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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An explanation is provided below.
Applicant’s arguments filed have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant alleges on p.5:
However, Smith, Watanabe, Pol, Ditty, and Williams, taken singly or in any combination, fail to teach or suggest a plurality of RADAR modules configured to capture positional information about a floor of the trailer outside the vehicle, a lift unit configured to adjust the tilt of the floor of the trailer, control circuitry in communication with the plurality of RADAR modules and the lift unit, the control circuitry configured to calculate the tilt of the floor based on the positional information about the floor, compare the tilt to a threshold angle for the floor, determine an unstable condition of the trailer based on the comparison of the tilt to the threshold angle, and generate an output to interrupt the lift unit in response to detecting the unstable condition, wherein the unstable condition is a backward tipping of the trailer, as generally recited claim 20.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Smith teaches 0151 “As the yard truck backs down to the trailer, it uses one or multiple mounted (e.g. a standard or custom, 2D grayscale or color-pixel, image sensor-based) cameras (and/or other associated (typically 3D/range-determining) sensors, such as GPS receiver(s), radar,”. Thus, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), a plurality of radars are used.
Applicant alleges on p.6:
Contrary to Smith, Watanabe teaches detecting a "coupling angle 8 by image recognition" with an image captured by an imaging unit, for example, "a digital camera," which "captures images of an area including the rear end of the towing vehicle 10, the coupling member 20, and at least the front end of the towed vehicle." (Watanabe at [0027]; See also Watanabe at FIGS. 1, 5 and 6). As modifying Smith with Watanabe as suggested by the Examiner would go against the teachings of Smith, and would change the basic principle by which Smith was designed to operate
The Examiner disagrees, A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would know how to interchange or use both radars and cameras because radars and cameras are both spatial imaging sensors. Furthermore, Smith discloses using both as shown in the above quote (0151).
Applicant alleges on p.7:
In generally discussing RADAR, Ditty teaches "In addition, RADAR does not provide any meaningful information regarding orientation." (Ditty at [0153]). As this teaches away from the subject matter of claim 20, Applicant further submits that one having ordinary skill in the art would not find reason to combine Ditty with the cited references as suggested by the Examiner.
The Examiner disagrees. Ditty uses radar throughout different embodiments. 0153 is a small use case discussion the limitation of radar compared to other sensors understood by Ditty. This however does not account for high-resolution radars which are used to determine orientation.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a lift unit” in claim(s) 6, 8, 15, 20 a lift unit
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20200264607 hereinafter Smith) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20200317126 hereinafter Watanabe), van der Pol et al. (US PAT 6397133 hereinafter Pol) and further in view of Greenwood et al. (US PAT 9971943 hereinafter Greenwood).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches A detection system for a vehicle, comprising: at least one time-of-flight sensor configured to capture positional information about a contour of a towable device outside the vehicle (0187 “In another exemplary embodiment, the sensor assembly 3210 includes a dense 3D sensing, which is used to detect the front face 3110 of the trailer 3100 using the known/trained 3D geometric signature of the trailer face (for example, a rectangle of a given height and width ratio). The 3D sensing can be accomplished using a variety of arrangements including, but not limited to, stereo cameras, time-of-flight sensors”),
wherein the contour includes a floor of the towable device (0172 “the entire fifth wheel is under the front edge of the trailer floor/skid plate (the trailer is physically sitting on the tractor fifth wheel) there is no gap between the fifth wheel and the trailer floor/skid plate”);
control circuitry in communication with the at least one time-of-flight sensor (fig 2),
Smith does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Watanabe teaches
the control circuitry configured to: calculate a tilt of the contour based on the positional information about the contour; compare the tilt to a threshold angle for the contour (Abstract “A tow assist apparatus includes a hardware processor to: detect, at a predetermined period, an angle of tilt of a towed vehicle to a towing vehicle towing the towed vehicle, the tilt arising when the towing vehicle moves backward; calculate angle change information representing a temporal change in the detected angle; and output an alarm when the angle change information exceeds a threshold.”);
determine at least one stability condition of the towable device based on the comparison of the tilt to the threshold angle (fig 5 [when the indicator is ‘slow’ it is stable because the threshold has not exceeded]); ,
wherein the at least one stability condition includes an unstable condition corresponding to (0042 “The output unit 103 outputs an alarm when the angle change information calculated by the calculation unit 102 exceeds a threshold.”),
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Watanabe with the teachings of Smith. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously create alarm conditions without depending on wheel bases and steering angle (Watanabe 0050). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Watanabe merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a towing vehicle. Since both Smith and Watanabe disclose similar towing vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Pol teaches
wherein the at least one stability condition includes an unstable condition corresponding to the pitch exceeding the threshold angle (9:26-31 “once the vehicle 40 has deviated from the zero-position 70 such that the angular pitch .beta. exceeds a predetermined warning threshold value .beta..sub.1 (as measured by the dual-axis tilt sensor integral and internal to the central controller), the microprocessor of the central controller generates a warning signal”), and wherein the unstable condition is a backward tipping of the towable device or a backward pulling force of the vehicle (10:8-16 “It is also important to note that rearward rollovers are a particularly troublesome and common problem for tractors, specifically when such tractors are used for pulling an immovable or exceedingly heavy load. In this regard, the present invention further contemplates that the microprocessor also generate signals that cause a shutdown of the engine, disengagement of the clutch, and/or application of brakes to the rearward axle to relieve the rear axle torque and prevent the rearward rollover”; para 20 “For example, this module 101A preferably maintains record of the (1) right lateral roll angle; (2) left lateral roll angle; (3) forward pitch angle; (4) rearward pitch angle”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Pol with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the warning system (Pol 4:20-40). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pol merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a trailer vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Pol disclose similar vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Greenwood teaches
wherein the tilt is a pitch of the floor (para 17 “the invention provides a method for measuring the pitch angle (i.e. in a vertical plane), between the vehicle 1 and trailer 4.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Greenwood with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Greenwood 7:5-10). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Greenwood merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a trailer vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Greenwood disclose similar vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teach The detection system of claim 1, wherein the towable device is operably coupled with the vehicle (Smith fig 2).
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art teach The detection system of claim 1, wherein the at least one time-of-flight sensor includes a plurality of RADAR modules arranged in a rear of the vehicle (Smith 0187 “In another exemplary embodiment, the sensor assembly 3210 includes a dense 3D sensing, which is used to detect the front face 3110 of the trailer 3100 using the known/trained 3D geometric signature of the trailer face (for example, a rectangle of a given height and width ratio). The 3D sensing can be accomplished using a variety of arrangements including, but not limited to, stereo cameras, time-of-flight sensors”).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim(s) 3-4, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20200264607 hereinafter Smith) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20200317126 hereinafter Watanabe), van der Pol et al. (US PAT 6397133 hereinafter Pol) and further in view of Greenwood et al. (US PAT 9971943 hereinafter Greenwood) and further in view of Ditty et al. (US 20190258251 hereinafter Ditty).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teach The detection system of claim 1, wherein the contour includes a front wall of the towable device, (Smith 0272 “In operation, the LIDAR device 7022 communicates with a processor 7024, which can be part of the vehicle CPU, and includes an angle determination process(or) 7026. The process(or) 7026 detects the position and orientation of the (e.g.) two landing-gear legs 7110 and 7112 on the trailer 7020 in order to estimate the trailer's angle ATA relative to the rear 7030 of the truck 7010. The LIDAR device 7022 defines a working angle range 7120 that is sufficient to capture the legs 7110 and 7112 within the range of expected trailer angles ATA to be encountered during operation.”; 0120 “As the yard truck backs down to the trailer, it uses one or multiple mounted (e.g. a standard or custom, 2D grayscale or color-pixel, image sensor-based) cameras (and/or other associated (typically 3D/range-determining) sensors, such as GPS receiver(s), radar, LiDAR, stereo vision, time-of-flight cameras”).
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ditty teaches
and wherein the tilt is a pitch of the front wall (0668 “The trailer further includes two inertial sensors (82(1) and 82(2)), which provide the controller (100) with information regarding the trailer's velocity, yaw, pitch, roll.”; fig 65).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ditty with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reliability of the system (Ditty Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ditty merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a trailer vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Ditty disclose similar trailer vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teach The detection system of claim 3, wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine a topography of a region behind the vehicle based on the pitch (Ditty 0550 “the LIDAR ground plane 3154, one example non-limiting estimation process is to perform a brute force search that tests every possible ground plane pose against all the close points in the depth map . . . performing a least squares patch fit to each block of pixels in the depth map near the vehicle”; 0567 “For example, example non-limiting embodiments can look for a robust planar fit of the ground plane (3154) near the vehicle in each frame and use it to produce separate votes for roll and pitch.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ditty with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reliability of the system (Ditty Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ditty merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a trailer vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Ditty disclose similar trailer vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20200264607 hereinafter Smith) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20200317126 hereinafter Watanabe), van der Pol et al. (US PAT 6397133 hereinafter Pol) and further in view of Greenwood et al. (US PAT 9971943 hereinafter Greenwood) and further in view of Williams (US 20180370408).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teach The detection system of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Williams teaches wherein the towable device is a dump trailer having a floor (fig 2), wherein the contour includes an underside of the floor and the tilt is a pitch of the floor (0032 “In each of the above examples, tilt sensor arrays 440, 450, and 460 may provide a measurement of orientation about one axis or two axes of rotation within one-degree or two-degrees of freedom (e.g., pitch and roll),”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Williams with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase resolution for leveling in relation to a tilt sensor (Williams 0026). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Williams merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a towing vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Williams disclose similar towing vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teach The detection system of claim 5, further comprising: a lift unit in communication with the control circuitry (Williams fig 2) and configured to adjust the pitch of the floor (Williams 0037 “In these implementations, electro-hydraulic actuators associated with hydraulically variable outriggers may enable computing system 410 to perform an automated leveling operation with respect to the trailer tipper . . . each of the outriggers and their respective locations/configurations, and each tilt sensor of the set of tilt sensors 402 and their respective locations/configurations.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Williams with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase resolution for leveling in relation to a tilt sensor (Williams 0026). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Williams merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a towing vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Williams disclose similar towing vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teach The detection system of claim 6, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to communicate an instruction to interrupt the lift unit adjusting the pitch in response to the unstable condition (Williams 0005 “The method may further include limiting a maximum tipping angle of the tipping platform about the hinge axis relative to the frame during the tipping operation based on a subsequent orientation indicated by the subsequent set of sensor signals from the first tilt sensor array.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Williams with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase resolution for leveling in relation to a tilt sensor (Williams 0026). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Williams merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a towing vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Williams disclose similar towing vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, Smith teaches A detection system for a vehicle, comprising: at least one time-of-flight sensor configured to capture positional information about a contour of a towable device outside the vehicle (0187 “In another exemplary embodiment, the sensor assembly 3210 includes a dense 3D sensing, which is used to detect the front face 3110 of the trailer 3100 using the known/trained 3D geometric signature of the trailer face (for example, a rectangle of a given height and width ratio). The 3D sensing can be accomplished using a variety of arrangements including, but not limited to, stereo cameras, time-of-flight sensors”) wherein the contour includes a floor of the towable device (0172 “the entire fifth wheel is under the front edge of the trailer floor/skid plate (the trailer is physically sitting on the tractor fifth wheel) there is no gap between the fifth wheel and the trailer floor/skid plate”);
(0187 “The 3D sensing can be accomplished using a variety of arrangements including, but not limited to, stereo cameras, time-of-flight sensors”):
Smith does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Watanabe teaches
calculate the tilt of the contour based on the positional information about the contour; compare the tilt to a threshold angle for the contour (Abstract “A tow assist apparatus includes a hardware processor to: detect, at a predetermined period, an angle of tilt of a towed vehicle to a towing vehicle towing the towed vehicle, the tilt arising when the towing vehicle moves backward; calculate angle change information representing a temporal change in the detected angle; and output an alarm when the angle change information exceeds a threshold.”); determine an unstable condition of the towable device based on the comparison of the tilt to the threshold angle (fig 5); and generate an output to interrupt the lift unit in response detecting the unstable condition (fig 5; Abstract “and output an alarm when the angle change information exceeds a threshold.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Watanabe with the teachings of Smith. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously create alarm conditions without depending on wheel bases and steering angle (Watanabe 0050). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Watanabe merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a towing vehicle. Since both Smith and Watanabe disclose similar towing vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Williams teaches
a lift unit configured to adjust a tilt of a floor of the towable device (Abstract “A trailer tipper features multi-use tilt sensors for automating leveling and tipping operations”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Williams with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase resolution for leveling in relation to a tilt sensor (Williams 0026). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Williams merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a towing vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Williams disclose similar towing vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Pol teaches
wherein the unstable condition is a backward tipping of the towable device (10:8-16 “It is also important to note that rearward rollovers are a particularly troublesome and common problem for tractors, specifically when such tractors are used for pulling an immovable or exceedingly heavy load. In this regard, the present invention further contemplates that the microprocessor also generate signals that cause a shutdown of the engine, disengagement of the clutch, and/or application of brakes to the rearward axle to relieve the rear axle torque and prevent the rearward rollover”; para 20 “For example, this module 101A preferably maintains record of the (1) right lateral roll angle; (2) left lateral roll angle; (3) forward pitch angle; (4) rearward pitch angle”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Pol with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the warning system (Pol 4:20-40). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pol merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a trailer vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Pol disclose similar vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Greenwood teaches
wherein the tilt is a pitch of the floor (para 17 “the invention provides a method for measuring the pitch angle (i.e. in a vertical plane), between the vehicle 1 and trailer 4.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Greenwood with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Greenwood 7:5-10). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Greenwood merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a trailer vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Greenwood disclose similar vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20200264607 hereinafter Smith) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20200317126 hereinafter Watanabe), van der Pol et al. (US PAT 6397133 hereinafter Pol) and further in view of Greenwood et al. (US PAT 9971943 hereinafter Greenwood) and further in view of Oh et al. (US 20220063720 hereinafter Oh).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teach The detection system of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Oh teaches
wherein the control circuitry is configured to estimate a length of the towable device based on the positional information (Oh 0059 “Because the range of the radars 52a and 52b may exceed the length of trailer 12 (and/or the length of the portion of trailer needed to make a determination of the hitch angle γ according to the process discussed further below), the computational load needed to execute the hitch angle module 130 can be reduced by limiting the region from which the object point data 88 is processed. For example, a region of interest (“ROI”) can be established within, for example, ranges [1,4]m of the hitch ball 40 (i.e., origin P of the Cartesian coordinate sets 98 and 98′). The indicated ROI discussed herein is exemplary and may correspond to a particular length of a particular trailer configuration. Other ROIs can be established for other trailer lengths and configurations and used by system 10 in various forms.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Oh with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy of the system (Oh Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Oh merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a trailer vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Oh disclose similar trailer vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teach The detection system of claim 9, wherein the control circuitry is further configured calculate the threshold angle based on the length of the towable device (Oh 0059 “Because the range of the radars 52a and 52b may exceed the length of trailer 12 (and/or the length of the portion of trailer needed to make a determination of the hitch angle γ according to the process discussed further below), the computational load needed to execute the hitch angle module 130 can be reduced by limiting the region from which the object point data 88 is processed. For example, a region of interest (“ROI”) can be established within, for example, ranges [1,4]m of the hitch ball 40 (i.e., origin P of the Cartesian coordinate sets 98 and 98′). The indicated ROI discussed herein is exemplary and may correspond to a particular length of a particular trailer configuration. Other ROIs can be established for other trailer lengths and configurations and used by system 10 in various forms.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Oh with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy of the system (Oh Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Oh merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a trailer vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Oh disclose similar trailer vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20200264607 hereinafter Smith) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20200317126 hereinafter Watanabe), van der Pol et al. (US PAT 6397133 hereinafter Pol), Greenwood et al. (US PAT 9971943 hereinafter Greenwood) and further in view of Oh et al. (US 20220063720 hereinafter Oh) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Cha (US 20240384998).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teach The detection system of claim 10, further comprising:
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Cha teaches
an input indicating a loaded state or an unloaded state of the towable device, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to adjust the threshold angle based on the input, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to adjust the threshold angle based on the input (Cha 0075 “According to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, the controller 170 may output, through the output device 150, a guide message guiding the user to reduce the weight of the towed vehicle when it is determined that the result of re-search is not selected by the user. For example, the controller 170 may output a guide message of “Please, reduce the loading weight of the towed vehicle.””; 0064 “For example, the controller 170 may be configured to determine the weight of the towed vehicle based on Equation 1 . . . θ is the angle between an inclined road surface and a horizontal plane”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Cha with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve user awareness (Cha 0070). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Cha merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a trailer vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Cha disclose similar trailer vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teach The detection system of claim 11, further comprising: a user interface configured to present messages to a user; and a weight sensor for the towable device, wherein the input is a signal from one of an input at the user interface and the weight sensor (Cha 0075 “According to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, the controller 170 may output, through the output device 150, a guide message guiding the user to reduce the weight of the towed vehicle when it is determined that the result of re-search is not selected by the user. For example, the controller 170 may output a guide message of “Please, reduce the loading weight of the towed vehicle.””).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Cha with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve user awareness (Cha 0070). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Cha merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a trailer vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Cha disclose similar trailer vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20200264607 hereinafter Smith) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20200317126 hereinafter Watanabe), van der Pol et al. (US PAT 6397133 hereinafter Pol) and further in view of Greenwood et al. (US PAT 9971943 hereinafter Greenwood) and further in view of Campbell et al. (US 20190094878 hereinafter Campbell).
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art teach The detection system of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Campbell teaches
wherein the plurality of RADAR modules includes a pair of RADAR modules disposed in lighting assemblies of the vehicle (0094 “As noted above, each of the two or more radar sensors may be mounted at a variety of possible locations inside or outside the vehicle, such as a roof of the vehicle, the dashboard, behind a headlight, etc.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Campbell with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Campbell 0022). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Campbell merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a trailer vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Campbell disclose similar vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20200264607 hereinafter Smith) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20200317126 hereinafter Watanabe), van der Pol et al. (US PAT 6397133 hereinafter Pol) and further in view of Williams (US 20180370408).
Regarding claim 20, Smith teaches A system for detecting a tilt of a trailer operably connected with a vehicle, the system comprising: a plurality of RADAR modules configured to capture positional information about a floor of the trailer outside the vehicle (0187 “In another exemplary embodiment, the sensor assembly 3210 includes a dense 3D sensing, which is used to detect the front face 3110 of the trailer 3100 using the known/trained 3D geometric signature of the trailer face (for example, a rectangle of a given height and width ratio). The 3D sensing can be accomplished using a variety of arrangements including, but not limited to, stereo cameras, time-of-flight sensors”; 0120 “As the yard truck backs down to the trailer, it uses one or multiple mounted (e.g. a standard or custom, 2D grayscale or color-pixel, image sensor-based) cameras (and/or other associated (typically 3D/range-determining) sensors, such as GPS receiver(s), radar”);
control circuitry in communication with the plurality of RADAR modules (0187 “The 3D sensing can be accomplished using a variety of arrangements including, but not limited to, stereo cameras, time-of-flight sensors”):
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Watanabe teaches
calculate the tilt of the floor based on the positional information (Abstract “A tow assist apparatus includes a hardware processor to: detect, at a predetermined period, an angle of tilt of a towed vehicle to a towing vehicle towing the towed vehicle, the tilt arising when the towing vehicle moves backward; calculate angle change information representing a temporal change in the detected angle; and output an alarm when the angle change information exceeds a threshold.”);
determine an unstable condition of the trailer based on the comparison of the tilt to the threshold angle (fig 5); and
generate an output to interrupt the lift unit in response detecting the unstable condition (fig 5; Abstract “and output an alarm when the angle change information exceeds a threshold.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Watanabe with the teachings of Smith. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously create alarm conditions without depending on wheel bases and steering angle (Watanabe 0050). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Watanabe merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a towing vehicle. Since both Smith and Watanabe disclose similar towing vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Williams teaches
a lift unit configured to adjust the tilt of the floor of the trailer (Abstract “A trailer tipper features multi-use tilt sensors for automating leveling and tipping operations”) and
calculate the tilt of the floor based on the positional information about the floor; compare the tilt to a threshold angle for the floor (0004 “For example, the method may include obtaining a first set of sensor signals from a first tilt sensor array mounted at a first location on a tipping platform of the trailer tipper. The method may further include determining a first difference between an initial orientation at the first location indicated by the first set of sensor signals about two orthogonal rotational axes relative to a reference plane at an initial rotational position of the tipping platform.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Williams with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase resolution for leveling in relation to a tilt sensor (Williams 0026). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Williams merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a towing vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Williams disclose similar towing vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Pol teaches
wherein the unstable condition is a backward tipping of the trailer (10:8-16 “It is also important to note that rearward rollovers are a particularly troublesome and common problem for tractors, specifically when such tractors are used for pulling an immovable or exceedingly heavy load. In this regard, the present invention further contemplates that the microprocessor also generate signals that cause a shutdown of the engine, disengagement of the clutch, and/or application of brakes to the rearward axle to relieve the rear axle torque and prevent the rearward rollover”; para 20 “For example, this module 101A preferably maintains record of the (1) right lateral roll angle; (2) left lateral roll angle; (3) forward pitch angle; (4) rearward pitch angle”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Pol with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the warning system (Pol 4:20-40). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Pol merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular features for a trailer vehicle. Since both the cited prior art and Pol disclose similar vehicles, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Lavoie et al. (US 20160257341) discloses “A trailer backup assist system for vehicles utilizes surface slope data to provide an alert to an operator if a problematic operating condition is present and/or imminent while the vehicle is backing up with a trailer attached thereto (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights