DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Inventorship
2. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a trailer” in line 2. There is insufficient double recitation for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the wheelbase" and “the longitudinal position” in line 3. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the intermediate axle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “the mass” in line 1; and “the ride height” in lines 1-2. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the speed” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-11, 13, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hapyuk et al. (US 8,424,892 B2).
Regarding claim 1, notes Figure 2, Hapyuk invention teaches a method for loading a trailer [semi-trailer (20)] comprising: providing a trailer (20) having at least two axles [the semi-trailer (20) typically includes two “tandem” axles] connected to a trailer chassis [col. 1, lines 41-56 teaches the tandem axle(s) on the semi-trailer are slidably supported relative to frame of the semi-trailer and can be repositioned to adjust the weight distributed thereon and also to adjust the weight distributed to the drive axles] by independently adjustable suspension systems (100) [col. 3, lines 36-42 teaches the trailer (20) includes an air-ride suspension that includes air bag (100); and Figure 3 describes the calibration process of the air-ride suspension], the at least two axles including a frontmost axle and a rearmost axle [Figure 2], the trailer (20) further comprising a kingpin configured to be removably connected to a fifth wheel (70) of a tractor (10) [col. 1, lines 41-56 teaches semi-trailer is coupled to road tractor by means of a coupling pin (also known as a "king pin") on the front of the semi-trailer, which engages with a horseshoe-shaped coupling device called a fifth wheel, which is mounted proximal to the rear of the road tractor]; a first loading step comprising loading the trailer (20) until a threshold load is reached on the kingpin [col. 1, line 57-col. 2, line 3 teaches when the tandem axles on the semi-trailer are moved forward (i.e., closer to the truck) weight is shifted from the drive axles of the road tractor to the tandem axles on the semi-trailer (i.e., the tandem axle load weight becomes heavier and the road tractor drive axle weight becomes lighter). Conversely, when the tandem axles on the semi-trailer are moved backward (i.e., away from the road tractor) weight is shifted from the semi-trailer to the road tractor (i.e., the semi-trailer tandem axle load weight becomes lighter and the road tractor drive axle weight becomes heavier). When the fifth wheel is moved forward, a greater amount of weight is placed on the "steer" axle of the road tractor. When the fifth wheel is moved rearward, a lesser amount of weight is placed on the "steer" axle of the road tractor; Further see Figure 4]; and a second loading step comprising: loading the trailer Figure 4 illustrates the weight on all axles and the total weight of the vehicle does not exceed predetermined maximum roadway weight limitation].
Regarding claim 2, as discussed in claim 1, notes Figure 2 which further describes a plurality of axles which would be included an intermediate axle and adjusting a suspension parameter of the intermediate axle to ensure that the load on the kingpin remains at or below the threshold load [at least the Description of Related Art teaches the weight adjustment for each axle which would be included the intermediate axle].
Regarding claim 3, as discussed in claim 1, Figure 4 illustrates a suspension parameter(s) are adjusted continuously while the trailer is being loaded.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed in claims 1 and 3, see Figure 4.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed in claim 1, notes Figure 4 further teaches calculating the threshold load based on parameters of a tractor connectable to the trailer, the parameters including an admissible load on the axles of the tractor, the wheelbase of the tractor and the longitudinal position of the fifth wheel of the tractor relative to the axles [col. 5, lines 5-42].
Regarding claim 6, as discussed in claim 1, Hapyuk invention further teaches wherein adjusting the suspension parameter(s) includes reducing the load on the rearmost axle [further see Figures 3 and 4] and optionally on the intermediate axle to reduce a virtual wheelbase. Notes that the term optionally is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed in claim 1, Hapyuk invention further teaches wherein the suspension system includes air bags (100) and the suspension parameter(s) is an air pressure in the respective air bags [col. 3, lines 36-42].
Regarding claim 8, as discussed in claim 1, Hapyuk invention further teaches wherein the mass of air in each airbags is regulated so as to set the ride height at a predetermined level and/or inclination [Figure 4].
Regarding claim 9, as discussed in claim 1, Hapyuk invention further teaches wherein the trailer (20) comprises load measurement devices [hand-held air pressure gauge] configured to assess or calculate the load on the kingpin and on each of the at least two axles, and the trailer further comprises a control unit which automatically performs the adjustment of the suspension parameter(s) based on the load measured or calculated by the load measurement devices [col. 5, lines 5-42; notes Figures 3-4 is well-known to be included control unit for automatically performing the adjustment].
Regarding claim 10, as discussed in claim 1, Hapyuk invention further teaches the suspension parameter(s) is adjusted so as to increase the load on the frontmost axle up to a predetermined threshold [col. 1, lines 23-40; and Figure 4].
Regarding claim 11, as above discussion, notes Figures 2 and 4, Hapyuk invention further teaches before or after loading the trailer, connecting the trailer (20) to a tractor (10), the tractor (10) having at least one driving axle [drive axle (40)]; moving the tractor and the trailer; and adjusting suspension parameters to increase the load on the driving axle(s) of the tractor and on a driving axle of the trailer, while ensuring that the load on the kingpin remains equal or less than the threshold load [Figure 4].
Regarding claim 13, see rejection in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, see rejection in claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, see rejection in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Hapyuk in view of Tuhro et al. (US 2020/0164711 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hapyuk invention fails to specifically teaches adjusting suspension parameters to reduce a virtual wheelbase when the speed of the tractor and trailer is below a given threshold.
Tuhro invention teaches a system and method for adjusting the air suspension system based on the vehicle inputs; wherein the vehicle inputs may include, but are not limited to vehicle speed…[para.0014]; Para. 0005 further teaches This occurs when the vehicle is towing an improperly balanced trailer, and exceeds the critical damping speed of the system. The critical damping speed of a vehicle/trailer is primarily a function of vehicle cornering stiffness, trailer loading, mass, and trailer/vehicle geometry.
Since the prior art references are both from the same field of endeavor. The purpose disclosed by Tuhro invention would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Hapyuk.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary in the art to have provided the teaching of using the speed of the tractor and trailer is below a given threshold as a condition or input for adjusting the suspension parameter as taught by Tuhro invention into the system of Hapyuk for the purpose of preventing the extra weight that can be loaded from the speed of tractor and trailer.
9. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Hapyuk in view of Oldeide et al. (US 2021/0107349 A1).
Regarding claim 15, as discussed in claim 1, Hapyuk invention fails to specifically teaches wherein at least one of the at least two axles is an electrically driven axle, the rear most axle being preferably idle.
Oldeide invention teaches a vehicle (10) includes a tractor portion (14) and trailer portion (16); Trailer portion (16) may include a frame 18 that supports a plurality of wheels 20. As shown in FIG. 2, frame (18) may support a first pair of wheels (22) supported by a first electric axle (e-axle 24) and a second pair of wheels (28) supported by a second electric axle (e-axle 30) [para. 0049 and Figure 2]
Since the prior art references are both from the same field of endeavor. The purpose disclosed by Oldeide invention would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Hapyuk.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary in the art to have provided a trailer with at least one of electrically driven axle as taught by Oldeide invention to modify the system of Hapyuk for the purpose of increasing the payload as the legally allowed load on the driven axle to be higher than the allowed load on the other axle (idle axle).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Applicants are requested to consider the references in the PTO-892.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY H HOANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-4843. The examiner can normally be reached on [Monday-Friday [Maxi-Flex]].
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, Logan Kraft can be reached on (571) 270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.H.H./
January 20, 2026
/Johnny H. Hoang/
Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights