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 .
Election/Restriction
The restriction requirement of groups I and II as set forth in the Office action mailed on 26 September 2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 8-20 have been rejoined in view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Priority
The instant application claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, or 365(c). Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 08 April 2015 claiming benefit to Provisional Application 62/687,061.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-20 are drawn to an apparatus or method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, independent claim 8 recites an apparatus, and independent claim 15 recites a method, all in part performing the steps of analyzing the image to determine position data of a mount of the hitch; and calculating an actual load on the hitch based on the position data.
These steps amount to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment).
Dependent claims 3, 10, & 17 recite, in part, wherein the calculation of the actual load includes, in response to determining measured load is saturated, calculating the actual load based the position data and the torque.
Dependent claims 5, 12, & 19 recite, in part, wherein the position data includes at least one (1) a horizontal distance from a crossbar of the hitch to a hitch ball of the hitch or (2) a vertical distance from the crossbar to the hitch ball.
Dependent claims 6, 13, & 20 recite, in part, wherein the calculation of the actual load based on the torque and the position data includes calculating the actual load based on at least one of (1) the torque and the horizontal distance or (2) the torque and the vertical distance.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1, 8, or 15 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claim 1 recites a computer readable storage medium comprising machine-readable instructions. Claim 8 recites an apparatus comprising: memory; and a processor to execute instructions. The specification does not require specific structure or hardware for the computer and corresponding parts (see the instant specification in ¶ 0045-46). The use of a computer readable storage medium comprising machine-readable instructions or an apparatus comprising: memory; and a processor to execute instructions only recites the computer and corresponding hardware as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite capture, via a camera coupled to a vehicle, an image of a hitch of the vehicle. Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite wherein the camera is coupled to a tailgate of the vehicle. The specification does not have specific hardware or software specific to the performance of the camera – only exemplary embodiments of the relative positioning and the intended use (see at least the instant specification in ¶ 0033-34, ¶ 0040, and ¶ 0059-61). The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite access a measured load and a torque on the hitch via a sensor disposed within the hitch. Claims 4, 11, & 18 recite wherein the sensor is a load-sensing pin disposed within a crossbar of the hitch. The specification provides embodiments for the sensor including a magnetoelastic force sensor, a strain gauge, or a load cell (see the instant specification in ¶ 0076-77). The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 14 recite generate an alert for a user of the vehicle when a component of the actual load exceeds a corresponding threshold. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves as display/output of the data determined from the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity that amounts to post-solution output on a well-known display device) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 recites a computer readable storage medium comprising machine-readable instructions. Claim 8 recites an apparatus comprising: memory; and a processor to execute instructions.
Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) integrating the evidentiary requirements in making a § 101 rejection as established in Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite capture, via a camera coupled to a vehicle, an image of a hitch of the vehicle. Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite wherein the camera is coupled to a tailgate of the vehicle. The use of a camera affixed to the tailgate of a vehicle to capture rear occurrence data is well understood, routine, and conventional. This position is supported by Fleming, New Automotive Sensors—A Review, 8(11) IEEE Sensors Journal 1900-1921 (2008) teaching on the state of the art for automotive cameras including a hitch camera enabled with computer vision in § M. Distance Sensors on p. 1914 and § d) Camera vision on p. 1917 (treated as a review under MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(C) that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry). Therefore, the use of the rear camera is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite access a measured load and a torque on the hitch via a sensor disposed within the hitch. Claims 4, 11, & 18 recite wherein the sensor is a load-sensing pin disposed within a crossbar of the hitch. The use of a load sensor for measuring the torque or load on a hitch is well understood, routine, and conventional. This position is supported by Bandy et al., Measurement of Three-Point Hitch Forces on Agricultural Tractors, 95(§ 4) SAE Transactions 1105-1116 (1986) (treated as a review under MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(C) that describes the state of the art and discusses what is well-known and in common use in the relevant industry) teaching on load sensing clevis pins on the vehicle hitch in Figure 1 and Figure 2 on p. 1106. Therefore, the use of the load-sensing pin to collect load data from a hitch is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 14 recite generate an alert for a user of the vehicle when a component of the actual load exceeds a corresponding threshold. The courts have decided that presenting generated data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example iv. presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viele (US Patent Application No. 2019/0233034 – claiming priority to US provisional application no 62/624,248)[hereinafter Viele].
As per claim 1, Viele teaches on the following limitations of the claim:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising machine- readable instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to at least is taught in the Summary in ¶ 0006, ¶ 0009, and in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0199-0201 (teaching on a computer with a corresponding processor and memory for calculating an actual load on a trailer hitch)
capture, via a camera coupled to a vehicle, an image of a hitch of the vehicle is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0199 and in the Figures at fig. 17 reference characters 1620, 1712, and 1715 (teaching on an optical imaging system with cameras affixed to an unmanned vehicle positioned to capture a hitch mount)
analyze the image to determine position data of a mount of the hitch; and is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0199 and in the Figures at fig. 17 reference characters 1620, 1712, and 1715 (teaching on analyzing the image to determine position/distance data relative to the hitch mount)
calculate an actual load on the hitch based on the position data is taught in the Summary in ¶ 0006, ¶ 0009, and ¶ 0014 (teaching on determining a force on the hitch from distance of the coupling, pitch from gyros, and torque on hitches)
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the positioning of the camera from the front of the hitched vehicle to the tailgate of the pilot vehicle is a mere rearrangement of parts wherein the position of the camera is an obvious matter of design choice with expected results of measuring the distance from the hitch to the trailer – see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejection under the same rational.
As per claim 2, Viele discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Viele also discloses the following:
the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the camera is coupled to a tailgate of the vehicle is taught in the Detailed Description in ¶ 0199 and in the Figures at fig. 17 reference characters 1620, 1712, and 1715 § (teaching on an optical imaging system with cameras affixed to an unmanned vehicle positioned to capture a hitch mount)
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the positioning of the camera from the front of the hitched vehicle to the tailgate of the pilot vehicle is a mere rearrangement of parts wherein the position of the camera is an obvious matter of design choice with expected results of measuring the distance from the hitch to the trailer – see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C).
Dependent claims 9 and 16 are rejected under the same rational.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viele (US Patent Application No. 2019/0233034 – claiming priority to US provisional application no 62/624,248)[hereinafter Viele] in view of Wirthlin, Intelligent Hitch for Measuring Both Trailer Weight and Tongue Weight, Create the Future Content Entry (2015)[hereinafter Wirthlin].
As per claim 7, Viele discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Viele fails to teach the following; Wirthlin, however, does disclose:
the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to generate an alert for a user of the vehicle when a component of the actual load exceeds a corresponding threshold is taught in the Article Body (teaching on alerting a driver on a user interface that a ratio between a sensor measured load and an actual weight load exceeds a threshold).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would combine the hitch load determination system of Viele with the double validation alerting system of Wirthlin with the motivation of notifying the operator “to adjust the load prior to towing” and avoid a “potentially unsafe towing condition” (Wirthlin in the Article Body).
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art:
The limitations in dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 stating: access a measured load… on the hitch via a sensor disposed within the hitch wherein the calculation of the actual load includes, in response to determining measured load is saturated, calculating the actual load based the position data and the torque is free of the prior art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language requires determining a saturated load of a hitch and when said saturation threshold is reached calculating an actual load from position data and torque on the hitch.
The most remarkable prior arts of record are as follows:
Wirthlin, Intelligent Hitch for Measuring Both Trailer Weight and Tongue Weight, Create the Future Content Entry (2015)[hereinafter Wirthlin] teaching on calculating a ratio between a sensor measured load and an actual weight load wherein that ratio exceeds a threshold in the Article Body
Reed (US PG Pub 2019/0263204) teaching on a pin sensor for measuring torque and load on a hitch between a vehicle body and a suspension of the vehicle in the Summary in ¶ 0048-49, ¶ 0051-54, and in the Abstract
Neither Wirthlin nor Reed teach on determining a first “measured” load value until a saturation threshold is reach then calculating a second “actual” load from an optic based distance and torque measurement. While Viele and Wirthlin disclose the subject matter of dependent claims 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20, their dependency on claims 3, 10 and 17 rendered these claims free of the prior art as well. Therefore, claims 3-6, 10-13, and 17-20 are free of the prior art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11548334. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant Claim Language
Instant Claim Number
Patent Claim Number
Patent Claim Language
1, 8, & 15
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising machine- readable instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to at least
An apparatus, comprising
12
1, 8, & 15
capture, via a camera coupled to a vehicle, an image of a hitch of the vehicle
a rear facing camera of a vehicle; The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the position data determined by the rear facing camera of the vehicle includes a hitch mount length or a hitch mount drop
12 and 13
1, 8, & 15
analyze the image to determine position data of a mount of the hitch; and
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the position data determined by the rear facing camera of the vehicle includes a hitch mount length or a hitch mount drop
13
1, 8, & 15
calculate an actual load on the hitch based on the position data
calculate a second measured load based on the first measured load and position data of the hitch receiver determined by the rear facing cam
12
2, 9, & 16
the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the camera is coupled to a tailgate of the vehicle
-
-
3, 10, & 17
the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to access a measured load and a torque on the hitch via a sensor disposed within the hitch and
a load sensing pin to measure a first load transferred from a hitch receiver to a crossbar of the vehicle; wherein the hitch pin load manager calculates the second measured load based on the hitch mount length or the hitch mount drop and a torque measured at the crossbar by the load sensing pin.
12 and 14
3, 10, & 17
wherein the calculation of the actual load includes, in response to determining measured load is saturated, calculating the actual load based the position data and the torque
a hitch pin load manager to calculate a second measured load based on the first measured load and position data of the hitch receiver determined by the rear facing camera when the first measured load is saturated
12
4, 11, & 18
the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 3, wherein the sensor is a load-sensing pin disposed within a crossbar of the hitch
load sensing pin is to measure a load transferred from the hitch receiver to the crossbar
1
5, 12, & 19
the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 3, wherein the position data includes at least one (1) a horizontal distance from a crossbar of the hitch to a hitch ball of the hitch or (2) a vertical distance from the crossbar to the hitch ball
position data determined by the rear facing camera of the vehicle includes a hitch mount length or a hitch mount drop
13
6, 13, & 20
the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 5, wherein the calculation of the actual load based on the torque and the position data includes calculating the actual load based on at least one of (1) the torque and the horizontal distance or (2) the torque and the vertical distance
hitch pin load manager calculates the second measured load based on the hitch mount length or the hitch mount drop and a torque measured at the crossbar by the load sensing pin
14
7 & 14
the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to generate an alert for a user of the vehicle when a component of the actual load exceeds a corresponding threshold
-
-
Therefore claims 1-20 are rejected under non-statutory double patenting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Caup et al., Video-based Trailer Detection and Articulation Estimation, 2013 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV) 1179-1184 (2013) teaching on a camera based system for determining hitch conditions on a trailer in the § I. INTRODUCTION on p. 1179
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857