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) was submitted on August 18, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on June 27, 2025.
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0302764) in view of Kyrtsos et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0277942).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0302764) in view of Kyrtsos et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0277942), further in view of Laine et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0101099).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed on June 27, 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 103
The Applicant Arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 appear to be primarily directed to the amendments filed on June 27, 2025. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the amended language shifts the scope of the claimed invention and necessitates a new ground of rejection, which is made in view of Kyrtsos et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0277942).
Claim Interpretation
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: “an autonomy system” in claim 19-20 and “the coupling unit” in claim 19.
Structure for “an autonomy system” is provided in paragraph 0038 of the instant specification describing the autonomy system to include a plurality of sensors including a camera system, a LiDAR system, a radar system, a GNSS receiver, and an IMU.
Structure for a “coupling unit” is provided in paragraph 0061 of the instant specification describing the coupling unit to be a kingpin.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0302764) in view of Kyrtsos et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0277942).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a rotatable coupler configured to interface with a trailer; (Smith ¶ 191 discloses truck connectors that correspond with trailer receptacles, including a “wheel-to-trailer kingpin”)
a time-of-flight sensor coupled to the vehicle (Smith ¶ 191 discloses using mounted [i.e., coupled] cameras included “time-of-flight cameras”) and configured to detect an indication of a position of the trailer engaged with the rotatable coupler (Smith ¶ 191 discloses that the time-of-flight cameras are used to assist in aligning the truck connectors with corresponding trailer receptacles, including using the cab mounted cameras 2752 to receive “position information on the trailer connector,” see ¶ 230),
the position comprising a wheel assembly; and (Smith ¶ 42 discloses “A drive control directs the wheels [i.e., wheel assembly] to move and steer into alignment [i.e., a position] and engagement with the trailer, and a braking and/or an illumination system operates based upon commands from a system controller”)
one or more processors configured to: receive, from the time-of-flight sensor, the indication of the position of the wheel assembly; (Smith ¶ 46 discloses that a “processor identifies and analyzes data points generated by the sensing device [i.e., time of flight sensor] with respect to ... wheel sets of the trailer, and thereby determines the relative angle [i.e., position of the wheel assembly].” Also see ¶ 191.)
determine a rotation of the rotatable coupler; and (Smith ¶ 221 discloses pivoting “by an appropriate rotational driving mechanism,” wherein the rotation of the receptacle, also see ¶ 206 “the kingpin pivots on dashed-line axis 924 about the fifth wheel 914”)
Smith does not expressly disclose:
determine a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly.
However, Simmons discloses:
determine a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly; (Kyrtsos ¶ 219 discloses receiving, thereby determining, trailer length D, wherein the length D is the distance “between the hitch point 308 [i.e., a rotatable coupler] and the effective axle 312 of the trailer 304,” see ¶ 108, the axle 312 of the trailer 314 having a wheel assembly, see Fig. 5)
and control operation of the vehicle based on the determined rotation and the determined centerline distance. (Kyrtsos ¶ 105 discloses generating a steering command for the vehicle by a controller, such that the yaw angle of the trailer is controlled to limit the potential of attaining a jackknife angle, which is a function of the length D [i.e., determined centerline distance] and hitch angle [i.e., determined rotation], see ¶ 108)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized the kingpin of Smith in place of the hitch point of Kyrtsos with reasonable expectation of success because one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a kingpin is a type of hitch point, see Merriam-Webster, “kingpin.”
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the length of the trailer of Smith to expressly disclose a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly and controlling operation of the vehicle based on the determined rotation and the determined centerline distance, as disclosed by Kyrtsos, a with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that various trailer backup assist operations function accurately to control the path of the trailer 2104 based on an accurate estimate of the trailer length D (Kyrtsos ¶ 296), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Smith in combination with Kyrtsos discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein, to determine the rotation of the rotatable coupler, the one or more processors are configured to:
receive, from the time-of-flight sensor, a distance between the time-of-flight sensor and the wheel assembly; (Smith ¶ 265 discloses using sensor 3332 which is a camera or time-of-flight sensor, see ¶¶ 191 and 262, to measure [i.e., receive] the trailer distance, the trailer 3310 being engaged to fifth wheel 3340, the camera thereby measuring a distance to the fifth wheel, also see ¶ 294 “the trailer is physically sitting on the tractor fifth wheel.”)
identify a lateral dimension of the trailer; and (Smith ¶ 330 discloses using 3D sensing, which is achieved using the time-of-flight sensor, see ¶ 330, to detect the front face 4510 of trailer 4500 using a trained 3D geometric signature of the trailer face, and “determining the trailer location and dimensions” of a trailer front face, see ¶ 383. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that dimension of a front face includes a lateral width dimension of the trailer.)
Smith does not expressly disclose:
determine, based on a predefined distance between the time-of-flight sensor and the rotatable coupler and the rotation of the rotatable coupler, the centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly.
However, Kyrtsos discloses:
determine, based on a predefined distance between the time-of-flight sensor and the rotatable coupler and the rotation of the rotatable coupler, the centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly. (Kyrtsos ¶ 219 discloses receiving, thereby determining, trailer length D, wherein the length D is the distance “between the hitch point 308 [i.e., a rotatable coupler] and the effective axle 312 of the trailer 304,” see ¶ 108, the axle 312 of the trailer 314 having a wheel assembly, see Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the length of the trailer of Smith to expressly disclose a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly and controlling operation of the vehicle based on the determined rotation and the determined centerline distance, as disclosed by Kyrtsos, a with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that various trailer backup assist operations function accurately to control the path of the trailer 2104 based on an accurate estimate of the trailer length D (Kyrtsos ¶ 296), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Smith in combination with Kyrtsos discloses the vehicle of claim 2, wherein to identify the lateral dimension of the trailer; the one or more processors are configured to:
receive, from a second time-of-flight sensor disposed laterally opposite of the time-of- flight sensor, an indication of a lateral extreme of the trailer opposite from the wheel assembly; and (Smith ¶ 269 discloses using cameras 3446 and 3448 [i.e., time-of-flight sensors] to image trailers, wherein the camera 3448 is disposed laterally opposite to the first camera 3446, see Fig. 34B provided below. The imaging from the cameras include a side [i.e., lateral extreme] of the trailer, see Fig. 34C. Also see ¶ 456 “detect the outer edges of the trailer.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
337
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determine, based on the lateral extreme and the position of the trailer detected by the time-of-flight sensor, the lateral dimension. (Smith ¶ 330 discloses using 3D sensing, which is achieved using the time-of-flight sensor, see ¶ 330, to detect the front face 4510 of trailer 4500 using a trained 3D geometric signature of the trailer face, and “determining the trailer location and dimensions” of a trailer front face, see ¶ 383. Also see ¶ 437 “[a] sensed width.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that dimension of a front face includes a lateral width dimension of the trailer.)
Regarding claim 4, Smith in combination with Kyrtsos discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein:
the vehicle is configured to determine the centerline distance to a plurality of wheel assemblies (Kyrtsos ¶ 219 discloses receiving, thereby determining, trailer length D, wherein the length D is the distance “between the hitch point 308 [i.e., a rotatable coupler] and the effective axle 312 of the trailer 304,” see ¶ 108 which also includes the trailer having “multiple axles [i.e., a plurality of wheel assemblies]”, the axle 312 of the trailer 314 having a wheel assembly, see Fig. 5) the plurality of wheel assemblies indicative of a support point for the trailer and a trailer load. (One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an axle is a weight-bearing support point for a trailer, see Blueswift Axles “What is my trailer axle’s weight capacity?”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the length of the trailer of Smith to expressly disclose a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly and controlling operation of the vehicle based on the determined rotation and the determined centerline distance, as disclosed by Kyrtsos, a with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that various trailer backup assist operations function accurately to control the path of the trailer based on an accurate estimate of the trailer length (Kyrtsos ¶ 296), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Smith in combination with Kyrtsos discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein:
the time-of-flight sensor is configured to determine a longitudinal extreme of the trailer. (Smith ¶ 15 discloses the sensor assembly, the sensor including time-of-flight cameras, see ¶ 191, to sense features of a visible portion of a trailer including a trailer front face [i.e., a longitudinal extreme].)
Regarding claim 6, Smith in combination with Kyrtsos discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
receive an indication of a steering angle of the vehicle; and (Smith ¶ 42 discloses directing the wheels to move and steer into alignment and engagement with the trailer, wherein “movement [of the truck] can be based on local or global navigation resources—such as satellite based GPS,” such that detecting GPPS movement of the truck would include receiving steering angles, see ¶ 237.)
cause the time-of-flight sensor to detect the indication of the position based on a determination that the steering angle direction extends toward a lateral extreme of the vehicle associated with the time-of-flight sensor. (Smith ¶ 46 discloses a sensing device, the sensors including time-of-flight cameras, see ¶ 191, to identify and analyze the relative angle of a trailer with respect to the truck, including determining the relative angle of the trailer based on a side view of the trailer, see ¶ 180 and corresponding Fig. 89.)
Regarding claim 7, Smith in combination with Kyrtsos discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein:
the one or more processors are configured to adjust a speed or change of direction, responsive to the centerline distance ... (Smith ¶ 195 discloses controlling the truck whereby the controller decides appropriate maneuvers including turning [i.e., adjust a change of direction] and accelerating based on a desired outcome, including a trailer centerline being oriented at an approximate right angle to the central axis of a truck centerline, see ¶ 183.)
Smith does not expressly disclose:
a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly
However, Kyrtsos discloses:
a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly (Kyrtsos ¶ 219 discloses receiving, thereby determining, trailer length D, wherein the length D is the distance “between the hitch point 308 [i.e., a rotatable coupler] and the effective axle 312 of the trailer 304,” see ¶ 108, the axle 312 of the trailer 314 having a wheel assembly, see Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the length of the trailer of Smith to expressly disclose a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly and controlling operation of the vehicle based on the determined rotation and the determined centerline distance, as disclosed by Kyrtsos, a with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that various trailer backup assist operations function accurately to control the path of the trailer based on an accurate estimate of the trailer length (Kyrtsos ¶ 296), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a data processing system (Smith ¶ 263 “a computer vision algorithm/process module, which can be instantiated in the processor 3338, processes data from the camera 3330”) from a time-of-flight sensor coupled to a vehicle (Smith ¶ 191 discloses using mounted [i.e., coupled] cameras included “time-of-flight cameras”) and configured to detect an indication of a position of a trailer engaged with a rotatable coupler (Smith ¶ 42 discloses “A drive control directs the wheels [i.e., wheel assembly] to move and steer into alignment [i.e., a position] and engagement with the trailer, and a braking and/or an illumination system operates based upon commands from a system controller”), the position indicating a position of a wheel assembly including one or more wheels of the trailer; (Smith ¶ 42 discloses “A drive control directs the wheels [i.e., wheel assembly] to move and steer into alignment [i.e., a position] and engagement with the trailer, and a braking and/or an illumination system operates based upon commands from a system controller”)
determining, by the data processing system (Smith ¶ 263), a rotation of the rotatable coupler based on the position; and (Smith ¶ 221 discloses pivoting “by an appropriate rotational driving mechanism”)
Smith does not expressly disclose:
determining, by the data processing system, a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly of the trailer.
However, Kyrtsos discloses:
determining, by the data processing system (Kyrtsos ¶ 137), a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly of the trailer. (Kyrtsos ¶ 219 discloses receiving, thereby determining, trailer length D, wherein the length D is the distance “between the hitch point 308 [i.e., a rotatable coupler] and the effective axle 312 of the trailer 304,” see ¶ 108, the axle 312 of the trailer 314 having a wheel assembly, see Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the length of the trailer of Smith to expressly disclose a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly and controlling operation of the vehicle based on the determined rotation and the determined centerline distance, as disclosed by Kyrtsos, a with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that various trailer backup assist operations function accurately to control the path of the trailer based on an accurate estimate of the trailer length (Kyrtsos ¶ 296), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Smith and Kyrtsos discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Smith and Shepard discloses “by the data processing system” (Smith ¶ 263 “a computer vision algorithm/process module, which can be instantiated in the processor 3338, processes data from the camera 3330”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Smith and Kyrtsos discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Smith and Shepard discloses “by the data processing system” (Smith ¶ 263 “a computer vision algorithm/process module, which can be instantiated in the processor 3338, processes data from the camera 3330”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Smith and Kyrtsos discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Smith and Shepard discloses “by the data processing system” (Smith ¶ 263 “a computer vision algorithm/process module, which can be instantiated in the processor 3338, processes data from the camera 3330”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Smith and Kyrtsos discloses the method of claim 10, comprising:
receiving, by the data processing system (Smith ¶ 263), time-of-flight data from the time-of-flight sensor; and (Smith ¶ 265 discloses using sensor 3332 which is a camera or time-of-flight sensor, see ¶¶ 191 and 262, to measure [i.e., receive] the trailer distance.)
determining, by the data processing system based on the time-of-flight data and sensor position data, a longitudinal extreme of the trailer. (Smith ¶ 15 discloses the sensor assembly, the sensor including time-of-flight cameras, see ¶ 191, to sense features of a visible portion of a trailer including a trailer front face [i.e., a longitudinal extreme].)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Smith and Kyrtsos discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Smith and Shepard discloses “by the data processing system” (Smith ¶ 263 “a computer vision algorithm/process module, which can be instantiated in the processor 3338, processes data from the camera 3330”).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Smith and Kyrtsos discloses the method of claim 10, comprising:
adjusting a speed or direction or travel, responsive to the centerline distance ... (Smith ¶ 195 discloses controlling the truck whereby the controller decides appropriate maneuvers including turning [i.e., adjusting a direction] and accelerating based on a desired outcome, including a trailer centerline being oriented at an approximate right angle to the central axis of a truck centerline, see ¶ 183.)
Smith does not expressly disclose:
a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly
However, Kyrtsos discloses:
a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly (Kyrtsos ¶ 219 discloses receiving, thereby determining, trailer length D, wherein the length D is the distance “between the hitch point 308 [i.e., a rotatable coupler] and the effective axle 312 of the trailer 304,” see ¶ 108, the axle 312 of the trailer 314 having a wheel assembly, see Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the length of the trailer of Smith to expressly disclose a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly and controlling operation of the vehicle based on the determined rotation and the determined centerline distance, as disclosed by Kyrtsos, a with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that various trailer backup assist operations function accurately to control the path of the trailer based on an accurate estimate of the trailer length (Kyrtsos ¶ 296), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Smith and Kyrtsos discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Smith and Kyrtsos discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 9 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses a system comprising:
a tractor (Smith ¶ 2) comprising: a coupling unit receiver; and (Smith ¶ 18 discloses “A receiver on the trailer is permanently or temporarily affixed thereto”)
a sensor configured to determine a distance ... (Smith ¶ 265 discloses using sensor 3332 which is a camera or time-of-flight sensor, see ¶¶ 191 and 262, to measure [i.e., receive] the trailer distance relative to the truck using “continuous position measurement,” the trailer 3310 being engaged to fifth wheel 3340)
a coupling angle between the coupling unit receiver and a coupling unit of the trailer; and (Smith Fig. 55 depicts a coupling angle, see ¶ 129 “trailer at pivot angle on its hitch”)
an autonomy system (Smith ¶ 12 “A processor facilitates autonomous movement of the AV yard truck”) configured to control a speed or direction of the tractor based on the coupling angle or distance; and (Smith ¶ 389 discloses that “the UGV can autonomously maneuver with trailer movements,” such that the connection of a truck to a trailer “[maintains] maintain a predetermined angle in the coupling,” see ¶ 18)
the trailer comprising: the coupling unit configured for receipt by the coupling unit receiver; and (Smith ¶ 217 “the receiving receptacle/receiver on the trailer can be mounted in a preferred available location on the front face of the trailer by the use of (e.g.) fasteners”)
Smith does not expressly disclose:
a distance from the coupling unit receiver to a wheel assembly of a trailer including one or more wheels of the trailer; and the wheel assembly including one or more wheels of the trailer.
However, Kyrtsos discloses:
a distance from the coupling unit receiver to a wheel assembly of a trailer including one or more wheels of the trailer; and the wheel assembly including one or more wheels of the trailer. (Kyrtsos ¶ 219 discloses receiving, thereby determining, trailer length D, wherein the length D is the distance “between the hitch point 308 [i.e., a rotatable coupler] and the effective axle 312 of the trailer 304,” see ¶ 108, the axle 312 of the trailer 314 having a wheel assembly, and the trailer having “multiple axles [i.e., a plurality of wheel assemblies],” see Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the length of the trailer of Smith to expressly disclose a centerline distance from the rotatable coupler to the wheel assembly and controlling operation of the vehicle based on the determined rotation and the determined centerline distance, as disclosed by Kyrtsos, a with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that various trailer backup assist operations function accurately to control the path of the trailer based on an accurate estimate of the trailer length (Kyrtsos ¶ 296), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Smith discloses the system of claim 19, wherein:
the autonomy system is configured to determine the speed or direction based on a distance ... (Smith ¶ 195 discloses controlling the truck whereby the controller decides appropriate maneuvers including turning [i.e., adjust a change of direction] and accelerating based on a desired outcome, including a trailer centerline being oriented at an approximate right angle to the central axis of a truck centerline, see ¶ 183.)
Smith does not expressly disclose:
the wheel assembly comprises a front wheel assembly and a rear wheel assembly; and
[a distance] between the front wheel assembly and the rear wheel assembly.
However, Kyrtsos discloses:
the wheel assembly comprises a front wheel assembly and a rear wheel assembly; and (Kyrtsos ¶ 108 dislcoses steered front wheels 306 and rear axles 310 and 312 having wheels, also see at least Fig. 5, the trailer having “multiple axles [i.e., a plurality of wheel assemblies]”)
[a distance] between the front wheel assembly and the rear wheel assembly. (Kyrtsos ¶ 219 discloses trailer length D, wherein the length D is the distance “between the hitch point 308 [i.e., a rotatable coupler] and the effective axle 312 of the trailer 304,” see ¶ 108, the axle 312 of the trailer 314 having a wheel assembly, see Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the length of the trailer of Smith to expressly disclose a front wheel assembly and a rear wheel assembly of a trailer and a distance between the front wheel assembly and the rear wheel assembly, as disclosed by Kyrtsos, a with reasonable expectation of success to ensure that various trailer backup assist operations function accurately to control the path of the trailer based on an accurate estimate of the trailer length (Kyrtsos ¶ 296), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0302764) in view of Kyrtsos et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2014/0277942), further in view of Laine et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0101099).
Regarding claim 8, Smith in combination with Kyrtsos does not expressly disclose the vehicle of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine the speed or direction based on a moment of inertia.
However, Laine discloses:
determine the speed or direction based on a moment of inertia. (Laine ¶ 58 discloses that the longitudinal and lateral acceleration of the tractor [i.e., a direction] is determined by an inertial measurement unit (IMU). One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that IMUs use detected inertia to measure direction, see “Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) – An Introduction.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized determining a speed based on a moment of inertia as disclosed by Laine in place of the speed of the truck of Smith with reasonable expectation of success because the substitution would result in determining a speed of the truck of Smith based on a moment of inertia.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combination of Smith and Kyrtsos to incorporate determining a speed or direction based on a moment of inertia as disclosed by Laine with reasonable expectation of success so as to not expose an operator of a vehicle to an uncomfortable operation when transitioning propulsion and provide substantially the same longitudinal force for optimized comfort (Laine ¶ 99), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Smith in combination with Kyrtsos and Laine discloses the vehicle of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine the moment of inertia based on information received from a trailer transceiver from a memory device coupled to the trailer. (Laine ¶ 93 discloses that the AVC control system 600 receives, thereby having determined, parameter values indicative of vehicle mass m and moment of inertia J from a mass and inertia estimator 602,” wherein the “moments of inertia ... are also known beforehand” see ¶ 77, the step being performed using “program code,” see ¶ 38, the code executed by a control system which is comprised in the vehicle, see ¶ 1. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that executing program code involves a memory device.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the combination of Smith and Kyrtsos to incorporate determining a moment of inertia based on information received from a trailer transceiver from a memory device as disclosed by Laine with reasonable expectation of success so as to not expose an operator of a vehicle to an uncomfortable operation when transitioning propulsion and provide substantially the same longitudinal force for optimized comfort (Laine ¶ 99), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached on (571)270-3832. 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.
/S.T.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662