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 .
Formal Matters
Applicant's response, filed 01 July 2026, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 15, 18, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 have been rejected.
Priority and Formal Matters
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 06/19/2018 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 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; in response to determining that the measured load is saturated, calculate an actual load on the hitch based on the position data and the torque to correct the measured load.
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 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 1, 8, and 15 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 1, 8, and 15 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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 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
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
access a measured load and 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
1, 8, & 15
In response to determining that the measured load is saturated
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
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
1, 8, & 15
and the torque to correct the measured load
correct the load measured by the load sensing pin based on the distance between the hitch receiver and the trailer hitch ball and the measured torque
9
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
Therefore claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under non-statutory double patenting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has stated that they will address the double patenting rejection when other outstanding rejections and objections are resolved. However, as filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer is filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is made of record by the examiner (see MPEP § 804.02 (IV) for filing terminal disclaimers required to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections in applications filed on or after June 8, 1995). Therefore, the Examiner has updated the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection to reflect the amendments made to the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first asserts that as the claims have been amended to recite (1) access a measured load and torque on the hitch via a sensor disposed within the hitch and the conditional (2) in response to determining that the measured load is saturated are not mental processes and therefore the claim does not recite an abstract idea. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 and 2, the limitations of the claim are analyzed under two classifications (1) the abstract idea of the claim and (2) additional elements of the claim. Examiner disagrees that the conditional (2) in response to determining that the measured load is saturated is not a mental process performable by the use of pen and paper. Examiner submits that the abstract idea does not read on the entirety of the inventive concept – that is (1) access a measured load and torque on the hitch via a sensor disposed within the hitch. However, Examiner has considered said limitation as an additional element under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B accordingly.
Applicant then asserts that under Step 2A Prong 2, the use of computer and corresponding hardware to correct the measured load using the image data “reduces the utilization of computation resources compared to vehicles that implement multiple load sending pins. Examiner notes that there is so such discussion int eh specification regarding a problem with the prior art (i.e. that computing resources are a limitation for load sensing) and any realized technical improvement. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art (MPEP § 2106.05(a)).
Applicant then asserts that the claims do not preempt the practice of the judicial exception and are not a drafting effort to seek to monopolize the judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive. While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. See MPEP 2106.04 I. Accordingly, simply because the claim does not completely preempt all methods of detecting contamination (e.g. without generating a noise model) does not demonstrate that the claim is patent eligible; instead, the claims were analyzed by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo in the above rejection.
Applicant then asserts that under Step 2B the combination of the sensors and all actions performed within the identified abstract idea are not well understood, routine, and conventional when considered as an ordered combination. The consideration under Step 2B is if the additional elements, alone or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field – the novelty of the abstract idea is not considered relevant under the Step 2B analysis. Here, the additional elements, alone or in combination, amount to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Finally, Applicant reminds Examiner of the August 4, 2025 memorandum and not to expand the “mental process” grouping to encompass claim limitations that cannot be performed mentally. Applicant then points to a limitation (access a measured load and torque on the hitch via a sensor disposed within the hitch ) Examiner has identified an additional element as not practical to perform mentally. Examiner disagrees regarding the limitations directly identified as abstract under Step 2A Prong 1. While certain embodiments of the claim language would be too complex to be performed mentally as indicated by Applicant, there is no evidence of such complexity in the particular claim language that would indicate that the tasks performed within the abstract idea could not practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 103 have been considered and are persuasive regarding the newly added limitations directed towards subject matter previously indicated as free of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
A. Zatočilová et al., Experimental Verification of Deformation Behavior of Towing Hitch by Optical Measurement Method, Modern Methods of Construction Design 421-431 (Jan. 1, 2014) teaching on a mathematical calibration method for stress-strain deformation analysis on a trailer hitch from imaging data in the § 4.2 Photogrammetry Measurement of Towing Hitch on Experimental Stand on p. 427-429
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 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
Prosecution Insights