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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites the phrase: "comprising current sensor arranged" which is grammatically incorrect, likely intended to read “comprising a current sensor arranged…” or other appropriate variation. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 - 10 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 - 10 of copending Application No. 18/925,178, PG Pub: US 2025/0128684 A1 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Pending Application
(Claim 1)
Co-Pending Reference Application (Claim 1)
Mapping
A system for monitoring an integrity of a convoy of vehicles, wherein said convoy comprises:
a first vehicle and at least one second vehicle, connected to said first vehicle;
A system for monitoring an integrity of a convoy of vehicles, wherein said convoy comprises:
a first vehicle and at least one second vehicle, connected to said first vehicle;
The Pending and Co-Pending limitations recited are identical.
a communication line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle;
a communication line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle;
The Pending and Co-Pending limitations recited are identical.
a power supply line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle, wherein said system for monitoring the integrity of the convoy of vehicles comprises
a power supply line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle, wherein said system for monitoring the integrity of the convoy of vehicles comprises
The Pending and Co-Pending limitations recited are identical.
a control circuit arranged to be installed in said second vehicle wherein a control circuit is further arranged to: verify whether said communication line is interrupted; verify whether said power supply line is interrupted;
a control circuit arranged to be installed in said second vehicle wherein a control circuit is further arranged to: verify whether said communication line is interrupted; verify whether said power supply line is interrupted;
The Pending and Co-Pending limitations recited are identical.
and based at least in part on the verification determine that both the communication line and the power supply line are interrupted and further determine that said second vehicle has disconnected from said first vehicle.
and based at least in part on the verification determine that both the communication line and the power supply line are interrupted and further determine that said second vehicle has disconnected from said first vehicle.
The Pending and Co-Pending limitations recited are identical.
As set forth above, Independent Claim 1 is identical in both the pending and co-pending application. Dependent Claims 2 – 9 & Independent Claim 10 appear to similarly be identical between the pending and co-pending applications, and thus Claims 1 – 10 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 - 10 of copending Application No. 18/925,178, PG Pub: US 2025/0128684 A1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 4 & 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system for monitoring a vehicle (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 10 is directed to a method for monitoring a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 10 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A system for monitoring an integrity of a convoy of vehicles, wherein said convoy comprises:
a first vehicle and at least one second vehicle, connected to said first vehicle;
a communication line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle;
a power supply line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle, wherein said system for monitoring the integrity of the convoy of vehicles comprises
a control circuit arranged to be installed in said second vehicle wherein a control circuit is further arranged to:
verify whether said communication line is interrupted; [mental process/step]
verify whether said power supply line is interrupted; and [mental process/step]
based at least in part on the verification determine that both the communication line and the power supply line are interrupted and further determine that said second vehicle has disconnected from said first vehicle. [mental process/step]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “verify…” in each of the two presented contexts of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement as to if the communication line and power supply line, respectively, has been interrupted, which is a mental process of evaluating data under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Similarly, “based at least in part…” in the context of the claim encompasses a person evaluating the previous two judgements, and making a third judgement as to if a disconnection between vehicles has occurred, which is merely looking at data collected and forming a simple judgment under its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A system for monitoring an integrity of a convoy of vehicles, wherein said convoy comprises:
a first vehicle and at least one second vehicle, connected to said first vehicle; [applying the abstract idea using generic vehicle modules, Apply it 2106.05(f), generic link to technical field, 2106.05(h)]
a communication line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle; [applying the abstract idea using generic communication lines, Apply it 2106.05(f), generic link to technical field, 2106.05(h)]
a power supply line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle, wherein said system for monitoring the integrity of the convoy of vehicles comprises [applying the abstract idea using generic power supply lines, Apply it 2106.05(f), generic link to technical field, 2106.05(h)]
a control circuit arranged to be installed in said second vehicle wherein a control circuit is further arranged to: [applying the abstract idea using generic computing components, Apply it 2106.05(f), generic link to technical field, 2106.05(h)]
verify whether said communication line is interrupted;
verify whether said power supply line is interrupted; and
based at least in part on the verification determine that both the communication line and the power supply line are interrupted and further determine that said second vehicle has disconnected from said first vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a first vehicle…,” “a communication line…,” “a power supply line…,” and “a control circuit…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use generic components that are well known in the art to perform the process. In particular, the limitations of “a first vehicle…,” “a communication line…,” “a power supply line…,” are recited at a high level of generality, and merely relate the claimed invention to a particular field of use, namely vehicles, with generic components that are well-known in the art, and amount to mere instructions to apply the exception within a particular field of use. Further, the “control circuit…” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of evaluating data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing system to perform the evaluation of data amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “a first vehicle…,” “a communication line…,” “a power supply line…,” and “a control circuit…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 4 & 7 – 9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically:
Claim 2 recites wherein the power supply line interruption is determined based on current value measured by a current sensor falling below a threshold, which is the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering using generic sensing components, and the mental process of comparing the measured value to a specified threshold under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 3 recites wherein the power supply line interruption is determined based on a voltage value measured by a voltage sensor falling below a threshold, which is the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering using generic sensing components, and the mental process of comparing the measured value to a specified threshold under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 4 recites wherein a communication line interruption is determined when a control circuit does not receive at least one communication message for a threshold interval of time, which is a mental process of forming a simple judgement based on data collected under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 7 recites wherein a communication failure alarm is generated when power is not interrupted but communication is, which is a mental process of determining that one failure has occurred but not the other, and generally outputting the results of said determination, which is the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying the results of the mental process under its broadest reasonable interpretation [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Claim 8 recites wherein a power failure alarm is generated when communication is not interrupted but power is, which is a mental process of determining that one failure has occurred but not the other, and generally outputting the results of said determination, which is the insignificant extra-solution activity of displaying the results of the mental process under its broadest reasonable interpretation [MPEP 2106.05(g)].
Claim 9 recites wherein a local power supply means is used to power a control circuit, which is a generically recited component that merely relates the invention to a field of use with instructions to apply the exception, which does not render the claim patent-eligible.
Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 4 & 7 – 9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Independent Claim 1.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 4 & 7 – 10 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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”), specifically Dependent Claim 3, which recites a “voltage sensor means”, is/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 § 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) 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomason (US 2023/0096878 A1) in view of Decker (US 10,850,715 B1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Thomason discloses: A system for monitoring an integrity of a convoy of vehicles, wherein said convoy comprises: (Thomason discloses in at least Paragraphs 0007 & 0020 a power charging system, including a vehicle interface on each the towing and towed vehicle side, and a connection sensing device which detects and determines if a connection exists between towing vehicle interface and towed vehicle interface [i.e. a system for monitoring an integrity of a convoy of vehicles])
a first vehicle and at least one second vehicle, connected to said first vehicle; (Thomason discloses in at least Paragraph 0051 wherein the system may include a towing vehicle [i.e. a first vehicle] which may include a tractor, truck, or other automobile including an engine, the towing vehicle being connected to a towed vehicle [i.e. a second vehicle connected to the first vehicle] which may be embodied as a trailer or the like)
a communication line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle; (Thomason discloses in at least Paragraph 0059 wherein the power charging system may include a communication system for providing communication between towing and towed vehicle, including a plurality of signal wires and, for example, an Ethernet network. The signal wires may include a plurality of sensing wires as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0059, and at least Paragraph 0063 of Thomason discloses wherein the communication system enables the exchange of operational data between towing and towed vehicle. At least Elements 140, 142, & 144 of Figure 1 of Thomason, below, depict the elements of the communication line described above, connecting the towing and towed vehicle, with at least Elements 128 & 130 depicting vehicle connector interfaces for connecting the cable to both the towed and towing vehicles as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0057 & 0067 of Thomason)
a power supply line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle, wherein said system for monitoring the integrity of the convoy of vehicles comprises (Thomason discloses in at least Paragraphs 0057 & 0067 wherein a connection cable between a towed and towing vehicle may include a power wire for carrying charging power [i.e. a power supply line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle]. At least Elements 126 & 164 of Figure 1 of Thomason, below, depict the elements of the power supply line described above, connecting the towing and towed vehicle, with at least Elements 128 & 130 depicting vehicle connector interfaces for connecting the cable to both the towed and towing vehicles as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0057 & 0067 of Thomason. At least Paragraph 0070 of Thomason discloses wherein the power and communication cables may be embodied as separate connection cables, as depicted in Figure 1, below, including separate interfaces and connection housings at the towing and towed vehicle)
PNG
media_image1.png
510
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a control circuit arranged to be installed in said second vehicle wherein a control circuit is further arranged to: (Thomason discloses in at least Paragraph 0079 wherein a towed vehicle [i.e. a second vehicle] may include a controller and sub-controller configured to receive operational data and control a towed vehicle interface and disconnect device based on the operational data received [i.e. a control circuit arranged to be installed in said second vehicle])
verify whether said communication line is interrupted; verify whether said power supply line is interrupted; and (Thomason discloses in at least Paragraphs 0068, 0069, & 0087 wherein the towed vehicle interface may include a towed vehicle disconnect sensor and a towing vehicle disconnect sensor, which may detect if towed and towing vehicle interface(s) are connected or disconnected from one another, the interface(s) including those connecting the communication line and the power line as set forth above [i.e. verify whether said communication line is interrupted and verify whether said power supply line is interrupted])
Thomason however appears to be silent regarding:
based at least in part on the verification determine that both the communication line and the power supply line are interrupted and further determine that said second vehicle has disconnected from said first vehicle.
However Decker teaches wherein a towed vehicle may be determined to be in a breakaway state based on both a voltage being detected below a threshold, and a breakaway detector being detached.
based at least in part on the verification determine that both the communication line and the power supply line are interrupted and further determine that said second vehicle has disconnected from said first vehicle. (However Decker teaches in at least Column 23 Lines 7 – 20 wherein power may be received from a tow vehicle at a towed vehicle power plug [i.e. the connection includes a power line] with the system further including a breakaway detector configured to couple with a breakaway receiver and communicate a presence/breakaway status as taught in at least Column 7 Line 55 – Column 8 Line 5 of Decker [i.e. the connection includes a communication line]. At least Column 22 Line 36 – 54 of Decker teaches wherein upon a detected voltage being below a predetermined voltage threshold [i.e. a power supply line being disconnected] the system for breakaway detection is turned on, and upon the breakaway detector indicating that the towed vehicle is not attached to the tow vehicle, the vehicle is determined to be in a breakaway [i.e. disconnected] state [i.e. determine that both the communication line and the power supply line are interrupted and further determine that said second vehicle has disconnected from said first vehicle]. Examiner notes that while the voltage of Decker appears to be an indication of running status of the vehicle [see Column 22 Lines 16 – 24 of Decker] when power is supplied through the separate power supply line disclosed by Thomason set forth above, a drop in voltage at the tow vehicle as in Decker would correspond to the disconnection of said power line)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Thomason by incorporating the determination of vehicle decoupling based on both a breakaway detector not being present and a voltage being below a threshold as taught by Decker.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Decker in at least Column 17 Lines 20 – 35, by determining when a towed vehicle enters a breakaway state based on measured, sensed, or otherwise observed conditions, mitigating actions may be taken to reduce the danger of a towed vehicle rolling free from a tow vehicle, improving the safety of the coupled vehicle system during operation.
Regarding Claim 3:
The system according to claim 1, comprising voltage sensor means arranged to be installed in said second vehicle and to measure a voltage value of said power supply line; wherein said control circuit is arranged to determine that said power supply line is interrupted when the voltage value measured by said voltage sensor means is zero or below a predetermined voltage threshold.
Thomason discloses in at least Paragraph 0080 wherein a voltage sensing wire may be disposed in connection to the power wires, and configured to enable the controller to detect the voltage across the power wires [i.e. voltage sensor means arranged to be installed in said second vehicle and to measure a voltage value of said power supply line]. Thomason however appears to be silent regarding wherein the control circuit is arranged to determine that said power supply line is interrupted when the voltage value measured by said voltage sensor means is zero or below a predetermined voltage threshold.
However Decker teaches in at least Column 22 Line 36 – 54 wherein upon a detected voltage being below a predetermined voltage threshold the brake drive system for breakaway detection is turned on, which, in combination with the breakaway detector indicating that the towed vehicle is not attached to the tow vehicle, indicates that the vehicle is in a disconnected [i.e. breakaway] state [i.e. determine that said power supply line is interrupted when the voltage value measured by said voltage sensor means is zero or below a predetermined voltage threshold]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Thomason by incorporating the determination of detected voltage being below a threshold as taught by Decker.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Decker in at least Column 22 Lines 16 – 34, the power state of the towed vehicle may be determined, providing information on if the towed vehicle is being actively driven or not, improving the determination of if a breakaway state has occurred, thus improving the safety of the towed vehicle system as acknowledged by Decker in at least Column 17 Lines 20 – 35.
Regarding Claim 5:
The system according to claim 1, wherein, when said control circuit determines that said second vehicle has disconnected from said first vehicle, said control circuit is further arranged to: actuate a brake of said second vehicle of said convoy of vehicles.
Thomason does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the control circuit is configured to actuate a vehicle brake of the second vehicle following the determination that a disconnection has occurred.
However Decker teaches in at least Column 22 Lines 36 – 54 wherein based on a determination that the towed vehicle is no longer attached to the tow vehicle, the towed vehicle brake drive system is configured to be actuated, which may take place through the actuation of a brake pedal through a cable and drive system as taught by Decker in at least Column 5 Lines 10 – 34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Thomason by incorporating the actuation of second vehicle brakes upon the determination that a disconnection has occurred as taught by Decker.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Decker in at least Column 17 Lines 20 – 35, by applying the towed vehicle brakes when the towed vehicle is in the breakaway state, the towed vehicle may be stopped, reducing the danger of the towed vehicle rolling free from the tow vehicle during transit, improving the safety of the vehicle system.
Regarding Claim 6:
The system according to claim 5, wherein said control circuit is arranged to actuate the brake of said second vehicle of the convoy of vehicles so as to perform at least one of: an emergency braking; a service braking; a parking braking.
Thomason does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the control circuit is configured to actuate a vehicle brake of the second vehicle so as to perform at least one of an emergency braking, a service braking, or a parking braking following the determination that a disconnection has occurred.
However Decker teaches in at least Column 22 Lines 36 – 54 wherein based on a determination that the towed vehicle is no longer attached to the tow vehicle, the towed vehicle brake drive system is configured to be actuated, which may take place through the actuation of a brake pedal through a cable and drive system as taught by Decker in at least Column 5 Lines 10 – 34 [i.e. the service brake of the vehicle is actuated].
Regarding Claim 9:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said control circuit is arranged to be electrically powered by a local power supply arranged to be installed in said second vehicle.
Thomason discloses in at least Paragraphs 0060 & 0063 wherein an energy storage device may be provided on the towed [i.e. second] vehicle, which may provide power to the towed vehicle sub-controller, which controls the operation of the towed vehicle disconnect device [i.e. said control circuit is arranged to be electrically powered by a local power supply arranged to be installed in said second vehicle].
Regarding Claim 10:
Thomason discloses: A method for monitoring an integrity of a convoy of vehicles, wherein said convoy comprises: (Thomason discloses in at least Paragraphs 0007, 0020, & 0097 a power charging and disconnect process, including a vehicle interface on each the towing and towed vehicle side, and a connection sensing device which detects and determines if a connection exists between towing vehicle interface and towed vehicle interface [i.e. a method for monitoring an integrity of a convoy of vehicles])
a first vehicle and at least one second vehicle connected to said first vehicle; (Thomason discloses in at least Paragraph 0051 wherein the system may include a towing vehicle [i.e. a first vehicle] which may include a tractor, truck, or other automobile including an engine, the towing vehicle being connected to a towed vehicle [i.e. a second vehicle connected to the first vehicle] which may be embodied as a trailer or the like)
a communication line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle; (Thomason discloses in at least Paragraph 0059 wherein the power charging system may include a communication system for providing communication between towing and towed vehicle, including a plurality of signal wires and, for example, an Ethernet network. The signal wires may include a plurality of sensing wires as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0059, and at least Paragraph 0063 of Thomason discloses wherein the communication system enables the exchange of operational data between towing and towed vehicle. At least Elements 140, 142, & 144 of Figure 1 of Thomason, above, depict the elements of the communication line described above, connecting the towing and towed vehicle, with at least Elements 128 & 130 depicting vehicle connector interfaces for connecting the cable to both the towed and towing vehicles as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0057 & 0067 of Thomason)
a power supply line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle; (Thomason discloses in at least Paragraphs 0057 & 0067 wherein a connection cable between a towed and towing vehicle may include a power wire for carrying charging power [i.e. a power supply line arranged to be installed in said first vehicle and said at least one second vehicle]. At least Elements 126 & 164 of Figure 1 of Thomason, above, depict the elements of the power supply line described above, connecting the towing and towed vehicle, with at least Elements 128 & 130 depicting vehicle connector interfaces for connecting the cable to both the towed and towing vehicles as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0057 & 0067 of Thomason. At least Paragraph 0070 of Thomason discloses wherein the power and communication cables may be embodied as separate connection cables, as depicted in Figure 1, above, including separate interfaces and connection housings at the towing and towed vehicle)
wherein said method for monitoring the integrity of the convoy of vehicles comprises verifying, by a control circuit, whether said communication line is interrupted; verifying, by the control circuit, whether said power supply line is interrupted; (Thomason discloses in at least Paragraphs 0068, 0069, & 0087 wherein the towed vehicle interface may include a towed vehicle disconnect sensor and a towing vehicle disconnect sensor, which may detect if towed and towing vehicle interface(s) are connected or disconnected from one another, the interface(s) including those connecting the communication line and the power line as set forth above [i.e. verify whether said communication line is interrupted and verify whether said power supply line is interrupted]. Thomason discloses in at least Paragraph 0079 wherein a towed vehicle [i.e. a second vehicle] may include a controller and sub-controller configured to receive operational data and control a towed vehicle interface and disconnect device based on the operational data received [i.e. a control circuit])
Thomason however appears to be silent regarding:
determining, by the control circuit based on the verifications, that both the communication line and the power supply line are interrupted; and determining, by the control circuit, that said second vehicle has disconnected from said first vehicle.
However Decker teaches wherein a towed vehicle may be determined to be in a breakaway state based on both a voltage being detected below a threshold, and a breakaway detector being detached.
determining, by the control circuit based on the verifications, that both the communication line and the power supply line are interrupted; and determining, by the control circuit, that said second vehicle has disconnected from said first vehicle. (However Decker teaches in at least Column 23 Lines 7 – 20 wherein power may be received from a tow vehicle at a towed vehicle power plug [i.e. the connection includes a power line] with the system further including a breakaway detector configured to couple with a breakaway receiver and communicate a presence/breakaway status as taught in at least Column 7 Line 55 – Column 8 Line 5 of Decker [i.e. the connection includes a communication line]. At least Column 22 Line 36 – 54 of Decker teaches wherein upon a detected voltage being below a predetermined voltage threshold [i.e. a power supply line being disconnected] the system for breakaway detection is turned on, and upon the breakaway detector indicating that the towed vehicle is not attached to the tow vehicle, the vehicle is determined to be in a breakaway [i.e. disconnected] state [i.e. determine that both the communication line and the power supply line are interrupted and further determine that said second vehicle has disconnected from said first vehicle]. Examiner notes that while the voltage of Decker appears to be an indication of running status of the vehicle [see Column 22 Lines 16 – 24 of Decker] when power is supplied through the separate power supply line disclosed by Thomason set forth above, a drop in voltage at the tow vehicle as in Decker would correspond to the disconnection of said power line)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Thomason by incorporating the determination of vehicle decoupling based on both a breakaway detector not being present and a voltage being below a threshold as taught by Decker.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Decker in at least Column 17 Lines 20 – 35, by determining when a towed vehicle enters a breakaway state based on measured or observed conditions, mitigating actions may be taken to reduce the danger of a towed vehicle rolling free from a tow vehicle, improving the safety of the coupled vehicle system during operation.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomason (US 2023/0096878 A1) in view of Decker (US 10,850,715 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peterson (US 2005/0017856 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
The system according to claim 1, comprising current sensor arranged to be installed in said second vehicle and to measure a current value flowing in said power supply line; wherein said control circuit is arranged to determine that said power supply line is interrupted when the current value measured by said current sensor is zero or less than a predetermined current threshold.
Thomason does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the system comprises a current sensor configured to determine that the power supply is interrupted when the current value measured by said current sensor is zero or less than a predetermined current threshold.
However Peterson teaches in at least Paragraphs 0010, 0011, & 0024 a means for measuring the current across power lines for a trailer, the means comprising in an embodiment a measuring port [i.e. a current sensor to measure a current value flowing in said power supply line]. At least Paragraph 0026 of Peterson further teaches wherein the presence of a trailer may be determined by detecting the presence of a current above a threshold, thus rendering the current being below said threshold an indication of the absence of a trailer as further taught in at least Paragraph 0028 [i.e. said power supply line is interrupted when the current value measured by said current sensor is less than a predetermined current threshold].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Thomason by incorporating the determination of no trailer being connected based on the measured current value in a power supply line being below a threshold as taught by Peterson.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Peterson in at least Paragraphs 0013 & 0014, a trailer may be reliably detected to be attached to a vehicle or not based on the electrical connection even when low power is being drawn at the current time, improving the detection of trailer attachment/detachment.
Claim(s) 4, 7, & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomason (US 2023/0096878 A1) in view of Decker (US 10,850,715 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burkhart (US 2020/0172060 A1).
Regarding Claim 4:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said a control circuit is arranged to determine that said communication line is interrupted when, via said communication line, said control circuit did not receive, for at least a predetermined verification period, at least one communication message transmitted by a second control circuit arranged to be installed in said first vehicle.
Thomason does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a communication line is determined to be interrupted based on a control circuit not receiving at least one communication message transmitted by a second control circuit for a predetermined verification period.
However Burkhart teaches in at least Paragraphs 0024 & 0046 – 0048 wherein a wireless transceiver may send a ready or present signal at regular intervals, and if the brake controller [i.e. control circuit] does not receive a ready or present signal after a predetermined period of time [i.e. said control circuit did not receive, for at least a predetermined verification period, at least one communication message transmitted by a second control circuit arranged to be installed in said first vehicle], the brake controller may generate an error signal to indicate that the breakaway signal is not operational [i.e. said a control circuit is arranged to determine that said communication line is interrupted].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Thomason by incorporating the determination that the communication line is interrupted based on the control circuit not receiving at least one communication message for a predetermined verification period as taught by Burkhart.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Burkhart in at least Paragraph 0046, the communicative connection between nodes may be verified, improving the determination of if a communicative connection exists between vehicles in the breakaway system.
Regarding Claim 7:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said control circuit is further arranged to: based at least in part on the verifications, determine that the communication line is interrupted but that said power supply line is not interrupted and further generate a communication failure alarm signal.
Thomason does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a communication failure alarm signal is generated based at least in part on the determination that the communication line is interrupted but that said power supply line is not interrupted.
However Burkhart teaches in at least Paragraphs 0024 & 0046 – 0048 wherein a wireless transceiver may send a ready or present signal at regular intervals, and if the brake controller [i.e. control circuit] does not receive a ready or present signal after a predetermined period of time [i.e. determine that the communication line is interrupted] but does not receive a breakaway alert [i.e. said power supply line is not interrupted], the brake controller may generate an error signal to indicate that the breakaway signal is not operational [i.e. a communication failure alarm signal].
PNG
media_image2.png
284
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Thomason by incorporating the generation of an error signal when no ready or present signal is received from the breakaway detection transmitter when no breakaway alert is received as taught by Burkhart.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Burkhart in at least Paragraph 0049, an error status of the breakaway detection system may be determined, such that specific determined faults, such as a loss of communication may be eliminated by a user, improving the error handling of the breakaway detection system.
Regarding Claim 8:
The system according to claim 1, wherein said control circuit is further arranged to: based at least in part on the verifications, determine that the communication line is not interrupted but that said power supply line is interrupted and further generate a power failure alarm signal.
Thomason does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a power failure alarm signal is generated based at least in part on the determination that the communication line is not interrupted but the power supply line is interrupted.
However Burkhart teaches in at least Paragraphs 0015 – 0017 & 0022, a breakaway alert signal may be generated and transmitted through a wireless communication interface to a tow vehicle driver in response to a breakaway cable, which may be embodied as an electrical cable, separating from the corresponding socket. The breakaway signal is transmitted over the wireless transmitter [i.e. communication line] as taught in at least Paragraphs 0043 – 0045 of Burkhart, requiring that the communication line be not interrupted [i.e. determine that the communication line is not interrupted but that said power supply line is interrupted and further generate a power failure alarm signal].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Thomason by incorporating the generation and transmission of a breakaway signal based on the breakaway cable being separated from the vehicle while the communication system is still functional as taught by Burkhart.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Burkhart in at least Paragraphs 0043 & 0044, a vehicle may be informed of a breakaway and perform breakaway actions, such as issuing audible/visible alerts and/or applying towed vehicle brakes, improving the safety of the vehicle system.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Kalous (US 2009/0072956 A1): Kalous recites an alarm device connecting a vehicle and a trailer, configured to detect a presence or absence of an electrical signal between the vehicle and trailer. The operator of the motor vehicle may be notified when a trailer or cargo is separated from the motor vehicle.
Brickley (US 11,938,766 B2): Brickley recites a breakaway system for a coupled vehicle and trailer, taking a plurality of inputs, including engagement, load, and power states, and outputting information including faults or disconnection status.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:00.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661