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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies of GB2100651.5 filed 1/19/21 and GB2111426.9 filed 8/9/21.
Priority to PCT/IB2021/061300 is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
However, the foreign GB documents were reviewed and do not have figures corresponding to instant figure 3 which contains both steps S210b and S210c pertaining to vehicle speed and inclination. Therefore, priority to foreign GB documents is not granted for the instant claims 1-6 pertaining to vehicle speed and inclination.
The PCT document was reviewed and found to contain figure 3 with both steps S210b and S210c pertaining to vehicle speed and inclination. Therefore priority to the PCT document is found to be perfected.
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.
Claim 6 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 6 recites the limitation "the determined preliminary pressure peak" in last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examining the limitation will be taken as “the pressure peak parameter.”
Examiners Note
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are adopted to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2149.02 VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e. as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. WL Gore & Associates, inc. v. Garlock, inc., 721 F.2d 1540,220 USPQ303 (Fed, Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 489 US 851 (1984). See also MPEP 2123.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Hill et al US 2018/0339685.
In Re 1-6 Hill teaches:
1. A control system for controlling operation of a trailer brake system (title) associated with an agricultural (fig 1, construed as pick up trucks used in agriculture/farming, e.g. “farm use only” license plates) vehicle-trailer combination, the control system comprising a vehicle control unit (fig 3), and being configured to:
determine a driver deceleration demand (signal from brake pedal sensor 62 to 22,56, abstract);
determine a pressure level of a preliminary pressure peak (construed as “pressure” paras 26-28, in which the pressure is later varied or corrected to be increased or decreased) in dependence on the driver deceleration demand and on a first correction factor (“gain” para 38) determined in dependence on at least one of (Markush) a speed of the vehicle-trailer combination (vehicle speed fig 4, paras 28,33,35) and an inclination (alpha incline, para 38), of the trailer-vehicle combination;
generate a trailer brake signal (application signal fig 4) for controlling the trailer brake system in accordance with the preliminary pressure peak; and
forward the trailer brake signal (unlabeled arrow from 22,56 to 16) to the trailer brake control system to control operation thereof.
2. The control system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to apply the correction factor to reduce the pressure level of the preliminary pressure peak (para 38 “Further, as the overall brake torque (vehicle brakes and trailer brakes) needed to slow the combined and trailer varies with the speed of the combined vehicle and trailer (e.g., by requiring higher deceleration to slow over a comparable distance) and with road grade, a constant brake gain may result, for example, in excessive gain leading to wheel locking during breaking from relatively lower speeds (e.g., less than 5 miles per hour).”) in dependence on the vehicle-trailer speed being less than a speed threshold (5 mph).
3. The control system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to apply the correction factor to ensure the pressure level of the preliminary pressure peak is at a maximum (para 38 “maximum application of trailer brake system”) in dependence on the magnitude of the inclination of the vehicle-trailer combination being greater than an inclination threshold (any downward decline and or “steeper downward incline” para 38), irrespective (the teachings of the last lines of para 38 are irrespective of vehicle-trailer speed) of vehicle-trailer speed.
4. A braking system comprising the control system of claim 1.
5. An agricultural vehicle couplable to a trailer to form a vehicle-trailer combination (fig 1) and comprising the control system of claim 1.
6. A method of controlling operation of a trailer brake system (title) associated with an agricultural vehicle-trailer combination (fig 1, construed as pick up trucks used in agriculture/farming, e.g. “farm use only” license plates), the method comprising:
determining a driver deceleration demand (signal from brake pedal sensor 62 to 22,56, abstract);
determining at least one pressure peak parameter selected from the group consisting of (Markush) a pressure level (construed as “pressure” paras 26-28, in which the pressure is later varied or corrected to be increased or decreased) and (all limitations following “and” in this clause taken as optional) a duration for a preliminary pressure peak to be provided in at least one fluid line of the trailer brake system in dependence on the driver deceleration demand; and
controlling the trailer brake system in accordance with the determined preliminary pressure peak (taken as pressure peak parameter per 35 USC 112b rejection above)(unlabeled arrow from 22,56 to 16, figs 3-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL C STAUBACH whose telephone number is (571)272-3748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Interview Agendas can be faxed to examiner at (571)273-3748.
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 at 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 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.
/CARL C STAUBACH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights