Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed 10/28/2025. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-14 and 17-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination. Claims 2, 12, and 15-16 are canceled. Claims 18-20 are newly added.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for” in claim 13. (See written description of the instant application disclosing the trailer detection system and a computing system.)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For example, the amendment “and changing a processing of ultrasonic signals received by a plurality of ultrasonic sensor units of the trailer detection system based on a vibration of the trailer and the determined configuration data, by the computing system of the trailer;” recites the limitation “based on a vibration of the trailer and the determined configuration data”, while the specification recites: for example configuring the trailer detection system on the basis of determined configuration data, the system including a ultrasonic sensor system for detecting obstacles and other objects in the environment of the vehicle, no recitation of changing or configuring the trailer detection system nor the ultrasonic sensor signals/system based on any trailer vibration is clearly recited. Per the specification of the instant application, corresponding to [0029], [0035]-[0040], [0042]-[0043], [0066], of the publication, configuration data for performing the configuration of the trailer detection system may include for example: hitch information, height information, distance information, data from a pre-installed database, or data from a predefined algorithm. Further, the specification corresponding to [0031] of the publication teaches that in the case of a stiff trailer, the positions of individual sensor units can be determined quickly and easily using simple mathematics based on the height of the hitch, however it is still unclear how a stiffness or vibration of the trailer is used for performing the configuration. At best this recitation teaches that the positions of the sensor units may be determined more reliably on the basis of height information when a trailer is stiff and does not clearly establish how the stiffness or any vibration is used to perform the configuration. Therefore, this limitation is directed to new matter as it is not clear what performing the configuration of these systems based on a vibration of the trailer pertains to, or even how a vibration is determined.
Claims 3-11, 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(a) by virtue of dependency of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “and changing a processing of ultrasonic signals received by a plurality of ultrasonic sensor units of the trailer detection system based on a vibration of the trailer and the determined configuration data, by the computing system of the trailer;”
This limitation is directed to new matter, as it was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For example, it is unclear where in the specification there is support, specifically for the combination of configuring or changing a processing of ultrasonic signals, based on the detection of trailer vibration. That is, while configuration or changing a processing of ultrasonic signals on the basis on configuration data has support, and [0031] of the publication teaches that in the case of a stiff trailer, the positions of individual sensor units can be determined quickly and easily using simple mathematics based on the height of the hitch, determining the positions of individual sensor units, such as an ultrasonic sensor unit, based on a trailer stiffness is not changing a processing of ultrasonic signals based on a vibration of the trailer.
While [0007] and [0009] of the originally filed specification provide support for determining distances to an underground on the basis of sensor data from the ultrasonic sensors, and [0028]-[0029] of the originally filed specification further provides support for determining the configuration data on the basis of height/distance to an underground, the configuration data used for reconfiguration of the ultrasonic sensor signals, this does not recite support for performing reconfiguration on the basis of a vibration of the trailer. While an inference for detecting vibration of a trailer by measuring repeated variation in the distance to the underground by the ultrasonic sensors, may be made, the originally filed specification does not provide any evidence to support this inference as there is no recitation for measuring any variance in distance. The subject matter of the claims is therefore directed to new matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 18
The recitation “wherein a vehicle-integrated vehicle detection system is activated by decoupling the trailer from the vehicle.” overcomes the art of record, rendering the claims in a manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art, Garcia et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0276989). The claims specifically overcome the art of record, because of the limitation directed to activating the detection system of the vehicle by decoupling the vehicle from a trailer. For example, Garcia Fig. 1, Char. 114 discloses sensors provided on a towing vehicle, and [0113] additionally discloses disengaging the tow vehicle from the trailer, however activation of the sensor system of the vehicle or any detection system of the vehicle by disengaging the vehicle from the trailer is not disclosed, nor rendered reasonably obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claims is therefore allowable.
Regarding claim 20
The recitation “wherein the computing system computes the configuration data based on the height information.” overcomes the art of record, rendering the claims in a manner specific enough to overcome the methods disclosed in the closest prior art, Garcia et. al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0276989). The claims specifically overcome the art of record, because of the limitation directed to computing configuration data based on height information corresponding to the distance of a hitch to an underground. For example, Garcia [0039] discloses configuration data may include a trailer height and a location of a coupler, however these teachings do not reasonably correspond to determining configuration data for configuring a trailer detection system based on a height of the coupler, as the height of the coupler is not clearly determined based on the recited location, nor is this limitation rendered reasonably obvious in view of the art of record. The subject matter of the claims is therefore allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 JERROD IRVIN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7083. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/JERROD IRVIN DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656