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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson (Pub # US 2005/0017856 A1), and further in view of Thibodeau et al. (Pub # US 2023/0221361 A1).
Consider claim 1, Peterson teaches a method of determining connection of a trailer to a tractor [0009], the method comprising: determining, by the controller, to turn on all of a plurality of lamps of the trailer after determining that the preset operation has been input [0025], the plurality of lamps being configured to operate to inform a vehicle behind the tractor of a driving state of the tractor [0026]; and determining, by the controller, whether the trailer is connected, based on a current output from a battery to turn on all of the plurality of lamps [0027].
Peterson does not teach determining, by a controller, that a preset operation has been input by a driver.
In the same field of endeavor, Thibodeau et al. teaches determining, by a controller, that a preset operation has been input by a driver [0041] for the benefit of providing electrical connectivity check.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining, by a controller, that a preset operation has been input by a driver as shown in Thibodeau et al., in Peterson method for the benefit of providing electrical connectivity check.
Consider claim 2, Peterson et al. teaches the method of determining trailer presence b measuring current associated with energized trailer lighting circuits. Although Peterson does not explicitly disclose the operation input comprises activation of a brake pedal switch, wherein the brake pedal switches were well known in the art for energizing vehicle and trailer stop lamps.
Furthermore, Applicant (AAPA) disclosed in background section admit that the conventional technique was “determine whether a trailer is connected by measuring current flowing through trailer brake light when the brakes are applied” [0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to initiate the trailer detection procedure upon activation of the brake pedal switch because such activation naturally energizes trailer light circuit, which would have involved nothing more than the predictable use of known vehicle control input according to its established function.
Consider claim 8, Peterson teaches the similar invention.
Peterson does not teach the method, further comprising: checking, by the controller, whether a trailer scanning mode is on or off upon determining that the preset operation has been input; and turning on, by the controller, the trailer scanning mode when the trailer scanning mode is off.
In the same field of endeavor, Thibodeau et al. teaches the method, further comprising: checking, by the controller, whether a trailer scanning mode is on or off upon determining that the preset operation has been input (trailer light test initiation request before performing diagnostic operations) [0041]; and turning on, by the controller, the trailer scanning mode when the trailer scanning mode is off (controller initiates or enter trailer testing mode when diagnostic operation is requested) [0043] for the benefit of ensuring the proper electrical connection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the method, further comprising: checking, by the controller, whether a trailer scanning mode is on or off upon determining that the preset operation has been input; and turning on, by the controller, the trailer scanning mode when the trailer scanning mode is off as shown in Thibodeau et al., in Peterson method for the benefit of ensuring the proper electrical connection.
Consider claim 11. The apparatus structures herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding method steps as shown in claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected with regards to claim 1 as set forth above.
Consider claim 12. The apparatus structures herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding method steps as shown in claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected with regards to claim 2 as set forth above.
Consider claim 18. The apparatus structures herein have been performed or executed by the corresponding method steps as shown in claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected with regards to claim 8 as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9, 10, 13-17, and 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK K WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/JACK K WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights