DETAILED ACTION
This rejection is a second non-final rejection due to:
the previous rejection heading stating that the rejection was being made under 35 USC 102 when it was being made under 35 USC 103 and
not identifying the Lavoie reference patent number in the rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0129939) in view of Lavoie (U.S. Pat. No. 10,234,868).
Regarding claim 1, 8, 15, Singh discloses a trailer tow assist system for assisting in rearward maneuvering of a trailer attached to a vehicle, the trailer tow assist system comprising:
a rear video camera (9, 10, 11) for providing a rearward image of the trailer and surroundings; a steering wheel position controller for controlling steering of the vehicle; and an electronic tow assist unit including an electronic processor and a memory, the electronic tow assist unit configured to:
receive, from a user, an input a target location (¶56 discloses reversing into a parking destination), the path including a sequence of waypoints (each point along the path can be construed as a waypoint ¶69 discloses using the cameras to monitor position along the route. And ¶24 and 83 discuss dynamically changing the route as the maneuver is being performed. ¶79 discloses the calculation of waypoints and confirmation of those points achieving the desired results), each waypoint including a respective set of x-y coordinates (however labeled these points are along a path with a horizontal and vertical component) and orientation information associated with the vehicle and the trailer;
determine a trailer angle for the trailer relative to the vehicle based upon video data received from the rear video camera (¶79 is disclosing the calculations of the trailer angle along the path, ¶80 discloses that this allows for calculation of the hitch angle, ¶84);
select a target waypoint positioned along the reverse direction path (¶79-84 disclose how the path is segmented) from the sequence of waypoints;
determine an offset (¶33-34) between a current position and orientation of the trailer and a target position and orientation of the trailer associated with the target waypoint;
determine a target trailer angle needed to maneuver the trailer to the target waypoint, the target trailer angle determined based on the offset between the current position and orientation of the trailer and the target position and orientation of the trailer (¶79);
determine an offset between the trailer angle and the target trailer angle (¶79);
determine a steering angle based on the offset between the trailer angle and the target trailer angle (¶63, ¶65, ¶79, ¶85, ¶86); and
control, via the steering wheel position controller, steering of the vehicle based on the steering angle while the vehicle moves backwards (¶102-103).
Singh does not disclose that the input is defining a path to a target location.
Lavoie, which deals in autonomous parking, teaches that the input is defining a path to a target location (col. 6, line 66 – col. 7, line 30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Singh with the drawing of the path of Lavoie because to allow for more parking options (col. 2, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 2 and 9 which depends from claim 1 and 8 respectively, Singh discloses wherein the electronic tow assist unit is further configured to: determine an updated position of the vehicle and the trailer; stop maneuvering the trailer when the updated position of the vehicle and the trailer is the final position of the vehicle and the trailer; and responsive to determining that the updated position of the vehicle and the trailer is not the final position of the vehicle and the trailer, determine an updated trailer angle and select a new target waypoint positioned along the reverse direction path (fig. 5 shows determining the path and ¶102 discloses updating the angles and adjusting the steering control).
Regarding claim 3 and 10 which depends from claim 1 and 8 respectively, Singh discloses further comprising an input device configured to receive the input from a user (¶66-67).
Regarding claim 4 and 11 which depends from claim 3 and 10 respectively, Singh discloses wherein the input device is further configured to receive an input of the final position of the vehicle and the trailer from a user (¶66-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 8 and 9 that the Lavoie reference does not allow for drawing the actual route for the vehicle and is simply receiving gestured inputs. Disclosed in Lavoie in col. 6, lines 63-65 is “the user 118 provides via the touchscreen 122 to define a route, direction, location, and/or other characteristic of the motion track 202” (emphasis added). This is a clear statement that the user is drawing on a touchscreen the route the vehicle will use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (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 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.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights