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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims , 6-7, and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the updated rejections made in the current office action made in response to Applicant’s claim amendments. The amended limitations of the claim are clearly taught by the Hoofard reference as applied, infra.
Regarding Claims , rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § for Claims have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments. However, in response to the claim amendments, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § .
Regarding Claims , rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments are based only upon dependencies from claim . Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 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) contain(s) 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description of how . There is no written content as to how or what specific algorithms are performed (i.e. formulas, algorithms, sequence of mathematical steps, process of determination, for example)
To satisfy the written description requirement, the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate th10detat the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
(B12) Any of embodiments (B1)-(B11) further including capturing, using at least one camera attached to the tractor, at least one image of at least one fiducial marking positioned at a known location relative to the drop-off spot; and determining an improved current location and/or current orientation of the tractor based on a location of the at least one fiducial marking within the at least one image.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. They are simply treated as black boxes that accept certain inputs () and output a . As noted in the MPEP, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved” (See MPEP § 2161.01 I). In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the specification in such a manner as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. The specification does not at all describe the steps / procedure involved in which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure/algorithm as to how this value is generated raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Regarding Claims ,
The claims ultimately depend from a claim that fails to comply with the written description requirement and are rejected for depending therefrom.
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.
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Müller (US 2022/0396107), hereinafter “Müller” in view of Hoofard et al. (US 2019/0064835), hereinafter “Hoofard et al.”
Regarding Claim ,
Müller discloses:
A method for positioning and aligning an autonomous tractor in preparation for the tractor to couple with an articulated trailer located in a pick-up spot, the method comprising:
determining a current location and orientation of the tractor (10; Figs 6-7) (¶¶0030, 0043-0057)
determining, based on the current location (S; Figs 6-7) and a location of the pick-up spot 20; Fig 6), a staging path (40ii) defining a path from the current location to the pick-up spot (¶¶0059, 0061, 0067-0070).
and that terminates at a staging point (SVii; Fig 6) positioned prior to the pick-up spot (¶¶0058, 0067); and
controlling the tractor to follow the staging path (40ii; Fig 6) to the staging point (SVii; Fig 6) (¶¶0059, 0061, 0067-0068); and
performing a maneuver from the staging point (SVii; Fig 6) to position the tractor on a reference path (43ii; Fig 6), laterally aligned with a front center of the pick-up spot, and facing away from the trailer (22) (¶¶0059, 0061, 0067-0070).
fails to explicitly disclose:
receiving, at the autonomous tractor via a wireless communication interface, a loading dock status signal associated with the pick-up spot, the loading dock status signal being generated by a dock-mounted signaling device located at the loading dock and corresponding to a status of the loading dock that is controllable from within a building having the loading dock to authorize interaction with the trailer at the loading dock; and,
However, discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teach:
receiving, at the autonomous tractor via a wireless communication interface, a loading dock status signal associated with the pick-up spot, the loading dock status signal being generated by a dock-mounted signaling device (See at least: ) located at the loading dock and corresponding to a status of the loading dock that is controllable from within a building having the loading dock () to authorize interaction with the trailer at the loading dock ¶¶, ; “building 130 (e.g., a warehouse, manufacturing facility, or other facility for shipping/receiving goods, materials, etc.). In the illustrated embodiment, the building 130 includes a plurality of loading dock stations 131 (which may also be referred to herein as “docking stations,” “dock stations,” “loading docks,” and the like)…. In the illustrated embodiment, the central processing center 132 is depicted as being located or integrated within the building 130.”; “a suitable workflow process may include instructions for a given tractor 112 to pick up a specific trailer 111 at a specified parking location 115, and move the trailer 111 to a specific dock station 131 for unloading/loading. The workflow process could further include instructions to pick up a particular trailer 111 at a specific dock station 131,”; “once at the dock area the tractor controller 220 can be given a set of computer-executable instructions to back into the dock station 131. Once the trailer targets 209 a, b are in view of the dock sensors 320a, b, the dock sensors 320a, b can provide trailer target positional information to the central processing center 132, and the processing center 132 can provide additional guidance information to the tractor 112 to enable more directional precision during the parking process at the dock 131.”; “The navigation system 231 may … act in concert with facility sensors (e.g., the dock sensors 320a, b) and/or other active systems.”) to direct a tractor to a required pickup location of a trailer to facilitate loading and unloading of goods. See at least: ¶¶,
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in to direct a tractor to a required pickup location of a trailer to facilitate loading and unloading of goods. See at least: ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
further disclose:
further comprising capturing a point cloud of the pick-up spot using LIDAR mounted on the tractor, and processing the point cloud to detect presence of the trailer (Hoofard et al: ¶¶0055-0057, 0065, 0071).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references discloses:
reversing the tractor straight backwards along the reference path (Müller: ¶¶0061, 0067-0068).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references discloses:
performing a hitch function to hitch the tractor to the trailer (Müller: ¶¶0043-0044, 0052, 0055, 0063-0068).
Regarding Claim 23,
The combination of references discloses:
determining a drive-by-path corresponding to the pick-up spot (Müller: ¶¶0062, 0066);
controlling the tractor to follow the drive-by path and reverse back to the staging point (Müller: ¶¶0058, 0067);
capturing data corresponding to the pick-up spot while the tractor follows the drive-by path (Müller: ¶¶0057-0059, 0061, 0067-0068); and
processing the data to detect presence of the trailer within the pick-up spot (Müller: ¶¶0057-0059, 0061, 0066-0068).
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Müller and Hoofard et al. as applied above in view of Christopher et al. (WO 2018/210990), hereinafter “Christopher et al.”.
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fails to explicitly disclose:
further comprising capturing at least two images of the pick-up spot using a camera mounted on the tractor, and the processing the at least two images in stereo to detect presence of the trailer
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of (Page 11-12 – The camera is a stereo camera) in order to reduce computational power required (Page 12)).
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to reduce computational power required (Page 12) (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Müller and Hoofard et al as applied above in view of Rust (US 2017/01924230).
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
requesting assistance when presence of the trailer is not detected
However, disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of (¶¶0013-0017) in order to improve system efficiency.
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to improve system efficiency. (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Müller and Hoofard et al as applied above in view of Trombley et al. (US 2015/0066296).
Regarding Claim ,
fail to explicitly disclose:
capturing a trailer identifier from the trailer within the pick-up spot using a trailer ID capture device mounted on the tractor; and determining that the trailer identifier indicates the trailer is an expected trailer.
However, disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of (¶¶0025: “the trailer 110 is equipped with a tag, such as an electronic tag 18 that transmits, as by radio frequency, a signal containing information relative to the trailer 110. The signal provided from the electronic tag contains information about trailer parameters that are fixed in nature and specific to the trailer being identified and useful to the trailer backup assist system 12, such as a unique trailer identification code”) in order to improve efficiency of the method.
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to improve method efficiency. (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Müller and Hoofard et al as applied above, and further in view of Naithani et al. as applied above.
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
in response to the pick-up spot being a loading dock, as the articulated trailer approaches the loading dock, extending a mast having a camera thereon and imaging the pick-up spot, or fiducial markers associated therewith, with the camera.
disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
teach:
a prior art using a known technique that is applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of (¶¶0055-0058, 0264, 0267, 0273-0274, 0277, 0282, 0293) in order to increase visibility in order to prevent or allow vehicle movement responsive to the image analysis (¶¶0055-0058, 0264, 0267, 0273-0274, 0277, 0282, 0293).
Thus, it would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would in to increase visibility in order to prevent or allow vehicle movement responsive to the image analysis. (¶¶0055-0058, 0264, 0267, 0273-0274, 0277, 0282, 0293) (See: MPEP § 2143(I)(D)).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at (313)446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights