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 11/18/2024. Claim(s) 1 - 19 are presently pending and are examined in this first action on the merits (FAOM).
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority based on Application EP 23213999.8 filed 12/04/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 to 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Independent claim 1 is directed toward a method and claim 6 is directed toward a system. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1 and 6 along with the corresponding dependent claims 2-5 and 7-19 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
Step 2A Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are analyzed to determine whether one or more of the claims recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: (1) mental processes, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or (3) mathematical concepts.
In this case, the independent claims 1 and 6 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 1 recites:
A method for determining a trailer connection status for a vehicle, the vehicle comprising:
a trailer hitch arrangement arranged to connect with a coupler of a trailer such that the vehicle and the trailer are mechanically connected;
an air suspension pressure sensor configured to determine air pressure in an air suspension system of the vehicle
a tire pressure sensor configured to determine tire pressure inside a tire of the vehicle
a control unit communicatively connected with the air suspension pressure sensor and with the tire pressure sensor, wherein the method comprises
determining, at a first point in time, by the air suspension pressure sensor, a first air suspension pressure value, and, by the tire pressure sensor, a corresponding first tire pressure value
determining, at a second point in time, by the air suspension pressure sensor, a second air suspension pressure value, and, by the tire pressure sensor, a corresponding second tire pressure value, the second point in time being after the first point in time
receiving, by the control unit, the first and the second air suspension pressure values and the first and the second tire pressure values, to determine an air suspension pressure difference value and to determine a tire pressure difference value
determining, by the control unit, the trailer connection status based on the determined air suspension and tire pressure difference values, the trailer connection status being indicative of if the trailer is mechanically connected to the vehicle
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind.
For example, “determine the air pressure.. , determine the tire pressure …, determining, at a point in time, …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person to measure an air suppression sensor and a tire pressure sensor output;
“determining, by the control unit, ..” in the context of this claim encompasses a person to looking at the before and after values of the tire pressure and the suspension pressure and if the values have changed, making a mental judgement that a trailer has either been coupled or decoupled;
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 6 which are of similar scope to claim 1, likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong 1. 1
Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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 such as 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”; see at least MPEP 2106.04(d).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for determining a trailer connection status for a vehicle, the vehicle comprising:
a trailer hitch arrangement arranged to connect with a coupler of a trailer such that the vehicle and the trailer are mechanically connected;
an air suspension pressure sensor configured to determine air pressure in an air suspension system of the vehicle
a tire pressure sensor configured to determine tire pressure inside a tire of the vehicle
a control unit communicatively connected with the air suspension pressure sensor and with the tire pressure sensor, wherein the method comprises
determining, at a first point in time, by the air suspension pressure sensor, a first air suspension pressure value, and, by the tire pressure sensor, a corresponding first tire pressure value
determining, at a second point in time, by the air suspension pressure sensor, a second air suspension pressure value, and, by the tire pressure sensor, a corresponding second tire pressure value, the second point in time being after the first point in time
receiving, by the control unit, the first and the second air suspension pressure values and the first and the second tire pressure values, to determine an air suspension pressure difference value and to determine a tire pressure difference value
determining, by the control unit, the trailer connection status based on the determined air suspension and tire pressure difference values, the trailer connection status being indicative of if the trailer is mechanically connected to the 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 limitation of “an air suspension pressure sensor…”, “a tire pressure sensor configured…”, and “a control unit communicatively connected …” the examiner submits that this limitation of merely using a generic sensor or controller to perform the process is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of granularity, to the judicial exception. Regarding the additional limitation of “receiving, by the control unit, the first and the second air suspension pressure values and the first and the second tire pressure values …” the examiner submits that this limitation is adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In particular, the “a control unit communicatively coupled” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computer. The “receiving, by the control unit, … pressure values” step is recited at a high level of granularity and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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 limitations add nothing significant that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. 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.
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 6 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 and 6 do 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 “a control unit” 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 “receiving, by the control unit …” is recited at a high level of granularity and amounts to mere data gathering, the examiner submits that these limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a control unit” and “receiving, by the control unit” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the background recites that the exchange of messages between the vehicles, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent Claims 1 and 6 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims 2-5 and 7-19 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-5 and 7-19 when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claim(s) 2-5 and 7-19 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/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent Claims 2-5 and 7-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1 and 6.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-19 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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 1-3, 6-10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olaf Mentzendorff EP 3476627 (“Mentzendorff”) in view of Solomon Genene Gudeta et. al. US 11787418 (“Gudeta”).
As per Claim 1 and 6,
Mentzendorff discloses,
method for determining a trailer connection status for a vehicle, the vehicle comprising:
a trailer hitch arrangement arranged to connect with a coupler of a trailer such that the vehicle and the trailer are mechanically connected (see at least Fig. 2 and [0041] a seat point (for king pins) 25 of a seat 26 )
an air suspension pressure sensor configured to determine air pressure in an air suspension system of the vehicle (see at least [0005] forces are represented by the pressure in the air spring bellows (bellows pressure) , [0012] According to one aspect of the invention, the pressure sensor is a tire pressure sensor, and [0036] An air spring bellows 23 is assigned to the rear axle 22, which bellows has a bellows pressure sensor. The bellows pressure sensor is a TPMS module 24 or at least one pressure sensor in the manner of a tire pressure sensor with a radio module, analogous to the TPMS modules 18)
a tire pressure sensor configured to determine tire pressure inside a tire of the vehicle (see at least [0005] the tire pressure that can be measured by means of the tire pressure sensors, and [0034] Each rear wheel 16, 17 is assigned a TPMS module 18 (TPMS= Ti Pressure Monitoring System), namely a tire pressure sensor with a radio module as components of a tire pressure monitoring system)
a control unit communicatively connected with the air suspension pressure sensor and with the tire pressure sensor, wherein the method comprises: (see at least [0020] c) in the control device of the semi-trailer, the mass is determined on the basis of the data determined by the sensors of the semi-trailer and the tire pressure sensor of the towing vehicle, [037] The signals of the TPMS module 24 contain pressure values and an identifier, so that a distinction to the pressure values of the TPMS modules 18 is possible and the control device 12 recognizes the assignment to the towing vehicle 10 or to its rear axle 22.
Mentzendorff does not disclose,
determining, at a first point in time, by the air suspension pressure sensor, a first air suspension pressure value, and, by the tire pressure sensor, a corresponding first tire pressure value
determining, at a second point in time, by the air suspension pressure sensor, a second air suspension pressure value, and, by the tire pressure sensor, a corresponding second tire pressure value, the second point in time being after the first point in time
receiving, by the control unit, the first and the second air suspension pressure values and the first and the second tire pressure values, to determine an air suspension pressure difference value and to determine a tire pressure difference value; and
determining, by the control unit, the trailer connection status based on the determined air suspension and tire pressure difference values, the trailer connection status being indicative of if the trailer is mechanically connected to the vehicle.
Gudeta teaches,
determining, at a first point in time, by the air suspension pressure sensor, a first air suspension pressure value, and, by the tire pressure sensor, a corresponding first tire pressure value; (see at least Col 9, Line 17-23 The suspension pressure reading increases immediately after a trailer 120 is attached to a semi-truck 102. Pursuant to some embodiments, the suspension pressure value that can be used as a trailer presence detection limit can be measured by first recording the filtered suspension pressure reading from the vehicle when a trailer is not attached).
determining, at a second point in time, by the air suspension pressure sensor, a second air suspension pressure value, and, by the tire pressure sensor, a corresponding second tire pressure value, the second point in time being after the first point in time; (see at least Col. 9, Line 28 – 35 The measurement is then repeated when an empty trailer is attached. A trailer presence limit value may then be established by, for example, calculating the average value between these pressures (the pressure without a trailer and the pressure with an empty trailer attached). A hysteresis limit may also be calculated (by subtracting the trailer presence limit from the empty trailer pressure value and dividing by two).
receiving, by the control unit, the first and the second air suspension pressure values and the first and the second tire pressure values, to determine an air suspension pressure difference value and to determine a tire pressure difference value; (see at least Claim 7, Claim 8)
determining, by the control unit, the trailer connection status based on the determined air suspension and tire pressure difference values, the trailer connection status being indicative of if the trailer is mechanically connected to the vehicle. (see at least [Col. 9, Line 37 – 56] In operation, the limit and hysteresis values may be used by the trailer status module 320 to determine the presence of a trailer 120 as follows, [Claim 7] compare the filtered suspension pressure value to a predetermined trailer detection limit and [Claim 9] wherein comparing the filtered suspension pressure value to a predetermined trailer detection limit further comprises processing to: establish a hysteresis value by subtracting the predetermined trailer detection limit from the first suspension pressure value and dividing by two).
Thus, Mentzendorff discloses use of suspension pressure and tire pressure for the detection of the mass of a tractor with a trailer and Gudeta teaches a method of using suspension pressure variation to detect the presence/ absence of a trailer.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Mentzendorff with the use of suspension sensors to detect the presence of a trailer as taught by Gudeta, with a reasonable expectation of success, to detect the presence of a trailer 120 at the beginning of a trip (Col. 9, line 61-62).
As per Claim 2, 9 and 18,
Mentzendorff does not disclose,
wherein the trailer connection status is in a connected state if the coupler of the trailer is mechanically connected to the trailer hitch arrangement or in an unconnected state if the coupler of the trailer is detached from the trailer hitch arrangement
Gudeta teaches,
wherein the trailer connection status is in a connected state if the coupler of the trailer is mechanically connected to the trailer hitch arrangement or in an unconnected state if the coupler of the trailer is detached from the trailer hitch arrangement (see at least [Col. 3, line 16-19] Reference is first made to FIGS. 1A-1D which depict views of a semi-truck 102 pulling a trailer 120 and several angles and measurements that will be referenced herein to describe features of some embodiments, and [Col. 3, line 44-48] When coupled with a tractor or semi-truck 102, nearly all of the kingpin 112 load is reacted through the drive axles of the semi-truck 102 because the semi-truck's 5th wheel (the connection point between the semi-truck 102 and a trailer 120) is roughly centered over the drive axles).
Thus, Mentzendorff discloses use of suspension pressure and tire pressure for the detection of the mass of a tractor with a trailer and Gudeta teaches a method of using suspension pressure variation to detect the presence/ absence of a trailer.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Mentzendorff with the use of suspension sensors to detect the presence of a trailer as taught by Gudeta, with a reasonable expectation of success, to detect the presence of a trailer 120 at the beginning of a trip (Col. 9, line 61-62).
As per Claim 3 and 10,
Mentzendorff does not disclose,
wherein the determined trailer connection status is in the connected state if the air suspension pressure difference value is larger than a first threshold value and the tire pressure difference value is larger than a second threshold value
Gudeta teaches,
wherein the determined trailer connection status is in the connected state if the air suspension pressure difference value is larger than a first threshold value and the tire pressure difference value is larger than a second threshold value (see at least [Col. 9, line 33-36] A hysteresis limit may also be calculated (by subtracting the trailer presence limit from the empty trailer pressure value and dividing by two). The limit and hysteresis 35 value may be stored as constants in the control system 200).
Thus, Mentzendorff discloses use of suspension pressure and tire pressure for the detection of the mass of a tractor with a trailer and Gudeta teaches a method of using suspension pressure variation to detect the presence/ absence of a trailer.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Mentzendorff with the use of suspension sensors to detect the presence of a trailer as taught by Gudeta, with a reasonable expectation of success, to detect the presence of a trailer 120 at the beginning of a trip (Col. 9, line 61-62).
As per Claim 7 and 17,
Mentzendorff discloses,
wherein the vehicle comprises a trailer hitch arrangement arranged to connect with a coupler of the trailer such that the vehicle and the trailer are mechanically connected (see at least Fig. 2 and [0041] a seat point (for king pins) 25 of a seat 26)
As per Claim 8,
Mentzendorff discloses,
wherein the air suspension pressure sensor forms part of an air suspension system of the vehicle (see at least [0001] The invention relates to a towing vehicle for a semi-trailer, having air spring bellows and a pressure sensor on at least one air spring bellows or a volume connected to the air spring bellows, [0002] Air spring bellows of the suspension receive compressed air from the supply of the brake system, and [0036] The towing vehicle 10 is equipped with a pneumatic suspension at the front axle 21 and the rear axle 22. An air spring bellows 23 is assigned to the rear axle 22, which bellows has a bellows pressure sensor).
As per Claim 16,
Mentzendorff discloses,
A vehicle comprising the system of claim 6 (see at least [0001] The invention relates to a towing vehicle for a semi-trailer, and [0028] the towing vehicle is provided with a compressed air system and at least one tire pressure sensor with a radio module)
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mentzendorff in view of Gudeta as applied to Claim 1 and 6 above and further in view of Markus Gerdin et. al. US 20110231051 (“Gerdin”)
As per Claim 4 and 11,
Mentzendorff does not disclose,
wherein the trailer connection status is in the connected state if the sum of the air suspension pressure difference value and the tire pressure difference value is larger than a third threshold value
Gerdin teaches,
wherein the trailer connection status is in the connected state if the sum of the air suspension pressure difference value and the tire pressure difference value is larger than a third threshold value (see at least [Claim 35], [Claim 37], and [0091] Such embodiments consider that also the deviation threshold data might have a suspension related dependency that could be (also) compensated. Further, it might be beneficial to modify the deviation threshold data in dependence of the actual suspension condition(s) such that in certain (e.g. excessive) suspension condition(s) reliable statements on tire pressure and/or tire pressure deviation are (still) possible).
Thus, Mentzendorff discloses use of suspension pressure and tire pressure for the detection of the mass of a tractor with a trailer and Gerdin teaches a method of using suspension pressure variation to detect the variation in tire pressure and a system for optimizing the monitoring of tire pressure in a vehicle.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Mentzendorff with the method for detecting whether the tire pressure deviation condition exceeds at least one predetermined deviation related threshold as taught by Gerdin, with a reasonable expectation of success, to achieve suspension compensated tire pressure deviation data for each of the at least one tire (0166).
Claims 5, 12-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mentzendorff in view of Gudeta as applied to Claim 1 and 6 above and further in view of Bo Ye et. al. US 9311761 (“Ye”).
As per Claim 5, 12 and 19,
Mentzendorff disclose,
wherein the vehicle further comprises an engine, and wherein the first point in time occurs, as set by the control unit, when the engine ignition is on (see at least [0022] this information is transmitted less frequently or even only in each case after the switching on of the ignition of the towing vehicle).
Mentzendorff does not disclose,
wherein the vehicle further comprises an engine, and wherein the first point in time occurs, as set by the control unit, when the engine ignition is on, and wherein the second point in time occurs, as set by the control unit, after the engine ignition has been turned off and thereafter turned on again such that a connection of the trailer to the vehicle occurring in between the first and second points in time is detectable by the control unit
Gudeta teaches,
such that a connection of the trailer to the vehicle occurring in between the first and second points in time is detectable by the control unit (see at least [Col. 9, line 13-17] applicants have found that a airbag suspension pressure reading (e.g. received from the components shown in FIG. 1D) is a reliable way of determining the presence of a trailer 120, particularly at the start of a trip. The suspension pressure reading increases immediately after a trailer 120 is attached to a semi-truck 102).
Thus, Mentzendorff discloses use of suspension pressure and tire pressure for the detection of the mass of a tractor with a trailer and Gudeta teaches a method of using suspension pressure variation to detect the presence/ absence of a trailer.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Mentzendorff with the use of suspension sensors to detect the presence of a trailer as taught by Gudeta, with a reasonable expectation of success, to detect the presence of a trailer 120 at the beginning of a trip (Col. 9, line 61-62).
Ye teaches,
wherein the vehicle further comprises an engine, and wherein the first point in time occurs, as set by the control unit, when the engine ignition is on, and wherein the second point in time occurs, as set by the control unit, after the engine ignition has been turned off and thereafter turned on again (see at least Fig. 3, [Col. 1, 50-52] With the vehicle at standstill, the vehicle ignition is switched on. A normal load for the vehicle is calculated, and [Col. 2, 54-56] The nominal normal force FN_norm can be obtained once the ignition is switched on and vehicle is standing still).
Thus, Mentzendorff discloses use of suspension pressure and tire pressure for the detection of the mass of a tractor with a trailer and Ye teaches a method to determine whether a trailer is coupled using a vehicle load information system by detecting the information derived from tire pressure and suspension information.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Mentzendorff with the use of information derived from tire pressure and suspension information as taught by Ye, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a system that determines the vehicle load, particularly when a trailer is added to the vehicle (Col. 1, line 39-40).
As per Claim 13,
Mentzendorff disclose,
wherein the mechanical connection of the trailer to the vehicle is detected by a change in the trailer connection status as determined based on the air suspension and tire pressure difference values, the change being conditioned to occur within a time period being smaller than a threshold time period (see at least [0025] the data determined by the tire pressure sensor and received as such by the semi-trailer are only processed to determine the mass if the data are received repeatedly within a specific period of time).
As per Claim 14 and 15,
Mentzendorff does not disclose,
wherein the system is configured to repeatedly determine air suspension pressure values and tire pressure values, and wherein the mechanical connection of the trailer to the vehicle is detected by a change in the trailer connection status as determined based on air suspension and tire pressure difference values, the change being conditioned to occur if at least one of the air suspension and the tire pressure difference values are constant over a time period being larger than a threshold time period.
Gudeta teaches,
wherein the system is configured to repeatedly determine air suspension pressure values and tire pressure values, and wherein the mechanical connection of the trailer to the vehicle is detected by a change in the trailer connection status as determined based on air suspension and tire pressure difference values, the change being conditioned to occur if at least one of the air suspension and the tire pressure difference values are constant over a time period being larger than a threshold time period (see at least [Col. 9, 19-25] Pursuant to some embodiments, the suspension pressure value that can be used as a trailer presence detection limit can be measured by first recording the filtered suspension pressure reading from the vehicle when a trailer is not attached. Applicants have found that filtering should be used to clean out possible spikes in the readings that may be caused by driving over uneven roads. A low pass filter with a large time constant (approximately 3 minutes, for example) is desirable because the trailer status and weight will not change rapidly).
Thus, Mentzendorff discloses use of suspension pressure and tire pressure for the detection of the mass of a tractor with a trailer and Gudeta teaches a method of using suspension pressure variation to detect the presence/ absence of a trailer.
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the inventions as disclosed by Mentzendorff with the use of suspension sensors to detect the presence of a trailer as taught by Gudeta, with a reasonable expectation of success, to detect the presence of a trailer 120 at the beginning of a trip (Col. 9, line 61-62).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants should take note of the prior art in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHUTOSH PANDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6269. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00am -5:00 PM EST.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 5712721516. 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.
/A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights