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 copy has been filed in Application DE10 2021 203 659.7, filed on 04/14/2021.
Status of Claims
No amendments were made.
Claims 3, 7, 10 and 12 were cancelled previously.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, and 11 are pending.
Response to Arguments/Results
CLAIM REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. & 103
Applicant continues to only argue and does not make an attempt to clearly overcome the existing art of record.
Applicant argues:
Critchley is directed to a trailer length detection system that uses imaging devices / cameras 132 that depend on illumination (e.g., reflected light) and/or active sensors 134, such as radar, sonar, lidar, ladar, etc. (See Critchley, paragraph [0033]), each of which depends upon the active emission of radiated energy (sonic, electromagnetic, or optical) and the detection of reflections of said radiated energy. Accordingly, each of these types of sensors 132, 134 of Critchley needs to "see" the trailer and are expressly disclosed as positioned on the rear side of the towed vehicle (See Critchley, at least at paragraph [0036]).
Critchley further requires the vehicle to perform predetermined maneuvers, even when operated in manual mode (See, e.g., Critchley, paragraph [0037]), and the predetermined maneuvers must include rearward maneuvers (See Critchley throughout). Applicant respectfully asserts that the predetermined rearward maneuvers of Critchley are required to position the trailer to move, at an angle, behind the towing vehicle, to place varying portions of the trailer into view of these active and/or imaging sensors, thereby to determine length.
By contrast, the instant application and claims require only sensors that passively detect a drive path that is not predetermined but that may be entirely chosen by a driver. It should be noted that the driver's chosen drive path might even include only forward maneuvers upon which Critchley would not be able to function as Critchley requires rearward maneuvers.
Accordingly, at least because the independent claims are limited to determining length from a detected travel path (e.g., as one that may be independently chosen by a driver), and not from a directed travel path (e.g., a predetermined maneuver) as in Critchley, the claims are allowable over Critchley as Critchley fails to disclose, teach, or suggest each and every limitation of the claims.
Xu is directed to a trailer length estimation method using a trailer yaw rate signal (see title), involving comparison of relative yaw rates between the towing vehicle and the trailer, an example of which includes a sensor coupled to the trailer, see, e.g., sensor module 20, described at least in part as a "first sensor coupled with the trailer" (See, e.g., Xu paragraph [0004]). Xu fails to remedy the shortfall of Critchley in that Xu also fails to disclose determining length from a detected travel path (which is not known to the system a priori) rather than from a directed (predetermined) travel
path.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The terms used are general computer components that are well known in the ART. Critchley does disclose “ trailer assist functionality gives the driver the intuitive feel when the driver is driving in the rearward direction [note if can be used in one direction it can be used in the other since the same technology is used] and turning the knob to one direction, then the trailer turns to the same direction. This results in a simpler and easier way to maneuver the trailer while backing up. When the vehicle is connected to the trailer, the driver usually manually enters the length of the trailer, in addition to several other trailer parameters, allowing the tow vehicle to better maneuver the trailer in both forward and rearward directions and to allow the trailer assist functionality to be activated.”[0003]. Critchley further discloses “[0042] As the vehicle-trailer system 100 is autonomously maneuvering along the planned path, the path planning system 164 continuously updates the path based on continuously receiving sensor data 136 from the sensor system 130… In this case, the path planning system 164 recalculates the planned path to avoid one or more objects…” [which can recalculate the length of the trailer or tractor/trailer to recalculate planned path].
This indicates that data of all kinds, including length, is used for the assistance system for a trailer, thus the length of the trailer can be one of those Parameters.
Xu does determine the trailer length. [Note that Travel path is more specific than Driving Dynamics data but they are all data being stored within the system as a guide or information key to the calculations.]. See at least Xu, abstract; ¶ 0080 (“may be stored in the memory 86 of system 10 (FIG. 2), whereas other kinematic parameters may be dynamic and obtained from trailer sensor module 20 and vehicle sensors 17 on an ongoing basis… It follows, then, these parameters may be stored in memory 86 during manufacture of vehicle 14, or during installation of the relevant portions of system 10 therein, as they are known in relation to the specific make and model of the particular vehicle 14 [the length of the vehicle is part of the stored data]. On the other hand, the length of the trailer 12, while fixed with respect to a particular initiated operating routine 132, may vary as different trailers 12 are hitched to vehicle 14 for towing thereby. Further, the particular trailer 12 with which a given vehicle 14 will be used may not be known during manufacture of vehicle 14 or installation of system 10, and a user of such a vehicle 14 may wish to use vehicle 14 in various operating routines 132 with various trailers 12 of different sizes and configurations. Accordingly, a routine for system 10 obtaining the particular trailer length D of a trailer hitched with vehicle 14 may be needed and may be required prior to system 10 implementing operating routine 132.”).
See 35 U.S.C. § 103 below for further clarification.
Examiner would like to point out that; 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.
Examiner believes that obviousness rejection has been achieved in the 103 rejection.
Also due to the obvious rejection the Examiner would like to also note that under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. 2111.01 (I). See also In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("'[C]laims are not to be read in a vacuum, and limitations therein are to be interpreted in light of the specification in giving them their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation.'"2111.01 (II)
With respect to the interpretation of claim terms, MPEP 2111 states:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
The words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004).(see MPEP 2111.01).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (see PMEP 2111).
Accordingly, the claims herein will be interpreted in accordance with the MPEP 2111.
The claims are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as indicated in the Specification. This Specification is very broad so the claims can be interpreted in a very broad manner.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Critchley et al. [US 20190086204, now Critchley], in view of Xu et al. [US 20160362135, now Xu.]
Claim 1
Critchley discloses a device at least semi- autonomously controlling a vehicle combination comprising a towing vehicle including an at least semi-autonomous driving system and a trailer [see at least Critchley, Abstract ¶ 0033 (“semi-autonomous”)] , which has:
the device comprising: a processor; and a data input face coupled to the at least one processor and able to receive current travel path from sensors in the towing vehicle defining a current travel path on a roadway of the towing vehicle while driving with a trailer [see at least Critchley, Figs 1A-C; ¶ 0004, 0005 (“a method for determining a trailer length of a trailer attached to a tow vehicle while the tow vehicle follows a path. The tow vehicle has one or more sensors positioned on a back portion of the tow vehicle facing the trailer. The method includes receiving, at a data processing hardware in communication with the one or more sensors, first sensor data associated with a first position of the tow vehicle along the path.”); 0007 (“defining a current travel path of the towing vehicle”); Note traveling a path would be the same as being on a roadway. ];
wherein the current travel path comprises at least one of yaw rate, steering movement, steering angle, driving speed, or vehicle acceleration; wherein the at least one processor is configured to compare the current travel path data that have been received with stored travel path [see at least Critchley, ¶ 0004, 0030 (“the drive system 110 may also include an acceleration system 122 that is configured to adjust a speed of the tow vehicle 102 and thus the vehicle-trailer system 100, and a steering system 124 that is configured to adjust a direction of the tow vehicle 102 and thus the vehicle-trailer system 100. The vehicle-trailer system 100 may include other systems as well.”); 0033 (“the vehicle 102 includes a sensor system 130 to provide sensor data 136 that may be used to determine one or more measurements, such as, a trailer length L.sub.T. In some examples, the vehicle 102 may be autonomous or semi-autonomous, therefore, the sensor system 130 provides reliable and robust autonomous driving. The sensor system 130 provides sensor data 136 and may include different types of sensors that may be used separately or with one another to create a perception of the tow vehicle's environment or a portion thereof that is used by the vehicle-trailer system 100 to identify object(s) in its environment and/or in some examples autonomously drive and make intelligent decisions based on objects and obstacles detected by the sensor system 130. In some examples, the sensor system 130 is supported by the rear portion of the tow vehicle 102 and provides sensor data 136 associated with object(s) and the trailer 104 positioned behind the tow vehicle 102. The tow vehicle 102 may support the sensor system 130; while in other examples, the sensor system 130 is supported by the vehicle 102 and the trailer 104. The sensor system 130 may include, but not limited to, one or more imaging devices 132, 132an (such as camera(s)), and sensors 134, 134a-n such as, but not limited to, radar, sonar, LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging, which can entail optical remote sensing that measures properties of scattered light to find range and/or other information of a distant target), LADAR (Laser Detection and Ranging), etc. The sensor system 130 provides sensor data 136 that include one or both of sensor images 133 from the one or more cameras 132, 132a-n and sensor information 135 from the one or more sensors 134, 134a-n. Therefore, the sensor system 130 is especially useful for receiving information of the environment or portion of the environment of the vehicle and for increasing safety in the vehicle-trailer system 100 which may operate under semi-autonomous or autonomous conditions.”); 0046 - 0047 (“The speed behavior 172b may be executed to change the speed of the vehicle-trailer system 100 by either accelerating or decelerating based on the planned path. The speed behavior 172b sends a signal or command 174 to the brake system 120 for decelerating or the acceleration system 122 for accelerating. [0047] The steering behavior 172c may be executed to change the direction of the vehicle-trailer system 100 based on the planned path. As such, the steering behavior 172c sends the acceleration system 122 a signal or command 174 indicative of an angle of steering causing the drive system 110 to change direction.]; and
each of the plurality of stored travel paths data sets corresponds to a typical travel path for driving with a trailer with a known overall vehicle length, [see at least Critchley, ¶ 0029 (“it is desirable that the tow vehicle is capable of determining the trailer length by executing short maneuvers in a parking lot for example, without the need to drive in a forward direction for a long distance. For example, the trailer length may be determined by driving in a rearward direction only, or a combination of rearward and forward motions. As such, the driver can connect to any trailer and the tow vehicle can detect the length of the trailer.”); 0080 (“while the vehicle-trailer system 100 is executing the maneuvers which allow the controller 150 to estimate the length L.sub.T of the trailer 104, for each generalized position q of the trailer representation 804, the controller 150 determines a trailer angle φ of the actual trailer 104. Therefore, once the controller 150 completes estimating the length L.sub.T of the trailer 104, the controller 150 may generate a mapping of the generalized positions q to the trailer angles φ. The controller 150 may then use the mapping to determine an estimated trailer angle φ based on a generalized position q, or vice versa.”)]; and
adjust, by the at least one processor, operation of a driver assistance system of the towing vehicle based on the length of the vehicle combination, and at least semi-autonomously control the vehicle using the adjusted driver assistance system , [see at least Critchley, ¶ 0030 (system 122 that is configured to adjust a speed of the tow vehicle 102 and thus the vehicle-trailer system 100, and a steering system 124 that is configured to adjust a direction of the tow vehicle 102 and thus the vehicle-trailer system 100.”); 0033 (“Therefore, the sensor system 130 is especially useful for receiving information of the environment or portion of the environment of the vehicle and for increasing safety in the vehicle-trailer system 100 which may operate under semi-autonomous or autonomous conditions.”); 0042 (“the path planning system 164 determines a probability of collision and if the probability of collision exceeds a predetermined threshold, the path planning system 164 adjusts the path and sends it to a driver assistance system 170.”); 0084 (“control the operation”)].
Note: a vehicle with a trailer as described in Critchley is a truck and trailer, but the use of the same concepts are obvious and can be used in determining the length of any trailer or multiple trailers attached to a towing vehicle.
Critchley discloses the overall concept of determining length based on driving dynamics such as yaw, speed, etc. Xu teaches some of the details of those determining factors.
Xu more specifically teaches wherein the current travel path comprises at least one of yaw rate, steering movement, steering angle, driving speed, or vehicle acceleration [see at least Xu, abstract (“A backup assist system for a vehicle reversing a trailer includes a trailer sensor module generating a trailer yaw rate and a vehicle sensor system generating a vehicle yaw rate and a vehicle speed. The system further includes a controller determining an estimated length of the trailer based on an estimated hitch angle, the vehicle yaw rate, the vehicle speed, and the trailer yaw rate in view of a kinematic relationship.”); ¶ 0003 (“According to one aspect of the present invention, a backup assist system for a vehicle reversing a trailer includes a trailer sensor module generating a trailer yaw rate and a vehicle sensor system generating a vehicle yaw rate and a vehicle speed. The system further includes a controller determining an estimated length of the trailer based on an estimated hitch angle, the vehicle yaw rate, the vehicle speed, and the trailer yaw rate in view of a kinematic relationship.”); 0021 (“Referring to FIGS. 1-12, reference numeral 10 generally designates a trailer backup assist system for controlling a backing path of a trailer 12 attached to a vehicle 14 by allowing a driver of the vehicle 14 to specify a desired curvature 26 of the backing path of the trailer 12. In one embodiment, the trailer backup assist system 10 automatically steers the vehicle 14 to guide the trailer 12 on the desired curvature or backing path 26 as a driver uses the accelerator and brake pedals to control the reversing speed of the vehicle 14. To monitor the position of the trailer 12 relative to the vehicle 14, the trailer backup assist system 10 may include a sensor system 16 that senses or otherwise determines a hitch angle γ between the trailer 12 and the vehicle 14. In one embodiment, the sensor system 16 may include a sensor module 20 attached to the trailer 12 that monitors the dynamics of the trailer 12, such as yaw rate, and communicates with a controller 28 of the trailer backup assist system 10 to determine the instantaneous hitch angle γ. Accordingly, one embodiment of a sensor module 20 is adapted to attach to the trailer 12 and generate a trailer yaw rate ω.sub.2. The trailer backup assist system 10 according to such an embodiment may also include a vehicle sensor system 17 that generates a vehicle yaw rate ω.sub.1 and a vehicle speed v.sub.1. The controller 28 of the trailer backup assist system 10 may thereby estimate a hitch angle γ based on the trailer yaw rate ω.sub.2, the vehicle yaw rate ω.sub.1 and the vehicle speed v.sub.1 in view of a kinematic relationship between the trailer 12 and the vehicle 14 that may be dependent on include a value for the length D of the trailer 12. In such an embodiment, under predetermined conditions, a reference hitch angle γ.sub.ref may be determined independent of the trailer length D. The reference hitch angle may then be used to derive a trailer length estimate D using the kinematic model. Once a reliable trailer length estimate D has been derived, the hitch angle γ may be estimated in conditions where such an estimate is dependent on the trailer length D on an ongoing basis.”)];
compare the current travel path on the roadway of the towing vehicle with a plurality of stored travel path , wherein each of the plurality of stored travel paths corresponds to a typical travel path for driving with a trailer with a known overall vehicle length, and wherein the stored travel paths include driving dynamics data sets comprising at least one of towing vehicle yaw rate, towing vehicle steering movement, towing vehicle steering angle, towing vehicle driving speed, or towing vehicle acceleration; determine that the current driving dynamics matches a stored travel path of the plurality of stored travel paths; and determine the length of the vehicle combination to be the overall vehicle length corresponding to the matching the stored travel path [see at least Xu, abstract; ¶ 0021, 0089; 0100-0101 (“With the sensor system 16 and/or controller 28 providing the trailer yaw rate ω.sub.2, this parameter may additionally or alternatively be utilized to improve the electronic stability control provided with the power assist steering system 62 when the vehicle 14 is towing a trailer. Some electronic stability control systems use a so called bicycle model (without trailer) to obtain a reference vehicle yaw rate commanded by the driver. However, when the vehicle is towing a trailer, the towing vehicle may exhibit more oversteer or more understeer tendencies during a turn, compared to the same vehicle without a trailer attached. Thus the electronic stability control performance may degrade, and/or unintended activations may occur, when the vehicle is towing a trailer. [0101] By using the sensed or otherwise determined trailer yaw rate signal ω.sub.2, together with other electronic stability control signals, the additional oversteer or understeer tendencies of the vehicle (compared to when not towing a trailer) can be identified. Accordingly, the existing electronic stability control system can be sensitized or desensitized (e.g., by modifying the control thresholds for the brake and engine controllers). The brake and engine control actions can also be increased or reduced by changing the controller gains. Therefore, an additional controller which uses trailer yaw rate signal ω.sub.2 (or the difference between trailer and vehicle yaw rate, i.e., ω.sub.2−ω.sub.1) and its derivative may be integrated with the existing electronic stability control system. Such a controller is beneficial for improving the overall vehicle-trailer combination stability”); claim 10 (“The system of claim 8, wherein the controller: compares the estimated hitch angle with the reference estimated hitch angle to determine an error signal; and adjusts the trailer length estimate using the error signal.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for determining a trailer length of Critchley with the more extensive dynamics comparisons of Xu. This allows for a more efficient, effective and robust process/method to determine the length of a trailer or many trailers being towed.
Claim 2
Critchley and Xu disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Critchley further discloses at least one processor is configured to determine that the current travel path on the roadway matches the stored travel path by recognizing a typical for driving with a trailer of a known length [see at least Critchley, ¶ 0060; 0074 (“as the tow vehicle 102 is performing maneuvers, such as, but not limited to the maneuvers described in FIGS. 2A-2D or FIGS. 3A-3E, the vehicle controller 150 receives images 133 from the rear camera 132a, For each received image 133, the vehicle controller 150 identifies the trailer representation 804 within the received image(s) 133 and associates a first actual trailer generalized position q, q.sub.t1 with the trailer representations 804. The generalized position q, q.sub.t1 may be in any coordinate system. In some examples, the generalized position is the position of the pixels associated with the trailer representation 804 within the image 133. The controller 150 also overlays one or more virtual trailers 802, 802a, 802b on the image 133. Additional virtual trailers may also be overlaid on the images 133. As shown, a first virtual trailer 802a represents a trailer having the same width and height of the actual trailer 104, however a shorter axle length L.sub.VT1 than the axle length L.sub.T of the actual trailer 104. While a second virtual trailer 802b represents a trailer having the same width and height of the actual trailer 104, however a longer axle length L.sub.VT2 than the axle length L.sub.T of the actual trailer 104. FIG. 8A shows a first position of the trailer representation 804 being aligned with the vehicle 102, also referred to as a straight trailer. As shown, the generalized positions q associated with the actual trailer representation 804 and the virtual trailers 802a, 802b are the same, since all the trailers 802, 804 are aligned with the vehicle 102. As the tow vehicle 102 is performing a maneuver, the behavior of the generalized trailer position q may be compared with the behavior of the virtual trailers 802a, 802b to determine the length L.sub.T of the trailer 104.”)] and
wherein a typical pattern of travel path corresponding to the current driving dynamics data, and to determine the length of the vehicle combination belonging to the typical pattern [see at least Critchley, ¶ 0004, 0060-0061 (“The above method for determining the trailer length L.sub.T is described; however, other method may be used as well that depend on the sensor data 136 received from the sensor system 130.”)].
Critchley discloses the basic concepts of these limitations, Xu more specifically teaches configured to determine that the current travel path matches the stored travel path [see at least Xu, ¶ 0089; 0100-0101; Claim 10].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for determining a trailer length of Critchley with the more extensive dynamics comparisons of Xu. This allows for a more efficient, effective and robust process/method to determine the length of a trailer or many trailers being towed.
Claim 4
Critchley and Xu disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Critchley further discloses at least one processor is configured to output the length of the vehicle combination belonging to the recognized typical travel path on the roadway [see at least Critchley, ¶ 0082 (“at least one output device”)].
Claim 6
Critchley and Xu disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Critchley further discloses a sensor configured to obtain travel path for the towing vehicle while it is being driven by a driver on the roadway [see at least Critchley, ¶ 0004, 0005, 0029, 0033; 0060; 0074] .
Claim 8
Critchley and Xu disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Critchley further discloses a vehicle [see at least Critchley, Fig. 1A; Abstract; ¶ 0001].
Claim 9
Claim 9 has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 9 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 11
Claim 11 has similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 11 is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Critchley et al. [US 20190086204, now Critchley], in view of Xu et al. [US 20160362135, now Xu.], further in view of Andrew et al. [WO 2019126755, now Andrew].
Claim 5
Critchley and Xu disclose/teach the device of Claim 1.
Critchley does not specifically disclose at least one of the comparison unit or the evaluation unit are configured to perform machine learning as part of the pattern recognition.
Andrew specifically teaches at least one of the comparison unit or the evaluation unit are configured to perform machine learning as part of the pattern recognition. [see at least Andrew, abstract; ¶ 0003; 0017 (“disclosed is a computer learning system that can be integrated with sensor, data access, and/or control systems already present on a given vehicle or vessel in order to thereby generate a plurality of training data sets for training one or more machine learning algorithms or networks in the autonomous or semi-autonomous operation of a vehicle or vessel. In certain ocean-going and maritime embodiments, it is contemplated that a vehicle or vessel can include ocean-going vessels, freshwater vessels, sub-surface vessels, and various other forms of floating or displacement watercraft as would be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although specific reference is made herein to ocean-going and maritime embodiments, it is understood that aspects of the present disclosure can be applied to additional vehicle types, environments, and control systems and techniques, such that a given vehicle can be provided with machine learning to train and implement one or more obstacle detection and avoidance systems, systems which can function in either an independent fashion or as an underlying component of an overall vehicle navigation and control system. For example, the disclosed training data generation and machine learning process can be applied to train vehicles adapted for one or more of a sub- sea environment, a sea environment, a surface environment, a sub-surface environment, an airborne environment, an atmospheric environment, and an outer space environment. These varied environmental applications are possible at least in part due to the fact that the disclosed training data generation and machine learning techniques exhibit far less of an environmental dependence than seen in conventional control systems, as the machine learning is able to adapt to the unique constraints and dynamics imparted upon the vehicle by a given environment whereas conventional control systems must often be re-designed from the ground up in order to function in different environments. For example, in implementing conventional control systems, the vehicle control and response dynamics for a maritime vessel such as an oil tanker are fundamentally distinct from the vehicle control and response dynamics for a robotic vacuum cleaner, and as such, given the same or similar sensor data input, the control systems for these two different vehicle types would produce vastly differing control outputs. However, if the disclosed training data generation and machine learning system were to be implemented, as will be described herein, then both an oil tanker and a robotic vacuum cleaner could be trained to perform a process of obstacle or risk detection to thereby map their surroundings for subsequent navigation. As an additional portion of the machine learning, or as a separate process, a navigational system can learn the corresponding control and response dynamics for each vehicle type, and based on the combination of the obstacle/risk detection and the learned control and response dynamics, the same system can be conditioned or trained to implement a suitable control and navigation system for both an oil tanker and a robotic vacuum cleaner, or a variety of other locomotion devices, machines, etc.”)].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for determining a trailer length of Critchley with the more extensive dynamics comparisons of Xu with the machine learning techniques of Andrew. This allows for a more efficient, effective and robust process/method to determine the length of a trailer or many trailers being towed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOAN T GOODBODY whose telephone number is (571) 270-7952. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7-3 (US Eastern time).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RACHID BENDIDI can be reached at (571) 272-4896. The Fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspot.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from the USPTO Customer Serie Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOAN T GOODBODY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
(571) 270-7952
Prosecution Insights