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
Applicant's amendment filed on December 9, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 12 and 14 have been amended. Claims 3, 9 – 10, 15 and 19 have been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 8, 11 – 14, 16 – 18 and 20 – 21 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 12 – 14 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 – 8, 11 – 14, 16 – 18 and 20 – 21 have been considered.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 101
The Applicant alleges: “
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are not directed to mental processes because they contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. For example, the claims recite that "projecting a ray between the camera and the determined first feature on the first image onto a horizontal plane thereby obtaining a first projected feature position and projecting the ray between the camera and the determined first feature on the second image onto the horizontal plane thereby obtaining a second projected feature position, wherein the projecting the ray between the camera and the determined first feature comprises using camera calibration information of the camera to transform a location of the determined first features into the ray." As explained in the present application, "calibration information of the camera 3 may be used to transform the location of the first feature in image coordinates into optical rays...." See 63. The present application identifies algorithms which may be used to perform the transformation and feature matching, including "the Harris Corner Detector, Scale- Invariant Feature Transform (SIFT) algorithm, Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF) algorithm, Binary Robust Invariant Scalable Keypoints (BRISK) algorithm, Binary Robust Independent Elementary Features (BRIEF), Oriented FAST and rotated BRIEF (ORB) algorithm or another suitable feature detection and matching algorithm could be used." See 64. Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these algorithms cannot practically be performed in the human mind, but require the use of a computer "processing entity for processing the captured images." See 34. This understanding is further confirmed by the fact that electronic data, i.e. calibration information of the camera, is used to perform the transformation. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the claims contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.”
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The described act of projecting rays and using camera calibration information essentially involves applying mathematical formulas and geometric principles (specifically, principles of perspective projection and trigonometry) to a set of data (image features and calibration information). It has often found that such applications of mathematical algorithms or methods of calculation, without a specific, non-generic technological implementation or improvement, are abstract ideas. Simply performing these calculations, even if they relate to real-world objects, is a mental process or a mathematical concept.
The Applicant further alleges: “
"In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim 'purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself' or 'any other technology or technical field."' See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a). Claims are not directed to an abstract idea when they instead are directed to an improvement to computer functionality. See id. at § 2106.05(a)(1).
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are directed to an improvement in a technical field involving the functioning of a computer, namely, an improvement in the process of determining the yaw angle of a trailer. As explained in the present application, "[m]ethods for calculating the angle of a trailer with respect to the towing vehicle based on image information provided by a camera of the vehicle are already known." See 3. This existing computer functionality has "low computational complexity," but "do[es] not provide robust angle information in case of poor-quality images." See 4. Importantly, "in known methods the exact position of the towball has to be known in order to determine yaw angle." See 5. The claimed invention improves on the functionality of these existing computer methods by providing "high robustness and high reliability" and by enabling calculation of yaw angle "without having knowledge of the position of the towball." See 6. The method achieves this improvement at least due to the step of "establishing one or more perpendicular bisectors and calculating the yaw angle based on the one or more perpendicular bisectors." See 114. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the claims are directed to an improvement in a technical field involving the functioning of a computer, namely, an improvement in the process of determining the yaw angle of a trailer.
"When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception, into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B, examiners should consider whether the judicial exception is applied with, or by use of, a particular machine. " See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(b).
Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are directed to a method that is tied to a particular machine, namely, a towing vehicle having a trailer and a camera with a field of view including the trailer. The claims explicitly require these machines, for example, by requiring a camera that acquires images containing the trailer, and by calculating a yaw angle of the trailer relative to the towing vehicle. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims apply any recited judicial exception to a particular machine.”
Examiner’s response:
Using a different computational method to calculating a yaw angle is still a mathematical concept. It does not provide Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a).
The Applicant still further alleges: “
Finally, the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples include examples of "Improvements to Functioning of a Computer or Other Technology." Example 47 of these examples is directed to the use of an artificial neural network (ANN) to identify or detect anomalies. This example draws distinctions between claim 2, which is considered ineligible subject matter, and claim 3, which is considered eligible subject matter. In the case of claim 2, Example 47 indicates that the claim is ineligible, e.g., because it "does not provide any details about how the trained ANN operates or how the detection is made." See p. 6. By contrast, the claimed invention in this application recites a detailed series of steps explaining how the calculation is made, including determining features of the trailer in captured images, projecting rays between the camera and the features onto a horizontal plane, establishing perpendicular bisectors, and determining intersection points of the bisectors with a reference axis. The claimed invention in this application is more akin to claim 3 of Example 47. Just as in claim 3, the background of the present application identifies the shortcomings in existing systems, and
explains the improvements in computer functionality associated with the claimed system. See p. 12. Further, "the claimed reflects the improvement" in these systems by reciting that "the yaw angle is calculated without information regarding a position of a towball of the towing vehicle." Still further, the claimed steps link any recited abstract idea "to a particular field of use," namely, in towing vehicles having a trailer and camera. See p. 12. Accordingly, Applicant submits that the claims are aligned with examples identified by the USPTO as being directed to eligible subject matter.”
Examiner’s response:
Regarding claim 3 of Example 47, the claimed limitation of “
(d) detecting a source address associated with the one or more malicious network packets in real time;
(e) dropping the one or more malicious network packets in real time; and
(f) blocking future traffic from the source address.”
use the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive steps to remediate the danger after detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets in real time. Steps (d)-(f) reflect the improvement described in the background. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
In a contrast, the claimed limitations of the instant application merely use mathematical calculations for yaw angle. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
The limitation of "the yaw angle is calculated without information regarding a position of a towball of the towing vehicle." Is still considered as a mathematical calculation with some information is unknown.
Again, additional elements of “a towing vehicle having a trailer and a camera with a field of view including the trailer”, they are considered as “generally linking” - the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 8, 11 – 14, 16 – 18 and 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In regarding claims 1 and 12 – 14:
Step 1:
Claims 1 and 12 – 14 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 12 – 14 are directed an idea for determining the yaw angle of a trailer with respect to the longitudinal axis of a towing vehicle, which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
The claims in the instant application include:
capturing at least a first and a second image of the trailer using a camera, the orientation of the trailer with respect to the vehicle being different on the at least two images;
determining at least a first feature of the trailer which is visible on first and second image;
determining a second feature of the trailer which is visible on the first image and the second image, wherein the second feature is arranged at a different position of the trailer than the first feature;
projecting a ray between the camera and the determined first feature on the first image onto a horizontal plane thereby obtaining a first projected feature position and projecting the ray between the camera and the determined first feature on the second image onto the horizontal plane thereby obtaining a second projected feature position, wherein the projecting the ray between the camera and the determined first feature comprises using camera calibration information of the camera to transform a location of the determined first features into the ray;
projecting a ray between the camera and the determined second feature on the first image onto the horizontal plane thereby obtaining a third projected feature position and projecting the ray between the camera and the determined second feature on the second image onto the horizontal plane thereby obtaining a fourth projected feature position, wherein the projecting the ray between the camera and the determined second feature comprises using the camera calibration information of the camera to transform a location of the determined second features into the ray;
establishing a first perpendicular bisector between a location of the first projected feature position and a location of the second projected feature position;
establishing a second perpendicular bisector between a location of the third projected feature position and a location of the fourth projected feature position;
determining a first intersection point of the first perpendicular bisector with a reference axis or a further perpendicular bisector; -determining a second intersection point of the second perpendicular bisector with the reference axis;
calculating a first angle estimation, the first angle estimation referring to an angle between a first line running from the first projected feature position to the first intersection point and a second line running from the second projected feature position to the first intersection point in the horizontal plane;
calculating a second angle estimation, the second angle estimation referring to an angle between a first line running from the third projected feature position to the second intersection point and a second line running from the fourth projected feature position to the second intersection point in the horizontal plane; and
calculating the yaw angle based on the first and second angle estimations, wherein the yaw angle is calculated without information regarding a position of a towball of the towing vehicle.
For the limitation of “determining at least a first feature of the trailer which is visible on first and second image; determining a second feature of the trailer which is visible on the first image and the second image, wherein the second feature is arranged at a different position of the trailer than the first feature;” it can be interpreted as a person looked at a set of trailer images, and determines two feature points for the same trailer. The claimed limitation can be categorized as mental processes.
For the limitation of “
projecting a ray between the camera and the determined first feature on the first image onto a horizontal plane thereby obtaining a first projected feature position and projecting the ray between the camera and the determined first feature on the second image onto the horizontal plane thereby obtaining a second projected feature position, wherein the projecting the ray between the camera and the determined first feature comprises using camera calibration information of the camera to transform a location of the determined first features into the ray;
projecting a ray between the camera and the determined second feature on the first image onto the horizontal plane thereby obtaining a third projected feature position and projecting the ray between the camera and the determined second feature on the second image onto the horizontal plane thereby obtaining a fourth projected feature position, wherein the projecting the ray between the camera and the determined second feature comprises using the camera calibration information of the camera to transform a location of the determined second features into the ray;
establishing a first perpendicular bisector between a location of the first projected feature position and a location of the second projected feature position;
establishing a second perpendicular bisector between a location of the third projected feature position and a location of the fourth projected feature position;
determining a first intersection point of the first perpendicular bisector with a reference axis or a further perpendicular bisector; -determining a second intersection point of the second perpendicular bisector with the reference axis;
calculating a first angle estimation, the first angle estimation referring to an angle between a first line running from the first projected feature position to the first intersection point and a second line running from the second projected feature position to the first intersection point in the horizontal plane;
calculating a second angle estimation, the second angle estimation referring to an angle between a first line running from the third projected feature position to the second intersection point and a second line running from the fourth projected feature position to the second intersection point in the horizontal plane; and
calculating the yaw angle based on the first and second angle estimations, wherein the yaw angle is calculated without information regarding a position of a towball of the towing vehicle”,
it can be interpreted as the person can use a pen and paper to draw lines among those feature points in projected plane, and using geometrical and triangulation relationship to calculating the yaw angle. The claimed limitation can be categorized as mental processes, or mathematical concepts.
Prong 2:
The claims include additional elements of:
capturing at least a first and a second image of the trailer using a camera, the orientation of the trailer with respect to the vehicle being different on the at least two images;
a system comprising a camera and processing entity (claim 12); and a vehicle comprising the system (claim 13).
Regarding “capturing at least a first and a second image of the trailer using a camera, the orientation of the trailer with respect to the vehicle being different on the at least two images”, it is a data gathering step which can be characterized as insignificant extra solution activity;
Regarding “a system comprising a camera and processing entity; and a vehicle comprising the system”, they are considered as “generally linking” - the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
.
Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the above recited additional elements perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements include obtaining input, using a neural network to processing, computers, storage device and non-transitory computer storage media).
The additional elements (data gathering, general hardware) perform only basic function, which would be common to every additional element (e.g., data gathering, general hardware). They are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Thus, the recited generic additional elements (e.g., data gathering, general hardware) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2, 4 – 8, 11, 16 – 18 and 20 – 21, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claims 1, 12 and 14, respectively, because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claims 1, 12 and 14, wherein limitations regarding “is/are …”, "is calculated ... ", “determining …”, “establishing …” and/or “comprising …”, is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes” as the abstract idea (similar to claims 1, 12 and 14 as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
After a further search, no references are found to teach, or in a combination to teach, the claimed limitations of the independent claims.
Conclusion
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 QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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 a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677