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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on November 29, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 15 and 20 are independent.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “330” in Figure 3 has been used to designate “remote server”, “communication device” and “power device”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
"fifth wheel coupling 210-1" is referenced in paragraph [0028], line 17, in the specification but is not included in any of Figures 2A, 2B nor 2C of the drawings. Applicant may choose to delete this reference from the specification in lieu of adding to the drawings.
“system 300” is referenced in paragraph [0030], line 1, in the specification but is not included in Figure 3 of the drawings.
“system 500” is referenced in paragraph [0048], line 2, in the specification but is not included in Figure 5F of the drawings.
“trailer stand 502” is referenced in paragraph [0053], line 10, in the specification but is not included in Figure 5G of the drawings.
“system 700” is referenced in paragraph [0059], line 1, in the specification but is not included in Figure 7A of the drawings.
“processing devices 712” is referenced in paragraph [0068], line 4, in the specification but is not included in Figure 7C of the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 2, should be changed to:
… data associated with the vehicle and the trailer stand.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Granstroem (WO-2007102777-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Granstroem teaches a system (see Granstroem, Abstract, figure 1, regarding road train 100 (system) comprising tow vehicle 110 and trailer 120 with support legs 122), comprising:
a vehicle configured to traverse an area (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:lns 1-11, regarding “road train 100 including a tow vehicle 110 (e.g. a trailer truck) and a trailer 120”, exemplary of a moving/traversing vehicle in a work area);
a trailer stand operatively coupled to the vehicle, the trailer stand configured for positioning relative to a trailer (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:lns 1-11, regarding coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand) on-board (operatively coupled to) tow vehicle 110 and configured for positioning relative to trailer 120); and
one or more controllers for controlling operation of at least one of the vehicle and the trailer stand (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:lns 1-22, regarding control unit 117 of tow vehicle 110 controlling operation to perform a coupling arrangement to trailer 120 via coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand)).
Regarding claim 2, Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 1, including wherein the trailer stand is positionable beneath the trailer, and is configured to transition between a first condition having a first length and a second condition having a second length greater than the first length (see Granstroem, figures 1 and 2, page 6:lns 12-22, regarding elevation h of coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand) positioned beneath trailer 120 capable of transitioning from a decoupled first condition and length as shown in figure 2 to the coupled second condition and length as shown in figure 1, wherein the second length is greater than the first length).
Regarding claim 3, Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 2, including an actuator in communication with the controller for selectively transitioning the trailer stand between the first condition and the second condition (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:lns 1-22, regarding level control mechanism 112 (actuator) receiving control signal C from control unit 117 of tow vehicle 110 to influence the elevation h of coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand) to selectively transition between a first condition (decoupled) and a second condition (coupled)).
Regarding claim 6, Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 1, including one or more sensors configured to detect one or more conditions of the trailer stand, and to transmit one or more signals to the controller representative of the one or more conditions (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:lns 12-35, regarding height sensor means 118 registering a height parameter indicative of elevation h and reporting (transmitting one or more signals representative of the one or more conditions of the trailer stand) the height parameter to the controller unit 117).
Regarding claim 7, Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 6, including wherein the one or more conditions include at least one of:
positional relationship of trailer stand relative to the trailer;
a force exerted by the trailer on the trailer stand (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:ln 36 thru page 8:ln 6, regarding pressure sensor 113 monitoring fluid pressure in fluid chamber 112 and reports to controller 117, such that, for example, when not actuating the level control mechanism, any increase in pressure detected would be indicative of a force exerted by the trailer on the coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand));
a distance between the trailer stand and the vehicle;
presence of the trailer stand; and
global positional location of the trailer stand.
Regarding claim 8, Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 6, including wherein the one or more controllers is located on the trailer stand (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:lns 1-22, regarding level control mechanism 112 (one or more controllers) mechanically attached to (co-located with) coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand)).
Regarding claim 9, Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 1, including one or more strain sensors disposed on the trailer stand (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:ln 36 thru page 8:ln 6, regarding pressure sensor 113 (one or more strain sensors) mechanically coupled to/disposed on, the coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand)).
Regarding claim 10, Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 9, including wherein the one or more strain sensors includes at least one of a lateral strain sensor or a vertical strain sensor (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:ln 36 thru page 8:ln 6, regarding pressure sensor 113 (one or more strain sensors) measuring force on the coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand)) via diagonally pivoted lever arm arrangement 114, therefore the strain sensor measures strain (pressure) in both the lateral and vertical directions).
Regarding claim 11, Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 1, including wherein the controller is configured to maneuver the vehicle based at least in part on positional data associated with the vehicle truck and the trailer stand (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:lns 1-22, regarding level control mechanism 112 (actuator) receiving control signal C from control unit 117 of tow vehicle 110 to influence the elevation h of coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand) to selectively transition between a first condition (disengaged) and a second condition (engaged), exemplary of a controller configured to maneuver the vehicle based at least in part on the elevation h (positional data associated with the vehicle truck and the coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand))).
Regarding claim 12, Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 1, including an output coupled to the controller to provide feedback related to at least one of the trailer stand and the vehicle (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:ln 36 thru page 8:ln 6, regarding pressure sensor 113 monitoring fluid pressure in fluid chamber 112 and reports (outputs) to controller 117, wherein the output provides feedback regarding a state of the trailer stand and the vehicle).
Regarding claim 14, Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 1, including wherein the vehicle is one of a hostler, yard truck and forklift (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:lns 1-11, regarding “road train 100 including a tow vehicle 110 (e.g. a trailer truck) and a trailer 120”, wherein a trailer truck can be a yard truck).
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 4-5, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granstroem (WO-2007102777-A1) in view of Kimener (US-20200079604-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 1, except wherein the trailer stand is releasably coupled to the vehicle.
However, Kimener remedies this shortfall with a teaching of trailer stand releasably coupled to a vehicle via a kingpin coupler (see Kimener, Abstract, figures 1 and 11, paragraphs 24-25, regarding leveling device 100 (trailer stand) with a “gooseneck 130 and king pin 132 are adapted to mount to a yard truck or similar vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the system of Granstroem to further comprise the detachable trailer stand of Kimener because this would permit the decoupled vehicle to perform other tasks in a servicing yard while waiting for the trailer cargo to be loaded or unloaded, thus improving operational efficiency with assets utilization in a service yard with handling a plurality of trailers to be serviced, therefore, modified Granstroem enables wherein the trailer stand is releasably coupled to the vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, modified Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 4, including a coupling mechanism for releasably coupling the trailer stand to the vehicle, the coupling mechanism including at least one of a mechanical coupling, an electrical coupling, an electro-mechanical coupling, a magnetic coupling or an electromagnetic coupling, or combinations thereof (see Kimener, Abstract, figures 1 and 11, paragraphs 24-25, regarding leveling device 100 (trailer stand) with a “gooseneck 130 and king pin 132 are adapted to mount to a yard truck or similar vehicle”, wherein a kingpin is exemplary of a mechanical coupling to a host vehicle).
Regarding claim 15, Granstroem teaches a system (see Granstroem, Abstract, figure 1, regarding road train 100 (system) comprising tow vehicle 110 and trailer 120 with support legs 122), comprising:
a yard vehicle configured to traverse an area (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:lns 1-11, regarding “road train 100 including a tow vehicle 110 (e.g. a trailer truck) and a trailer 120”, exemplary of a moving/traversing vehicle in a work area);
an actuator coupled to the trailer stand to cause transition of the trailer stand between a first transport condition to enable maneuvering of the trailer stand by the yard vehicle about the area and positioning beneath one end of a trailer, and a second deployed condition where the trailer stand supports the one end of the trailer (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:lns 1-22, regarding level control mechanism 112 (actuator) receiving control signal C from control unit 117 of tow vehicle 110 to influence the elevation h of coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand) to selectively transition between a first condition (decoupled) and a second condition (coupled));
a controller configured to control the actuator (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:lns 1-22, regarding level control mechanism 112 (actuator) receiving control signal C from control unit 117 of tow vehicle 110 (controller configured) to maneuver the trailer stand between coupled and decoupled conditions); and
one or more sensors to detect a condition of the trailer stand relative to at least one of the yard vehicle and the trailer (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:ln 36 thru page 8:ln 6, regarding pressure sensor 113 monitoring fluid pressure in fluid chamber 112 and reports to controller 117, such that, for example, when not actuating the level control mechanism, any increase in pressure detected would be indicative of a force exerted by the trailer on the coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand) capable of detecting a contact presence/condition of the trailer stand relative to at least one of a yard vehicle and the trailer).
Granstroem does not teach a trailer stand releasably coupled to the yard vehicle.
However, Kimener remedies this shortfall with a teaching of trailer stand releasably coupled to a vehicle via a kingpin coupler (see Kimener, Abstract, figures 1 and 11, paragraphs 24-25, regarding leveling device 100 (trailer stand) with a “gooseneck 130 and king pin 132 are adapted to mount to a yard truck or similar vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the system of Granstroem to further comprise the detachable trailer stand of Kimener because this would permit the decoupled vehicle to perform other tasks in a servicing yard while waiting for the trailer cargo to be loaded or unloaded, thus improving operational efficiency with assets utilization in a service yard with handling a plurality of trailers to be serviced, therefore, modified Granstroem enables a trailer stand is releasably coupled to the yard vehicle.
Regarding claim 19, modified Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 15, including wherein the controller is configured to release the trailer stand from the yard vehicle (see Kimener, Abstract, figures 1 and 11, paragraphs 24-25, regarding leveling device 100 (trailer stand) with a “gooseneck 130 and king pin 132 are adapted to mount to a yard truck or similar vehicle”, wherein a kingpin is exemplary of a mechanical coupling to a host vehicle that can be release controlled by the controller of Granstroem).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granstroem (WO-2007102777-A1) in view of Hoofard (US-20190064835-A1).
Regarding claim 13, Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 1, except one or more secondary sensors to detect an object within the environment.
However, Hoofard remedies this shortfall with a teaching of an autonomous yard tractor/vehicle with one or more sensors that detect objects within its working environment (see Hoofard, Abstract, figures 2B and 5B, paragraph 57, regarding an “autonomous yard tractor can include a sensor system configured to detect the position of the trailer relative to, for example, the tractor, and/or the dock station can include a sensor system configured to detect the position of the trailer relative to, for example, the dock station during a docking procedure” and “collision avoidance system 232 can include a LiDAR system utilizing one or more lasers for three-dimensional (3D) scanning of, for example, the environment in front and/or around the tractor 112 for obstacles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to modify the system of Granstroem to further comprise the additional/secondary sensors of Hoofard because this would improve operational safety in a service yard by mitigating potential collision accidents, therefore, modified Granstroem enables one or more secondary sensors to detect an object within the environment, therefore, modified Granstroem enables one or more secondary sensors to detect an object within the environment.
Regarding claim 20, Granstroem teaches a system (see Granstroem, Abstract, figure 1, regarding road train 100 (system) comprising tow vehicle 110 and trailer 120 with support legs 122), comprising:
an actuator coupled to the trailer stand to cause transition of the trailer stand between a first transport condition to enable positioning beneath one end of a trailer, and a second deployed condition where the trailer stand supports the one end of the trailer (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:lns 1-22, regarding level control mechanism 112 (actuator) receiving control signal C from control unit 117 of tow vehicle 110 to influence the elevation h of coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand) to selectively transition between a first condition (decoupled) and a second condition (coupled));
a controller configured to control movement of the trailer stand about the yard and actuation of the actuator (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:lns 1-22, regarding level control mechanism 112 (actuator) receiving control signal C from control unit 117 of tow vehicle 110 (controller configured) to maneuver the trailer stand between coupled and decoupled conditions in the yard); and
one or more sensors to detect at least one of an object in the yard, location of the trailer stand or a condition of the trailer stand relative to the trailer (see Granstroem, figure 1, page 6:ln 36 thru page 8:ln 6, regarding pressure sensor 113 monitoring fluid pressure in fluid chamber 112 and reports to controller 117, such that, for example, when not actuating the level control mechanism, any increase in pressure detected would be indicative of a force exerted by the trailer on the coupling arrangement 111 (trailer stand) capable of detecting a contact presence/condition of the trailer stand relative to the trailer).
Granstroem does not teach a self-propelled trailer stand configured for movement about a yard.
However, Hoofard remedies this shortfall with a teaching of an autonomous yard tractor/vehicle (self-propelling vehicle hosting/coupled to a trailer stand) with one or more sensors that detect objects within its working environment (see Hoofard, Abstract, figures 2B and 5B, paragraph 57, regarding an “autonomous yard tractor can include a sensor system configured to detect the position of the trailer relative to, for example, the tractor, and/or the dock station can include a sensor system configured to detect the position of the trailer relative to, for example, the dock station during a docking procedure” and “collision avoidance system 232 can include a LiDAR system utilizing one or more lasers for three-dimensional (3D) scanning of, for example, the environment in front and/or around the tractor 112 for obstacles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to further modify the system of Granstroem to further comprise the autonomous control (self-propelling vehicle hosting/coupled to a trailer stand) with additional/secondary sensors of Hoofard because this would improve operational safety in a service yard by mitigating potential collision accidents, therefore, further modified Granstroem enables a self-propelled trailer stand configured for movement about a yard.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granstroem (WO-2007102777-A1) in view of Kimener (US-20200079604-A1) and further in view of Hoofard (US-20190064835-A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 15, except wherein the controller is configured to control traversing movement of the yard vehicle about the area.
However, Hoofard remedies this shortfall with a teaching of an autonomous yard tractor/vehicle with one or more sensors that detect objects within its working environment (see Hoofard, Abstract, figures 2B and 5B, paragraph 57, regarding an “autonomous yard tractor can include a sensor system configured to detect the position of the trailer relative to, for example, the tractor, and/or the dock station can include a sensor system configured to detect the position of the trailer relative to, for example, the dock station during a docking procedure” and “collision avoidance system 232 can include a LiDAR system utilizing one or more lasers for three-dimensional (3D) scanning of, for example, the environment in front and/or around the tractor 112 for obstacles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to further modify the system of Granstroem to further comprise the autonomous control with additional/secondary sensors of Hoofard because this would improve operational safety in a service yard by mitigating potential collision accidents, therefore, further modified Granstroem enables wherein the controller is configured to control traversing movement of the yard vehicle about the area.
Regarding claim 17, further modified Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 16, including one or more secondary sensors coupled to at least one of the yard vehicle and the trailer stand, the one or more secondary sensors configured to provide one or more signals representative of at least one of a position of the yard vehicle in the area or detection of an object in the area (see Hoofard, Abstract, figures 2B and 5B, paragraph 57, regarding an “autonomous yard tractor can include a sensor system configured to detect the position of the trailer relative to, for example, the tractor, and/or the dock station can include a sensor system configured to detect the position of the trailer relative to, for example, the dock station during a docking procedure” and “collision avoidance system 232 can include a LiDAR system utilizing one or more lasers for three-dimensional (3D) scanning of, for example, the environment in front and/or around the tractor 112 for obstacles, exemplary of secondary sensors providing signals representative of detection of an object in the area).
Regarding claim 18, modified Granstroem teaches the system according to claim 15, except wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect an orientation of the trailer stand.
However, Hoofard remedies this shortfall with a teaching of an autonomous yard tractor/vehicle with one or more sensors that detect objects within its working environment (see Hoofard, Abstract, figures 2B and 5B, paragraph 57, regarding an “autonomous yard tractor can include a sensor system configured to detect the position of the trailer relative to, for example, the tractor, and/or the dock station can include a sensor system configured to detect the position of the trailer relative to, for example, the dock station during a docking procedure” and “collision avoidance system 232 can include a LiDAR system utilizing one or more lasers for three-dimensional (3D) scanning of, for example, the environment in front and/or around the tractor 112 for obstacles, wherein 3D scanning would provide an orientation of a detected object such as a trailer stand).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to further modify the system of Granstroem to further comprise the autonomous control with additional/secondary sensors of Hoofard because this would improve operational safety in a service yard by mitigating potential collision accidents, therefore, further modified Granstroem enables wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect an orientation of the trailer stand.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER NING whose telephone number is (408) 918-7664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Peter D. Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/P.Y.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
June 25, 2026
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights