicates the at least one trailer will not clear an overpass without modifying trailer suspension of the at least one trailer (Cook at para. [0032]: “A ride height sensor 54 (FIG. 7) is associated with adjustment system 44 to measure ride height. The measurement is used by a controller 56 (also shown in FIG. 7) to accurately set ride height to a desired ride height within a range of ride heights extending from a minimum limit to a maximum limit”; para. [0036]: “Controller 56 comprises an on-board processor 66 which evaluates vertical distance from the highest point on tractor-trailer 10, 28 to the underlying roadway surface with respect to vertical clearance at each overpass 62 beneath which the tractor-trailer will pass during travel along a defined travel route on the roadway”).
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 Cook with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith 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 Rogers.
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Smith does not explicitly state wherein the road condition data comprises wind data for winds hitting the at least one trailer.
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, Rogers teaches wherein the road condition data comprises wind data for winds hitting the at least one trailer (Rogers at para. [0059]: “The pressure measured at the front side edges 22 adjacent to the front 10 of the trailer 4 can be particularly relevant to drag. The flow of air coming off of side extenders 12 and trim tabs can split along the edges 22, as shown in FIG. 6, and create a region of varying pressures with static airflow and/or dynamic airflow. The air pressure at these edges 22 can be measured by one or more sensors 20 in one or more one-dimensional, two-dimensional, and/or three-dimensional arrays”).
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 Rogers by adding the wind data of Rogers with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the method of Smith in view of Rogers is to provide optimized aerodynamic drag.
Regarding claim 20, Smith discloses the articulated vehicle of claim 11.
However, Smith does not explicitly state wherein the road condition data comprises wind data for winds hitting the at least one trailer.
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, Rogers teaches wherein the road condition data comprises wind data for winds hitting the at least one trailer (Rogers at para. [0059]: “The pressure measured at the front side edges 22 adjacent to the front 10 of the trailer 4 can be particularly relevant to drag. The flow of air coming off of side extenders 12 and trim tabs can split along the edges 22, as shown in FIG. 6, and create a region of varying pressures with static airflow and/or dynamic airflow. The air pressure at these edges 22 can be measured by one or more sensors 20 in one or more one-dimensional, two-dimensional, and/or three-dimensional arrays”).
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 Rogers by adding the wind data of Rogers with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to modify the vehicle of Smith in view of Rogers is to provide optimized aerodynamic drag.
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.
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
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666