DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laine (US 2020/0055357).
Regarding claim 1, Laine discloses an articulated vehicle (see figure 5a and Para. 0043) comprising:
a tractor (10) configured to operate in an autonomous mode (see Para. 0015); and a trailer (12, via fifth wheel 18 and kingpin 32, see Para. 0044 and 0045) removably coupled to the tractor, wherein: the trailer has a kingpin (32) for coupling to the tractor; the tractor, when coupled to the trailer via the kingpin, and aligned with the trailer, fits entirely beneath the trailer (see figure 5a); and the tractor is operable to tow the trailer when removably coupled to the trailer (see Para. 0038, 0047 and 0061).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the tractor is configured to tow the trailer when facing in a forward direction and when facing in a rearward direction (see figure 5a as the tractor/dolly 10 is able to rotate 360 degrees under the trailer, which means that the tractor/dolly is able to tow the trailer when facing forward or when facing rearward).
Regarding claim 10, Laine further discloses a plurality of trailers (see figure 5d), wherein the tractor is coupled to multiple trailers.
Regarding claim 11, the tractor in Laine is able to operate on highways.
Regarding claim 12, Laine discloses a trailer, comprising: a kingpin (32) for coupling to a tractor (10); and at least one pair of wheels (see figure 5a); wherein: the tractor, when coupled to the trailer via the kingpin, and aligned with the trailer, fits entirely beneath the trailer (see figure 5a); and the tractor is operable for over the highway towing of the trailer when removably coupled to the trailer (the tractor would be able to operate in roads and highways, especially when in the configuration as shown in figure 5b).
Regarding claim 13, wherein the tractor is configured to tow the trailer when facing in a forward direction and when facing in a rearward direction (see figure 5a as the tractor/dolly 10 is able to rotate 360 degrees under the trailer, which means that the tractor/dolly is able to tow the trailer when facing forward or when facing rearward).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 3,4,8,14,15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine in view of Alguera (US 2021/0300136).
Regarding claims 3,14 and 19, Laine does not mention pneumatic connections between the tractor and trailer, however, one of ordinary skill has the understanding that pneumatic connections are present in most if not all tractor and trailer combinations. However, Alguera discloses a tractor trailer combination, wherein a pneumatic connection (25, see Para. 0111 and 0113) is in between the tractor and trailer. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Laine by adding a pneumatic connection that would run the trailer brakes and suspension, in order to make the trailer brakes and suspension functional for use while being towed.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Laine and Alguera do not mention a conventional retractable air cable or hose that maintains a predetermined range of slack, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the understanding that pneumatic connection between tractors and trailers usually include a hose/cable that is able to retract onto the truck, wherein the cable or hose is able to maintain a predetermined range of slack, in order to be able to maintain the hose/cable away from getting caught on moving members between the tractor and trailer.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Laine or Alguera do not mention an air compressor to provide air for the pneumatic cable, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that Alguera would have an air compressor to run air in the pneumatic connection, in order to be able to push air from the tractor to the brakes and suspension
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine in view of Edmonson (US 7547179). Regarding claims 5 and 16, Laine does not mention a second kingpin connector. However Edmonson discloses a trailer (see figure 1) comprising: a first pair of parallel sides (sides along the end of the trailer, see figure 7) and a second pair of parallel sides (along the ends of the trailer, see figure 1), the first pair of parallel sides each respectively at a right angle to the second pair of parallel sides (as the first pair in along the ends of the trailer and the second pair is along the length of the trailer, see figures 1 and 7); tires of the trailer are aligned with the second pair of parallel sides (see figure 1); the trailer comprises the kingpin (102) and at least one additional kingpin (108); the additional kingpin is located along a centerline of the trailer at either 30 inches (76.2 cm) or 36 inches (91.44 cm) from a first edge of the first pair of parallel sides (see figures 5 and 6); and the kingpin is located along the centerline of the trailer at a location between the additional kingpin and a second edge of the first pair of parallel sides (see figures 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Laine by having a trailer such as the one disclosed by Edmonson, in order to be able to connect the tractor to the trailer at both ends of the trailer, thereby making the trailer more maneuverable when being used.
Claim(s) 6,7,17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine in view of Kopas (US 3801068).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Laine does not mention a foldable support legs for the trailer. However, Kopas discloses Automatic folding landing gear (see figures 3-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Laine by adding folding support legs onto the trailer, in order to allow the articulated vehicle when in autonomous mode, to operate without the need for a driver to set the support legs of the trailer when coupling or decoupling the tractor and trailer, instead the articulated vehicle when in autonomous mode should be able to fold out the support legs of the trailer by itself.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Laine further discloses an air suspension (see Para. 0019, 0044 and 0056) wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Laine to run the air suspension to raise and lower the trailer when coupling or decoupling, in order to ease the coupling and decoupling of the tractor and trailer and to provide enough room for the folding support legs (see applicant claim 6 above).
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine in view of Alguera as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hammoud (US 2022/0126875).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Laine and Alguera do not mention wireless communication for the air compressor. However, Hammoud discloses an autonomous tractor that is able to have wireless communication (see Para. 0041 in Hammoud), wherein, one of ordinary knowledge of the art would modify the autonomous tractor of Laine to be able to communicate with the air compressor, in order to be able to charge the pneumatic cable with enough air to brake the tractor and trailer and in order to run the air suspension, wherein the lack of wiring connection between the tractor and air compressor would reduce maintenance as there would be no wiring needed to run the compressor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marlon A Arce whose telephone number is (571)272-1341. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/MARLON A ARCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights