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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 08/05/2025. Claim(s) 1, 12, and 16 have been amended. Claim(s) 11 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-21 are pending examination. This action is made final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 103 rejections of independent claims 1, 12, and 16 is improper. Applicant asserts that all cited art fails to teach the claim limitations as written.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 12-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. After further search and consideration the independent claims would remain rejected under 35 USC 103. Accordingly all dependent claims would remain rejected at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter. Regarding the new limitation of claim 1, “will cause contact between the side of the trailer and the object.” The examiner would point towards the newly cited art Hilnbrand (US PG Pub 2018/0072344). Hilnbrand in [0011]-[0012] teaches an object detection device that can determine that a trailer would end up sideswiping and obstacle, i.e. cause contact between the object and the side of the trailer. The system is able to determine that the turning radius of the trailer would cause contact with stationary or moving objects, and execute a contact avoidance maneuver. As Hilnbrand [0002] teaches there is a known issue of obstacles contacting the sides of trailers and there needs to be a way to avoid this. It would be obvious to incorporate this form of contact avoidance and obstacle detection in order to ensure the safety vehicles and operators. Claim 16 has been amended in a similar way and would be rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 12, the examiner would contend that Lee teaches the claim as written. Applicant contends that the system of Lee determines that the trailer will not fit a curve due to the movement of the rear of the trailer. However, as the trailer is one solid object the movement of the rear would correspond to the movement of the side as the claim is written. The movement of the trailer as a whole corresponds with the movement of the side of the trailer as the movement is the same for both the trailer and its sides. Incorporating Hilnbrand would further show that there is a desire to avoid side contact based on vehicle movements. For this reason claim 12 would remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
All dependent claims would remain rejected under 35 USC 103 at least due to their dependence on rejected subject matter. Please see the section titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103,” for detailed mapping and explanation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagenmeyer (DE 102009028760) in view of Lavoie (US PG Pub 2014/0303847) and Hilnbrand (US PG Pub 2018/0072344).
Regarding claim 1, Hagenmeyer teaches a (Page 4, Note 4, teaches a sensor suite to monitor positions of objects in the environment); and
a controller configured to: process information received from the sensor system to monitor a relative position of at least one object (Page 3, Note 5, teaches monitoring of an object in the environment of the vehicle) with respect to the vehicle during an initial vehicle movement; (Page 2, Note 7, teaches recording data during parking of a vehicle)
store in memory the information received from the sensor system as a reference data set (Page 2, Highlight 1, teaches storing information received from sensors at a point in time) at an instance when the initial vehicle movement ends at a vehicle standstill; (Page 2, Note 1, teaches storing of data at the end of an initial movement and reading that data at the end of a standstill)
and retrieve from memory the reference data set upon detecting an event indicating an end of the vehicle standstill relating to a subsequent forward vehicle movement (Page 2, Note 1 teaches retrieving the reference data at the end of a vehicle standstill, this would be before a subsequent forward movement of the vehicle), process the reference data set (Page 3, Note 8, teaches the processing of the data upon vehicle start) to
Hagenmeyer does not teach a trailer flank object contact avoidance system for a vehicle towing a trailer, the at least one object is in a travel path of at least one point along a side of the trailer such that the subsequent forward vehicle movement will cause contact between the side of the trailer and the object, and execute a contact avoidance measure based on the at least one object being in the forward travel path of the at least one point along the side of the trailer the contact avoidance measure including at least one of: reducing a manual steering torque assist supplied by a power assist steering system; executing an indication signal via a vehicle alert system; and causing a reduction in a speed of the vehicle.
However, Lavoie teaches “trailer flank object contact avoidance system for a vehicle towing a trailer” ([0029] teaches a trailer object avoidance system), and “determine whether the at least one object is in a lateral travel path of at least one point along a side of the trailer corresponding with the subsequent forward vehicle movement” (Figs. 11 and 12, and [0090]-[0092] teach an object still being in the path of the trailer or alongside of the trailer such as item 19 in fig. 12; [0088] furthers this teaching with the system determining the presence and distance to objects along the side of the vehicle trailer), and “execute a contact avoidance measure based on the at least one object being in the travel path of the at least one point along the side of the trailer” (Fig 13, and [0092]-[0094] teach avoidance for the object in the path of the trailer this may be accomplished via an alert or altering the steering allowance in the wheels of the vehicle) “the contact avoidance measure including at least one of…executing an indication signal via a vehicle alert system” ([0033] teach the system as able to issue an alert to the driver in the event of unfavorable movement) and “causing a reduction in a speed of the vehicle.” ([0033] teaches the system controlling the braking of a vehicle so it does not collide)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer and Lavoie; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts relate to the movement of a vehicle. Both systems track obstacles in an environment around the vehicle as it performs some kind of maneuver. Remembering the area around a vehicle at shut down would help an object avoidance system to save time on startup from acquiring all new objects around the vehicle. It also allows for quicker movement after startup as the system does not need to re-find all obstacles to avoid.
The combination of Hagenmeyer and Lavoie does not teach such that the subsequent forward vehicle movement will cause contact between the side of the trailer and the object
However, Hilnbrand teaches “such that the subsequent forward vehicle movement will cause contact between the side of the trailer and the object” ([0011]-[0012] teach an object detection system for a vehicle towing a trailer that can determine that continued forward movement will cause the side of the trailer to contact the object, and to execute a maneuver to overcome this contact)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer and Lavoie with Hilnbrand; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle systems relating to object avoidance and trailer usage. As Hilnbrand [0002] teaches there is a known issue of obstacles contacting the sides of trailers and there needs to be a way to avoid this. Hilnbrand in [0011]-[0012] teaches an object detection device that can determine that a trailer would end up sideswiping and obstacle, i.e. cause contact between the object and the side of the trailer. The usage of this system prevents contact between trailer side and obstacle and ensures safe travels for the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Hagenmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the standstill is associated with the vehicle parked and in an off condition; and (Page 4, Note 3, teaches checking that the standstill was a vehicle off condition)
only retrieve from memory the reference data set and process the information received from the sensor system to determine whether the at least one object is in the lateral travel path of the trailer if the event indicating the end of the vehicle standstill is detected at an elapsed time from the end of the initial vehicle movement being within a predetermined time interval. (Page 3, Note 2 teaches the use of specific time intervals between recording of data, at parking, and retrieving data, at start, and that this data is only valid for a specific time period)
Regarding claim 3, Hagenmeyer teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the controller is further configured to communicate a feature unavailable status if the elapsed time exceeds the predetermined time interval. (Page 3, Note 2, teaches the system warning the driver that the data is invalid after a specified time period has elapsed)
Regarding claim 7, Hagenmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the sensor system includes an ultrasonic sensor, a radar unit (Page 4, Note 4, teaches a sensor suite to monitor positions of objects in the environment), and (Page 3, Note 5, teaches the storing of a relative object position as a combination of sensor data); and
the controller is configured to process the reference data set retrieved from memory associated with the radar unit (Page 4, Note 4, teaches a sensor suite to monitor positions of objects in the environment) in combination with new information received from the ultrasonic sensor to determine whether the at least one object is in the lateral travel path of the trailer corresponding with the subsequent vehicle movement. (Page 3, Note 8, teaches comparing new sensor data to old sensor data to determine if the environment has changed during the parking time)
Hagenmeyer does not teach the use of a camera for object tracking.
However, Lavoie teaches “a camera” ([0027] teaches a camera for use of object tracking)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer and Lavoie; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts relate to the movement of a vehicle. Both systems track obstacles in an environment around the vehicle as it performs some kind of maneuver. A camera is a useful tool in tracking objects around the environment. As Lavoie teaches in [0027] the camera can be video or image capturing and it can capture a wide view of the area. This is advantageous in object tracking as it may see things other systems miss. Incorporating a camera with the system would improve its capabilities and ensure accurate tracking.
Regarding claim 9, Hagenmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein
Hagenmeyer does not teach the controller uses an assumed vehicle speed when processing the reference data set.
However, Lavoie teaches “the controller uses an assumed vehicle speed when processing the reference data set.” ([0095]-[0096] teach the movement of a trailer with an object in its proximity, the object and vehicle having assumed parameters, such as speed position and other information based on inputs and variables)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer and Lavoie; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts relate to the movement of a vehicle. Both systems track obstacles in an environment around the vehicle as it performs some kind of maneuver. As taught in Lavoie [0095] and [0096] the generation of movement paths has to use and assumed variable to ensure that as many paths as possible are considered. After the generation is done it would be better to monitor and compare these variables. As this is just path planning a measured speed is not needed. Putting this into a system such as Hagenmeyer, would help the system with early maneuver generation and ensure the system can accurately path plan out of the parking spot it is in.
Regarding claim 10, Hagenmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the reference data set includes the relative position of the at least one object (Page 3, Note 5, teaches the storing of a relative object position as a combination of sensor data) and .
Hagenmeyer does not teach a localized vehicle position.
However, Lavoie teaches “a localized vehicle position” ([0028] teaches the use of a localized coordinate system for a vehicle with a trailer)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer and Lavoie; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts relate to the movement of a vehicle. Both systems track obstacles in an environment around the vehicle as it performs some kind of maneuver. As taught in Lavoie [0028] a localized vehicle position allows for the system to perform dead reckoning on the vehicle and put the object in a local system with the vehicle. By incorporating the two systems it allows the processor to look at the locations in one plane and not over multiple coordinate systems. This would improve processing time and reduce collisions.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, and Hilnbrand in view of Kossira (WO 2012076138).
Regarding claim 4, Hagenmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to: determine that the standstill is associated with the vehicle being parked and in an off condition; (Page 4, Note 3, teaches checking that the standstill was a vehicle off condition)
only retrieve from memory the reference data set and process the information received from the sensor system to determine whether the at least one object is in the lateral travel path of the trailer if the event indicating the end of the vehicle standstill is detected within a predetermined time interval of the end of the initial vehicle movement (Page 3, Note 2 teaches the use of specific time intervals between recording of data, at parking, and retrieving data, at start, and that this data is only valid for a specific time period) and if the controller has not
Hagenmeyer does not teach detect a trailer movement event; and detected the trailer movement event.
However, Kossira teaches “detect a trailer movement event;” (Page 2, Note 1, teaches a trailer movement event detection) and “detected the trailer movement event.” (Page2, Note, 1 teaches a trailer movement event detection)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, and Hilnbrand with Kossira; and have a reasonable expectation of success. The arts relate to that of a vehicle stoppage and movement. The change of a trailer should be means for discarding data related to objects near a vehicle. The change of a trailer would mean the vehicle is now different and old data would no longer be valid. As Kossira teaches knowing which trailer is connected to your vehicle allows for better data collection and processing. This would be advantageous to the art as now you can determine if the prerecorded data would still work on your departure movement.
Regarding claim 6, Hagenmeyer teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the controller is further configured to communicate a feature unavailable status if either the event indicating the end of the vehicle standstill is detected outside of the predetermined time interval of the end of the initial vehicle movement (Page 3, Note 2, teaches the system warning the driver that the data is invalid after a specified time period has elapsed) or
Hagenmeyer does not teach the trailer movement event is detected.
However, Kossira teaches “the trailer movement event is detected” (Page2, Note, 1 teaches a trailer movement event detection)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, and Hilnbrand with Kossira; and have a reasonable expectation of success. The arts relate to that of a vehicle stoppage and movement. The change of a trailer should be means for discarding data related to objects near a vehicle. The change of a trailer would mean the vehicle is now different and old data would no longer be valid. As Kossira teaches knowing which trailer is connected to your vehicle allows for better data collection and processing. This would be advantageous to the art as now you can determine if the prerecorded data would still work on your departure movement.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, Hilnbrand, and Kossira in view of Lavoie (US PG Pub 20140188346), known as Lavoie-2014.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, and Hilnbrand teaches the system in regards to claim 4.
The combination of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, and Hilnbrand does not teach the system of claim 4, wherein: the controller is further configured to detect a trailer electrical connection status with respect to a vehicle electrical connection and a trailer hitch angle with respect to the vehicle and to receive a trailer profile selection from a user; and the trailer movement event is detected by one of the trailer electrical connection status changing to a connected status the vehicle standstill; the trailer electrical connection status changing to a disconnected status during the vehicle standstill; the trailer hitch angle having different values at the end of the vehicle standstill and the end of the initial vehicle movement; or the controller receiving the trailer profile selection during the standstill.
However, Kossira teaches “detect a trailer electrical connection status with respect to a vehicle electrical connection” (Page 2, Note 1, teaches monitoring of a trailer electrical signal during a standstill action) and “a trailer hitch angle with respect to the vehicle” (Page 2, Note 2, teaches monitoring of the angle between the vehicle and the trailer), “the trailer movement event is detected by one of the trailer electrical connection status changing to a connected status the vehicle standstill;” (Page 3, Note 5, teaches monitoring of an electrical signal for trailer connection), “the trailer electrical connection status changing to a disconnected status during the vehicle standstill;” (Page 3, Note 3, teaches a system determining a trailer has been disconnected during a parking operation), and “the trailer hitch angle having different values at the end of the vehicle standstill and the end of the initial vehicle movement; or” (Page 2, Note 2, teaches that a change in angle between trailer and vehicle at a standstill indicates a change in trailer)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, and Hilnbrand with Kossira; and have a reasonable expectation of success. The arts relate to that of vehicle control and monitoring of vehicle conditions. Kossira teaches a way for the system to monitor if the trailer is changed during a standstill phase of an operation. The change of a trailer would mean the vehicle is now different and old data would no longer be valid. As Kossira teaches knowing which trailer is connected to your vehicle allows for better data collection and processing. This would be advantageous to the art as now you can determine if the prerecorded data would still work on your departure movement.
However, none of the above arts teach a user selection of a trailer profile.
However, Lavoie-2014 teaches “a trailer profile selection from a user” ([0127] teaches trailer profile selection by a user) and “the controller receiving the trailer profile selection during the standstill.” ([0127] teaches trailer profile selection by a user)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, Hilnbrand, and Kossira with Lavoie-2014; and have a reasonable expectation of success. The arts relate to that of vehicle control and monitoring of vehicle conditions. Kossira teaches a way for the system to monitor if the trailer is changed during a standstill phase of an operation. The change of a trailer would mean the vehicle is now different and old data would no longer be valid. As Kossira teaches knowing which trailer is connected to your vehicle allows for better data collection and processing. This would be advantageous to the art as now you can determine if the prerecorded data would still work on your departure movement. Kossira also teaches a way for the computer to generate trailer profiles but not a way for a user to select them. Lavoie-2014 teaches this and it would be beneficial because similar trailers may generate similar profiles for Kossira’s method. Allowing a user to select such a profile prevents unintended duplicates or the wrong trailer from being selected.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, and Hilnbrand in view of Shank (US PG Pub 20180147900) and Sperrle (US PG Pub 20140184785).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, and Hilnbrand teaches the system of claim 1 as taught above.
The combination of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, and Hilnbrand does not teach the controller is further configured to detect at least one of a vehicle service brake position, a vehicle parking brake status, or a vehicle switchgear state; and the controller detects the event indicating the end of the vehicle standstill based on at least one of the vehicle service brake position indicating a release of the vehicle service brakes; the vehicle parking brake status indicating a release of the vehicle parking brake; or the vehicle switchgear state indicating shifting of the switchgear into a drive state or a reverse state.
However, Shank teaches “controller is further configured to detect at least one of a vehicle service brake position,” ([0045] teaches the controller monitoring for a vehicle brake) “a vehicle switchgear state” ([0036] teaches a system to monitor for a vehicle to be in a reverse state) “vehicle service brake position indicating a release of the vehicle service brakes” ([0045] teaches the controller monitoring for a vehicle brake) and “the vehicle switchgear state indicating shifting of the switchgear into a drive state or a reverse state.” ([0036] teaches a system to monitor for a vehicle to be in a reverse state)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, and Hilnbrand with Shank; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All systems teach ways of monitoring vehicle status for movement. As Shank teaches in [0036] monitoring of vehicle systems before an operation commences allow for the operation to proceed smoothly. This vehicle is moving and does not want to break a component of itself or the objects around it. This system prevents such an event from occurring.
However, the combination of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, Hilnbrand, and Shank do not teach monitoring for a parking brake.
Sperrle teaches “a vehicle parking brake status” ([0020] teaches the vehicle monitoring an automated parking brake for when a standstill is ending) “the vehicle parking brake status indicating a release of the vehicle parking brake” ([0020] teaches the vehicle monitoring an automated parking brake for when a standstill is ending)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, Hilnbrand, and Shank with Sperrle; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All systems teach ways of monitoring vehicle status for movement. As Sperrle teaches in [0004] monitoring for a parking brake is becoming a common place way to monitor for standstills in vehicle. This system allows for the vehicle to be on and braked without using the regular vehicle brakes. Monitoring for such a system would be beneficial for a trailer device where parking brake usage is more common especially on a hilly area.
Claim(s) 12-13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagenmeyer (DE 102009028760) in view of Lavoie, (US PG Pub 2014/0303847) Hilnbrand, (US PG Pub 2018/0072344) and Lee (US PG Pub 2017/0247054).
Regarding claim 12, Hagenmeyer teaches (Page 4, Note 4, teaches a sensor suite to monitor positions of objects in the environment); and
a controller configured to: process information received from the sensor system to monitor a relative position of at least one object (Page 3, Note 5, teaches monitoring of an object in the environment of the vehicle) with respect to the vehicle during an initial vehicle movement; (Page 2, Note 7, teaches recording data during parking of a vehicle)
determine when the initial vehicle movement ends at a vehicle standstill; (Page 2, Note 1, teaches storing of data at the end of an initial movement and reading that data at the end of a standstill)
monitor for an event indicating an intent to launch the vehicle from the vehicle standstill (Page 2, Note 1 teaches retrieving the reference data at the end of a vehicle standstill); and
process the reference data set (Page 3, Note 8, teaches the processing of the data upon vehicle start) to determine whether
Hagenmeyer does not teach the at least one object is in a lateral travel path of at least one point along a side of the trailer corresponding with a subsequent forward vehicle movement resulting from the intent to launch the vehicle, whether the object is in a position that intersects a boundary line corresponding with movement of a side of the trailer around a turning center with a turning direction of the vehicle and execute a contact avoidance measure based the at least one object being in the travel path of at least one point along a side of the trailer, the contact avoidance measure including at least one of: reducing a manual steering torque assist supplied by a power assist steering system; executing an indication signal via a vehicle alert system; and causing a reduction in a speed of the vehicle.
However, Lavoie teaches “trailer flank object contact avoidance system for a vehicle towing a trailer” ([0029] teaches a trailer object avoidance system), and “whether the at least one object is in a lateral travel path of at least one point along a side of the trailer corresponding with a subsequent forward vehicle movement resulting from the intent to launch the vehicle” (Figs. 11 and 12, and [0090]-[0092] teach an object still being in the path of the trailer or alongside of the trailer such as item 19 in fig. 12), and “execute a contact avoidance measure based on the at least one object being in the travel path of the at least one point along the side of the trailer” (Fig 13, and [0092]-[0094] teach avoidance for the object in the path of the trailer this may be accomplished via an alert or altering the steering allowance in the wheels of the vehicle) “the contact avoidance measure including at least one of…executing an indication signal via a vehicle alert system” ([0033] teach the system as able to issue an alert to the driver in the event of unfavorable movement) and “causing a reduction in a speed of the vehicle.” ([0033] teaches the system controlling the braking of a vehicle so it does not collide)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer and Lavoie; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts relate to the movement of a vehicle. Both systems track obstacles in an environment around the vehicle as it performs some kind of maneuver. Remembering the area around a vehicle at shut down would help an object avoidance system to save time on startup from acquiring all new objects around the vehicle. It also allows for quicker movement after startup as the system does not need to re-find all obstacles to avoid.
Neither Hagenmeyer nor Lavoie teach whether the object is in a position that intersects a boundary line corresponding with movement of a side of
However, Lee teaches “whether the object is in a position that intersects a boundary line corresponding with movement…of the trailer around a turning center with a turning direction of the vehicle” (Figs. 1 and 2 and [0019]-[0024] teaches the system determining that a trailer side will exceed a travel lane and cross into a prohibited area. This is based on the turning center of the vehicle and trailer with different travel radii determined for the various wheelbases of the vehicle and trailer)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer and Lavoie with Lee; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle controls and sensing of environmental objects. The use of Lee would allow for a system to determine the turning radii of both a vehicle and trailer based on wheelbase locations and trailer size. Lee can determine that the current turning exceeds a safety threshold and begins to place the trailer in an unsafe situation. As Lee teaches in [0002], [0004], and [0007] modern vehicle systems are able to use adaptive cruise control systems and early warning systems to keep the turning vehicles safe. The crossing of the lane would be analogous to striking an object as both would be violations of a safety area and both Lee and the current application use the determination of a side of a trailer intersecting a turning radius circle.
The above references fail to teach contact with a side of the trailer.
However, Hilnbrand teaches “contact with a side of the trailer” ([0011]-[0012] teach an object detection system for a vehicle towing a trailer that can determine that continued forward movement will cause the side of the trailer to contact the object, and to execute a maneuver to overcome this contact)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, and Lee with Hilnbrand; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle systems relating to object avoidance and trailer usage. As Hilnbrand [0002] teaches there is a known issue of obstacles contacting the sides of trailers and there needs to be a way to avoid this. Hilnbrand in [0011]-[0012] teaches an object detection device that can determine that a trailer would end up sideswiping and obstacle, i.e. cause contact between the object and the side of the trailer. The usage of this system prevents contact between trailer side and obstacle and ensures safe travels for the vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, Hagenmeyer teaches the system of claim 12, wherein
Hagenmeyer does not teach the controller uses an assumed vehicle speed when processing the reference data set.
However, Lavoie teaches “the controller uses an assumed vehicle speed when processing the reference data set.” ([0095]-[0096] teach the movement of a trailer with an object in its proximity, the object and vehicle having assumed parameters, such as speed position and other information based on inputs and variables)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer and Lavoie; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts relate to the movement of a vehicle. Both systems track obstacles in an environment around the vehicle as it performs some kind of maneuver. As taught in Lavoie [0095] and [0096] the generation of movement paths has to use and assumed variable to ensure that as many paths as possible are considered. After the generation is done it would be better to monitor and compare these variables. As this is just path planning a measured speed is not needed. Putting this into a system such as Hagenmeyer, would help the system with early maneuver generation and ensure the system can accurately path plan out of the parking spot it is in.
Regarding claim 21, Lavoie teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the controller processes the reference data set to determine whether the at least one object is in the travel path of at least one point along a side of the trailer corresponding with the subsequent forward vehicle movement by determining: a distance between the at least one object relative ([0088] teaches the system determining the distance between and object and the trailer) and
Lavoie does not teach a forward-driving turn center of the trailer; a virtual circle around the forward driving turn center at the distance; a forward-driving path of the trailer including an inner boundary line of the trailer corresponding with the side of the trailer; and if the inner boundary line intersects the virtual circle corresponding with the object being in the forward travel path of the at least one point along the side of the trailer.
However, Lee teaches “a forward-driving turn center of the trailer;” (Fig. 2 and [0022] teaches determining a turning radius of a vehicle) “a virtual circle around the forward driving turn center at the distance;” (Fig. 2 and [0022]-[0026] teaches the system determining the turning radius of the trailer-vehicle combination as it approaches a curve, i.e. a virtual circle) “a forward-driving path of the trailer including an inner boundary line of the trailer corresponding with the side of the trailer;” (Figs. 1 and 2 and [0026]-[0027] teaches the system determining a driving path for the vehicle along the curve including monitoring an inner side of a trailer along the path) and “if the inner boundary line intersects the virtual circle corresponding with the object being in the forward travel path of the at least one point along the side of the trailer” (Fig. 2 and [0026]-[0027] and [0043] teaches determining that the trailer side has exceeded the crossing lane and collided with the virtual circle of the curve)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer and Lavoie with Lee; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle controls and sensing of environmental objects. The use of Lee would allow for a system to determine the turning radii of both a vehicle and trailer based on wheelbase locations and trailer size. Lee can determine that the current turning exceeds a safety threshold and begins to place the trailer in an unsafe situation. As Lee teaches in [0002], [0004], and [0007] modern vehicle systems are able to use adaptive cruise control systems and early warning systems to keep the turning vehicles safe. The crossing of the lane would be analogous to striking an object as both would be violations of a safety area and both Lee and the current application use the determination of a side of a trailer intersecting a turning radius circle.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, Hilnbrand, and Lee in view of Shank (US PG Pub 2018/0147900).
Regarding claim 14, Hagenmeyer teaches the system with regard to claim 13.
Hagenmeyer does not teach the controller is further configured to: determine that the vehicle has launched in response to the event indicating the intent to launch the vehicle from the vehicle standstill; and continue processing the reference data set using a measured vehicle speed to determine whether the at least one object is in the travel path of the trailer during the subsequent vehicle movement resulting from the intent to launch the vehicle.
However, Lavoie teaches “continue processing the reference data set using a measured vehicle speed to determine whether the at least one object is in the travel path of the trailer during the subsequent vehicle movement resulting from the intent to launch the vehicle.” ([0094] teaches using vehicle speed for monitoring the proximity of a trailer to ensure it does not hit something)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer and Lavoie; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both teach a system to monitor and save data during parking. The use of real time speed for a departure check would allow the system to be sure that an object will get hit and it is not a hypothetical. Lavoie teaches in [0094] that a proximity of the vehicle can be used to measure a likelihood of a collision. This proximity is dependent on the speed of the vehicle and as such it needs to be considered when a user is beginning the departure process.
Neither Hagenmeyer or Lavoie teaches determine that the vehicle has launched in response to the event indicating the intent to launch the vehicle from the vehicle standstill.
However, Shank teaches “determine that the vehicle has launched in response to the event indicating the intent to launch the vehicle from the vehicle standstill” ([0045] teaches the controller monitoring for a vehicle brake) and [0036] teaches a system to monitor for a vehicle to be in a reverse state, both of which can be used to monitor for intent to launch a vehicle)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, Hilnbrand, and Lee with Shank; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All systems teach ways of monitoring vehicle status for movement. As Shank teaches in [0036] monitoring of vehicle systems before an operation commences allow for the operation to proceed smoothly. This vehicle is moving and does not want to break a component of itself or the objects around it. This system prevents such an event from occurring.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, and Hilnbrand in view of Shank and Sperrle (US PG Pub 20140184785).
Regarding claim 15, Hagenmeyer teaches the system of claim 12 as taught above.
Hagenmeyer does not teach the controller is further configured to detect at least one of a vehicle service brake position, a vehicle parking brake status, or a vehicle switchgear state; and the controller detects the event indicating the end of the vehicle standstill based on at least one of the vehicle service brake position indicating a release of the vehicle service brakes; the vehicle parking brake status indicating a release of the vehicle parking brake; or the vehicle switchgear state indicating shifting of the switchgear into a drive state or a reverse state.
However, Shank teaches “controller is further configured to detect at least one of a vehicle service brake position,” ([0045] teaches the controller monitoring for a vehicle brake) “a vehicle switchgear state” ([0036] teaches a system to monitor for a vehicle to be in a reverse state) “vehicle service brake position indicating a release of the vehicle service brakes” ([0045] teaches the controller monitoring for a vehicle brake) and “the vehicle switchgear state indicating shifting of the switchgear into a drive state or a reverse state.” ([0036] teaches a system to monitor for a vehicle to be in a reverse state)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, Hilnbrand, and Lee with Shank; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All systems teach ways of monitoring vehicle status for movement. As Shank teaches in [0036] monitoring of vehicle systems before an operation commences allow for the operation to proceed smoothly. This vehicle is moving and does not want to break a component of itself or the objects around it. This system prevents such an event from occurring.
However, Hagenmeyer or Shank do not teach monitoring for a parking brake.
Sperrle teaches “a vehicle parking brake status” ([0020] teaches the vehicle monitoring an automated parking brake for when a standstill is ending) “the vehicle parking brake status indicating a release of the vehicle parking brake” ([0020] teaches the vehicle monitoring an automated parking brake for when a standstill is ending)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer, Lavoie, Lee, Hilnbrand, and Shank with Sperrle; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All systems teach ways of monitoring vehicle status for movement. As Sperrle teaches in [0004] monitoring for a parking brake is becoming a common place way to monitor for standstills in vehicle. This system allows for the vehicle to be on and braked without using the regular vehicle brakes. Monitoring for such a system would be beneficial for a trailer device where parking brake usage is more common especially on a hilly area.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagenmeyer (DE 102009028760) in view of Lavoie (US PG Pub 2014/0303847) Boydens (US PG Pub 2020/0077564) Hilnbrand (US PG Pub 2018/0072344) and Lee (US PG Pub 2017/0247054).
Regarding claim 16, Hagenmeyer teaches a (Page 4, Note 4, teaches a sensor suite to monitor positions of objects in the environment); and
a controller configured to: process information received from the sensor system to monitor a relative position of at least one object (Page 3, Note 5, teaches monitoring of an object in the environment of the vehicle) with respect to the vehicle during an initial vehicle movement; (Page 2, Note 7, teaches recording data during parking of a vehicle)
store in memory the information received from the sensor system as a reference data set (Page 2, Highlight 1, teaches storing information received from sensors at a point in time) at an instance when the initial vehicle movement ends at a vehicle standstill (Page 2, Note 1, teaches storing of data at the end of an initial movement and reading that data at the end of a standstill) and to maintain the information in memory in response to the vehicle being turned off (Page 4, Note 3, teaches checking that the standstill was a vehicle off condition), and
retrieve from memory the reference data set upon the vehicle subsequently being turned on (Page 2, Note 1 teaches retrieving the reference data at the end of a vehicle standstill), process the reference data set, upon a subsequent forward vehicle movement (Page 3, Note 8, teaches the processing of the data upon vehicle start), to determine whether
wherein the controller processes the reference data set to determine whether the at least one object is in the travel path of at least one point along a side of the trailer corresponding with the subsequent forward vehicle movement by determining: a distance between the at least one object relative ([0088] teaches the system determining the distance between and object and the trailer)
Hagenmeyer does not teach a trailer flank object contact avoidance system for a vehicle towing a trailer, the at least one object is in a forward travel path of at least one point along a side of the trailer such that the subsequent forward vehicle movement will cause contact between the side of the trailer and the object, and execute a contact avoidance measure based on the at least one object being in the travel path of the at least one point along the side of the trailer the contact avoidance measure including at least one of: reducing a manual steering torque assist supplied by a power assist steering system; executing an indication signal via a vehicle alert system; and causing a reduction in a speed of the vehicle and a forward-driving turn center of the trailer; a virtual circle around the forward driving turn center at the distance; a forward-driving path of the trailer including an inner boundary line of the trailer corresponding with the side of the trailer; and if the inner boundary line intersects the virtual circle corresponding with the object being in the forward travel path of the at least one point along the side of the trailer.
However, Lavoie teaches “trailer flank object contact avoidance system for a vehicle towing a trailer” ([0029] teaches a trailer object avoidance system), and “whether the at least one object is in a travel path of at least one point along a side of the trailer corresponding with a subsequent vehicle movement resulting from the intent to launch the vehicle” (Figs. 11 and 12, and [0090]-[0092] teach an object still being in the path of the trailer or alongside of the trailer such as item 19 in fig. 12), and “execute a contact avoidance measure based on the at least one object being in the travel path of the at least one point along the side of the trailer” (Fig 13, and [0092]-[0094] teach avoidance for the object in the path of the trailer this may be accomplished via an alert or altering the steering allowance in the wheels of the vehicle) “the contact avoidance measure including at least one of…executing an indication signal via a vehicle alert system” ([0033] teach the system as able to issue an alert to the driver in the event of unfavorable movement) and “causing a reduction in a speed of the vehicle.” ([0033] teaches the system controlling the braking of a vehicle so it does not collide)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer and Lavoie; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts relate to the movement of a vehicle. Both systems track obstacles in an environment around the vehicle as it performs some kind of maneuver. Remembering the area around a vehicle at shut down would help an object avoidance system to save time on startup from acquiring all new objects around the vehicle. It also allows for quicker movement after startup as the system does not need to re-find all obstacles to avoid.
Neither Hagenmeyer nor Lavoie teach the object being in the forward travel path and a forward-driving turn center of the trailer; such that the subsequent forward vehicle movement will cause contact between the side of the trailer and the object; a virtual circle around the forward driving turn center at the distance; a forward-driving path of the trailer including an inner boundary line of the trailer corresponding with the side of the trailer; and if the inner boundary line intersects the virtual circle corresponding with the object being in the forward travel path of the at least one point along the side of the trailer.
However, Boydens teaches “at least one object being in the forward travel path” ([0064]-[0065] teaches the system towing a trailer in a forward direction. [0075]-[0077] teaches a forward facing sensor that can detect an object and/or artefact in the environment and direct the system to move in a manner to avoid said object)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Hagenmeyer and Lavoie with Boydens; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to vehicle controls and sensing of environmental objects. It would have been obvious to try to incorporate the teachings of Boydens. Vehicles have limited directions of movement and teaching of a forward object avoidance system ensures that the system does not collide with objects no matter which way a towing vehicle moves. As Boydens teaches in [0020]-[0021] towing vehicles need to avoid obstacles in front of them as they move in order to prevent damage from occurring to the towing vehicle and the towed trailer. These systems use automated steering and control to ensure that the towing system avoids obstacles in front of it as it moves. This would create a safer driving environment.
None of the prior art teaches such that the subsequent forward vehicle movement will cause contact between the side of the trailer and the object; a forward-driving turn center of the trailer; a virtual circle around the forward driving turn center at the distance; a forward-driving path of the trailer including an inner boundary line of the trailer corresponding with the side of the trailer; and if the inner boundary line intersects the virtual circle corresponding with the object being in the forward travel path of the at least one point along the side of the trailer.
However, Hilnbrand teaches “such that the subsequent forward vehicle movement