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 § 112
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.
Claims 8 and 11 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 8 recites the limitation "electrically powered axles." Claim 11 recites the limitation "electric axles." There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
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)(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, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0233410 to Burns et al.
Regarding claim 1, Burns discloses a hybrid tractor/trailer system comprising:
a tractor (At least the tractor/autonomous tow vehicle, 1000);
a trailer connected to the tractor at a trailer connection (At least the front-mounted structural tow point, such as a fifth wheel coupling including a kingpin; Par. [0031]);
a battery system, the battery system mechanically connected to the trailer (At least Claim 1; Par. [0011, 0039], including an energy storage/battery pack that includes a battery management system (BMS) as part of the onboard drive system affixable to the freight trailer and discloses an onboard drive system affixable to the freight trailer having a power distribution system and including an energy storage);
a motor controller, wherein the motor controller is in electrical communication with the battery system (At least Par. [0010, 0011, 0042, 0043, 0067-0077]; wherein a controller manages the onboard braking/propulsion via the onboard drive system which operates the motor/generator electrically coupled to the energy storage);
an electric motor, the motor in electrical communication with the motor controller (At least Par. [0011] where the controller affixable to the freight trailer configured to operate the onboard drive system and the onboard air system in both propulsion and braking and the onboard system including an energy storage and a motor/generator electrically coupled to the energy storage, the motor/generator is configured to apply torque to the at least one drive wheel, the energy storage is configured to power the motor/generator and be charged by the motor/generator);
a gearbox, the gearbox in mechanical communication with the motor (At least Par. [0037-0038]; where the motor/generator unit is connected to a gearbox); and
an axle, the axle in mechanical communication with the motor (At least Par. [0036]; where the powered axle is connected to motor/generator).
Regarding claim 10, Burns discloses that the gearbox is a reduction gearbox (At least gear reduction transmission gearbox, 340).
Regarding claim 11, Burns discloses that the electric axles are mechanically connected to tires (At least Par. [0037]; Fig. 4; wherein the powered axle may include the differential gearbox, which operatively couples the multi-speed gearbox to the axle shafts of the wheels).
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.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0233410 in view of Burns et al. in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0025245 to Fanourakis et al.
Regarding claim 2, Burns discloses a sensor system, the sensor system including:
a strain gauge sensor, the strain gauge sensor mechanically connected at the trailer connection and electrically connected to the tractor (At least Par. [0030, 0055, 0068, 0095, 0096]; the sensors and sensor modules may establish a force vector on the kingpin (e.g., using strain gages)).
However, Burns does not appear to expressly discuss a state of charge sensor.
Nevertheless, Fanourakis teaches a state of charge sensor, the state of charge sensor electrically connected to the battery system and the tractor (At least at Par. [0095, 0107-0110]; state of charge status detector)
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the batteries of the trailer of Burns to have a state of charge sensor, as taught by Fanourakis, in order to provide battery charge state information to determine when the electrical storage needs to be replenished for improved battery health.
Regarding claim 3, Burns discloses the claimed invention except for the trailer rail limitations.
Nevertheless, Fanourakis teaches a trailer which includes a trailer deck and frame rails positioned below the trailer deck (At least Par. [0078]; where the battery is located under the decking between longitudinally extending chassis members).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the trailer of Burns to have frame rails below a trailer deck, as taught by Fanourakis, in order to provide greater structural integrity to the trailer of Burns and to protect any components under the decking, as expressly taught by Fanourakis. Further, though Burns does not appear to expressly disclose frame rails, Burns does disclose a chassis for the trailer, and it is likely that Burns uses frame rails since frame rails are commonly used as decking support below a trailer so that the trailer can handle a loaded trailer without buckling or incurring severe damage.
Regarding claim 4, the primary reference, Burns, discloses that the trailer connection is a kingpin or gooseneck connection (At least Par. [0031]; fifth-wheel coupling includes a kingpin).
Regarding claim 5, the primary reference, Burns, discloses that the battery system includes a plurality of battery modules (At least the “batteries disclosed by Burns). While it is believed that Burns is sufficient in teaching the claim limitations, Burns does not appear to expressly discuss modules.
Nevertheless, Fanourakis clearly teaches a plurality of battery modules (At least the one or more plurality of batteries in Par. [0028]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the trailer of Burns to have a plurality of battery modules, as taught by Fanourakis, in order to provide greater energy storage capacity for increased range capabilities between charging.
Regarding claim 6, Burns discloses the claimed invention except for the trailer rail/battery limitations.
Nevertheless, Fanourakis teaches the plurality of battery modules is installed between the frame rails or outside the frame rails on an underside of the trailer (At least Par. [0078]; where the battery is located under the decking between longitudinally extending chassis members).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the trailer of Burns to have frame rails below a trailer deck sheltering batteries, as taught by Fanourakis, in order to provide greater structural integrity to the trailer of Burns and to protect any components under the decking from damage, as expressly taught by Fanourakis.
Regarding claim 7, the primary reference, Burns, discloses that the plurality of batteries is installed at the trailer connection or a trailer rear (At least Fig. 2 and 4; Par. [0042]).
Regarding claim 8, the primary reference, Burns, discloses that the electrically powered axles are adapted to provide kinetic energy to the batteries during deceleration and braking (At least Par. [0028]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. 2020/0233410 in view of Burns et al. in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2013/0345007to Wenthen.
Regarding claim 9, Burns discloses the claimed invention except for the motor speed limitations.
Nevertheless, Wenthen teaches that the motor controller is adapted to vary the speed of the electric motor (At least Par. [0007]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the trailer of Burns to have a motor with variable speeds, as taught by Wenthen, in order to provide greater ability to fine-tune the output to an exact speed needed to accommodate for varied conditions and loads for improved torque output control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights