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
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 1-5, 7-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer (US 2024/0308589 A1) in view of Arquus (EP 4119428 A1 - IDS).
As to claims 1, 9 and 15, Mayer discloses a control unit/method for reversing a vehicle-trailer combination toward a target location (Fig. 1), wherein the vehicle and the trailer each is equipped with driven wheels, and wherein the control unit is configured to: obtain sensor data (para. 0037), wherein the sensor data comprises an angular offset α of the trailer relative to the target location (Fig. 3, para. 0034); determine whether the angular offset α of the trailer relative to the target location is within a predetermined alignment margin (para. 0037-0038). Mayer does not explicitly disclose shift propulsion control to the driven wheels of the trailer for movement toward the target location in response to the angular offset α of the trailer being within the predetermined alignment margin. However, Arquus teaches shift propulsion control to the driven wheels of the trailer for movement toward the target location (para. 0086-0093). Therefore, given the teaching of Arquus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date if the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the unit/method of Mayer, by employing the well-known or conventional features of shifting propulsion control to the driven wheels of the trailer, to align the tailer orientation with the target location.
As to claims 2 and 10, when the vehicle is already aligned and only the trailer is not perfectly aligned, it is well-known that just control the wheels of the trailer to make the trailer aligned with target location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date if the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the unit/method of Mayer, by employing the well-known or conventional features of steer the trailer wheels to make the trailer align with target location while disengaging the vehicle wheels.
As to claims 3 and 11, Arquus further teaches wherein the propulsion control is shifted partially to the driven wheels of the trailer by partially disengaging the driven wheels of the vehicle (para. 0086-0093).
As to claims 4 and 12, Arquus further teaches wherein the trailer comprises a steerable axle, and the control unit is further configured to control the steerable axle to fine-tune the alignment of the trailer relative to the target location (para. 0086-0093).
As to claims 5 and 13, Mayer further teaches wherein the target location is one of a series of sequential locations along a predefined path, and upon reaching the target location a subsequent location along the path becomes the target location, and wherein the angular offset α of the trailer is adjusted upon reaching each target location along the path (Fig. 1).
As to claim 7, Mayer further teaches a vehicle-trailer combination, comprising one or more sensors (para. 0004-0006) configured to measure the distance and angular offset of the trailer relative to a target, and a control unit according to claim 1.
As to claim 8, Mayer further teaches wherein the one or more sensors is at least one of an optical camera, a radar, a lidar sensor, a heat sensor or a combination thereof (para. 0004-0006).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer and Arquus, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, further in view of Goetting et al. (US 2006/0111820 A1).
As to claims 6 and 14, Mayer and Arquus do not explicitly teach receiving input from a remote control to allow operating the tractor-trailer combination from a position adjacent to the target location, thereby facilitating precise control over movement toward the target location. However, Goetting teaches receiving input from a remote control to allow operating the tractor-trailer combination from a position adjacent to the target location, thereby facilitating precise control over movement toward the target location (para. 0026-0030). Therefore, given the teaching of Goetting, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date if the claimed invention, to have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the unit/method of Mayer, by employing the well-known or conventional features of remote control of the vehicle/trailer, to help the vehicle-tailer to align with the target location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ce Li Li whose telephone number is (571)270-5564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-7PM.
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, Peter D Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
CE LI . LI
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights