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 . Claims 1-34 were originally pending in this application, of which claims 1-34 were cancelled and claims 35-54 were added in the preliminary amendments filed concurrently with the original filing of the application. Thus, claims 35-54 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 51-52 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 51 recites “considers considers” but should instead recite –considers--.
Claim 51 recites “the one or more sensors associated with the item for determining one or more of…” but should instead recite --the one or more sensors associated with the item are used for determining one or more of…--.
Claim 52 recites “wherein the method upon receiving” but should instead recite --wherein upon receiving--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Use of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a
rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
112(-f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with
sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited
function.
Absence of the word "means" ( or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(-f)
(pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(-f) (pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function
but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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:
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;
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
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed 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: “communication module” in claims 35-54.
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.
The above-referenced claim limitations has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because: “communication module” in claims 35-54 uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph, the claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in
the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding
structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
paragraph limitation:
Communication module: [00163, 00167-00169] - The communication module 220-2 includes hardware (e.g., processors, memory, storage, antenna, etc.) and software to control wired or wireless network interfaces.
For all the units corresponding to a computer (hardware) the software (steps in an
algorithm/flowchart) should be included to indicate proper support.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. l 12(f)
or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will
clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a
sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S. C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues
in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 35-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 35 (and similarly claims 50 and 53) recites “wherein the specification comprises one or more sensors associated with the item”. Claim 44 recites “wherein the active data further comprises data from the one or more sensors associated with the vehicle, and the one or more sensors associated with the object”. First, it is unclear what is meant by “associated with”. Does this mean that the one or more sensors that are associated with the vehicle/item/object are mounted to the corresponding vehicle/item/object? If so, does the system comprise the vehicle, item, and object? Or does the system only include a communication module, processor, and the one or more sensors? Second, it is unclear if the one or more sensors associated with the vehicle and the one or more sensors associated with the object in claim 44 are the same as the one or more sensors associated with the item since claim 35 introduces one or more sensors associated with the item. “Associated with” is a broad phrase, and so it is unclear if these sensors can be considered the same or not. The metes and bounds of the claim limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, claim 35 will be interpreted broadly such that it is referring to one or more sensors that are either mounted to or perform sensing/detecting of some feature/parameter of the item. Claims 39, 41, 43-47, and 49-50 also recite the one or sensors associated with the vehicle/item/object and will be interpreted such that associated with means either mounted to or performing sensing/detecting of some feature/parameter of the vehicle/item/object.
Claims 41 and 43 recite “data about one or more of surrounding vehicle, and a road condition data”. It is unclear if this is referring to a surrounding vehicle (i.e., another vehicle) or the surroundings of the vehicle. The metes and bounds of the claim limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, claim 41 will be interpreted broadly to read --data about one or more of the surroundings and road condition--.
Claims 36-49, 51-52, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claims 35, 50, and 53 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 35-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a system, a method, or a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified system claim 35 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 35 recites the limitations of:
“A system comprising, a communication module; and a processor; wherein the processor is operable to, determine, that an item is attached to a vehicle forming a vehicle combination; establish, a connection via the communication module, between the vehicle and the item that is attached to the vehicle; initiate, a communication via a connector with the item, wherein the communication comprises a message comprising a specification of the item, wherein the specification comprises one or more sensors associated with the item; connect, with the one or more sensors associated with the item; receive, active data from the one or more sensors associated with the item; determine, using the active data, a surrounding of the vehicle combination for situational awareness; and modify, adaptively a safety zone.”
The limitations of determining that an item is attached, receiving active data, determining a surrounding, and modifying a safety zone, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the processor is operable to”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “the processor is operable to” language, determining that an item is attached, receiving active data, determining a surrounding, and modifying a safety zone in the context of the claim encompasses a person making a visual observation that an item is attached, receiving/analyzing data such as images to observe a surrounding situation, and mentally identifying a safe zone of travel (i.e., not to follow as closely when an item is attached, or to provide more space for lane changes). These steps are performed mentally by drivers that attach and tow items. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of using a processors to perform the recited steps. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The communication module is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic wired or wireless communication module). The limitations of establishing a connection, initiating a communication comprising a message with specification of the item is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting/receiving data or messages, which is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. The limitations of receiving active data from one or more sensors is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., merely data gathering) and is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation of modifying a safety zone could also be considered an additional element (instead of a mental process), for example transmitting a message or indication to a display to increase inter-vehicle distance and this is recited at a high level or generality and is considered a generic output that is not even necessarily tied to a determining step, and so this is considered insignificant extra-solution activity. The safety zone, according to broadest reasonable interpretation, could merely be an indication to a driver of how to drive the vehicle based on the active data, and not integrating into a practical application (for example by automatically controlling the vehicle to perform an action associated with the modified safety zone). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 35 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. See 2106.05(g) for more details. The additional element of establishing a connection, initiating a communication comprising a message with specification of the item is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to transmitting/receiving data or messages, which is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept- rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 35 (and similarly claims 50 and 53) is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 36-49, 51-52, and 54 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claims 35-41, 43-51, and 53-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashitani (US 2019/0299947 A1) in view of Lu (US 2017/0217372 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Higashitani discloses a system comprising, a communication module (see at least Fig. 1, [0036-0037] - trailer information receiver 24 receives and acquires trailer data transmitted from the trailer 4); and a processor (see at least Fig. 1, [0042] – vehicle control device 10 realized by using a computer system which is composed of a CPU); wherein the processor is operable to, determine, that an item is attached to a vehicle forming a vehicle combination (see at least Fig. 1, [0035] – connection sensor 23 detects a connection state between the truck tractor 2 and the trailer 4); establish, a connection via the communication module, between the vehicle and the item that is attached to the vehicle (see at least Fig. 1, [0035-0037] – connection sensor 23 detects a connection state and transmits the detected connection state to the vehicle control device 10… trailer information receiver 24 receives data and transmits to the vehicle control device 10); initiate, a communication via a connector with the item, wherein the communication comprises a message comprising a specification of the item, wherein the specification comprises one or more sensors associated with the item (see at least Fig. 1, [0035-0039] – trailer information receiver 24 receives and acquires trailer data transmitted from the trailer 4… the trailer 4 has a trailer information transmission device 40 which transmits trailer data to the vehicle control device 10… weight sensor 41 and rear-side imaging camera 42); connect, with the one or more sensors associated with the item (see at least Fig. 1, [0037-0039]); receive, active data from the one or more sensors associated with the item (see at least Fig. 1, [0037-0039]); determine, using active data (from one or more sensors associated with the vehicle), a surrounding of the vehicle combination for situational awareness (see at least Fig. 1, [0037-0039]); and modify, adaptively a safety zone (see at least [0053-0054 0064-0065] – a respective predetermined threshold value corresponding to the trailer 4 weight, length, width, or height… braking distance… adjust the target value of the inter-vehicle distance).
Higashitani does not appear to explicitly disclose determine, using the active data (from the one or more sensors associated with the item), a surrounding of the vehicle combination for situational awareness.
Lu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determine, using the active data (from the one or more sensors associated with the item), a surrounding of the vehicle combination for situational awareness (see at least abstract, [0020] - The trailer camera views and the camera views of the vehicles surround view system can be stitched together to a full bird's eye surround view of the towing vehicle and the towed trailer.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Lu into the invention of Higashitani with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of enhancing safety by providing a full bird’s eye surround of the vehicle and trailer to help avoid collisions of the trailer and an object/pedestrian (Lu – [0016, 0020]).
Regarding claim 36, Higashitani discloses wherein the item comprises one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following) a trailer (see at least [0027] – trailer 4), a boat, a rack, a camper, a caravan, a stock trailer, and a cargo carrier and wherein the item carries a load, wherein the load is one of (BRI requires only one of the following) an automobile, an equipment (see at least [0027, 0182]), a golf cart, a livestock, and an animal (see at least [0027, 0163, 0182]).
Regarding claim 37, Higashitani does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the connection is one of a wireless connection and a wired connection.
Lu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the connection is one of (BRI requires only one of the following) a wireless connection and a wired connection (see at least [0013, 0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Lu into the invention of Higashitani with a reasonable expectation of success because the communication will either be wired or wireless, and Lu teaches using either wired or wireless connections, thereby demonstrating the obviousness of either. This would also allow for enhanced flexibility and simplified installation (Lu – [0013]). Selecting either wired or wireless would yield predictable results, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected either one or the other.
Regarding claim 38, Higashitani does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the connector is operable for providing two way communication with the item.
Lu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the connector is operable for providing two way communication with the item (see at least [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Lu into the invention of Higashitani with a reasonable expectation of success because two way communication allows for the control units in the trailer and vehicle to communicate in both directions. Selecting two-way communication would yield predictable results. This could also be advantageous for confirming the connection between the vehicle and trailer, polling various sensors in the trailer as needed, and controlling any controllable features of the trailer (i.e., enhanced braking, lights, etc.,).
Regarding claim 39, Higashitani discloses wherein the message further comprises one or more (BRI requires only one of the following) an identification of the item, a length of the item (see at least [0036] – length), a width of the item (see at least [0036] – width), a height of the item (see at least [0036] – height), a weight of the item (see at least [0036] – weight), a make of the item, a model of the item, an attachment mode of the item (see at least [0035] – connection state), one or more resources available with the item, an object that is carried by the item as a load, a weight of the object that is carried by the item (see at least [0038] – weight of load on the trailer 4), a length of the object that is carried by the item, a width of the object that is carried by the item, a height of the object that is carried by the item, one or more sensors associated with the object that is carried by the item (see at least [0037] – weight sensor 41 and rear-side imaging camera 42), and one or more resources available with the object that is carried by the item.
Regarding claim 40, Higashitani discloses wherein an overall weight is determined by adding the weight of the item and the weight of the object (see at least [0163] – add the weight of the trailer 4 and the detected weight of the cargo container so as to detect the overall weight of the trailer 4 and the cargo container).
Regarding claim 41, Higashitani discloses wherein the one or more sensors associated with the object provide data about one or more of surrounding vehicle, and a road condition data (see at least [0037-0039] – weight sensor 41 and rear-side imaging camera 42).
Regarding claim 43, Higashitani does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more sensors associated with the item provide data about one or more of surrounding vehicle, and a road condition data.
Lu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the one or more sensors associated with the item provide data about one or more of surrounding vehicle, and a road condition data (see at least abstract, [0020] - The trailer camera views and the camera views of the vehicles surround view system can be stitched together to a full bird's eye surround view of the towing vehicle and the towed trailer.).
The motivation to combine Higashitani and Lu is the same as in the rejection of claim 35.
Regarding claim 44, Higashitani discloses wherein the active data further comprises data from the one or more sensors associated with the vehicle, and the one or more sensors associated with an object (see at least Fig. 1, [0028-0038]).
Regarding claim 45, Higashitani discloses wherein the one or more sensors associated with the item comprise one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following) a magnetic sensor, a proximity sensor, a load sensor (see at least [0038] – weight sensor 41), an electrical sensor, and a vision sensor, a motion sensor, a temperature sensor, and a GPS sensor.
Regarding claim 46, Higashitani discloses wherein the one or more sensors associated with the vehicle comprises one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following) a magnetic sensor, a proximity sensor (see at least [0028-0033]), a load sensor, an electrical sensor, and a vision sensor, a motion sensor, a temperature sensor, a GPS sensor, and a camera coupled with computer vision system.
Regarding claim 47, Higashitani discloses wherein the one or more sensors associated with the vehicle is mounted on the vehicle such that a change in a sensor data is used to detect that the item is attached to the vehicle (see at least [0030, 0035] – connection sensor 23 provided on the truck tractor 2… detects at least a connection state between the truck tractor 2 and the trailer 4).
Regarding claim 48, Higashitani discloses wherein the safety zone comprises one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following) a stopping distance (see at least [0065] – braking distance), a trailing distance (see at least [0065] – inter-vehicle distance), a turn radius, a maximum permissible height (see at least [0053-0054] – whether at least one data item of the weight, length, width, and height of the trailer 4 exceeds a respective predetermined threshold value), a maximum permissible weight (see at least [0053-0054] – whether at least one data item of the weight, length, width, and height of the trailer 4 exceeds a respective predetermined threshold value), and a lane change distance.
Regarding claim 49, Higashitani does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the system is operable for monitoring surroundings using the one or more sensors associated with the item to provide an enhanced contact zone.
Lu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the system is operable for monitoring surroundings using the one or more sensors associated with the item to provide an enhanced contact zone (see at least abstract, [0020] - The trailer camera views and the camera views of the vehicles surround view system can be stitched together to a full bird's eye surround view of the towing vehicle and the towed trailer.).
The motivation to combine Higashitani and Lu is the same as in the rejection of claim 35.
Regarding claim 50, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 35, and it has been determined that claim 50 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 35; therefore, claim 50 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 35.
Regarding claim 51, Higashitani discloses wherein the method considers considers one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following) an overall length (see at least [0036] – length), an overall weight (see at least [0036] – weight), an attachment mode (see at least [0035] – connection state), and the one or more sensors associated with the item for determining one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following) a stopping distance (see at least [0065] – braking distance), a safe distance for changing a lane, a safe trailing distance (see at least [0065] – inter-vehicle distance), and a computing a turning radius.
Regarding claim 53, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 35, and it has been determined that claim 53 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 35; therefore, claim 53 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 35.
Regarding claim 54, Higashitani does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the situational awareness (using the active data from the one or more sensors associated with the item) comprises one or more of detecting a road marking, a traffic sign, a road condition, a pedestrian, a neighboring vehicle, a lane marking, and a traffic situation.
However, Higashitani does disclose a situational awareness (using active data from one or more sensors associated with the vehicle) comprises one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following) detecting a road marking, a traffic sign, a road condition (see at least [0034]), a pedestrian (see at least [0032]), a neighboring vehicle (see at least [0032]), a lane marking, and a traffic situation (see at least [0032]).
Lu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the situational awareness (using the active data from the one or more sensors associated with the item) comprises one or more of (BRI requires only one of the following) detecting a road marking, a traffic sign, a road condition, a pedestrian, a neighboring vehicle, a lane marking, and a traffic situation (see at least [0016] - The control unit may process the captured image data (captured by the trailer cameras and/or vehicle cameras) to detect objects at or near the vehicle and may provide an alert to the driver if a hazardous condition is determined via such image processing. For example, with the wireless camera attached to the back of the trailer, the system may provide object and pedestrian detection, and the system may warn the driver of possible collisions when reversing the vehicle and trailer.).
The motivation to combine Higashitani and Lu is the same as in the rejection of claim 35.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashitani in view of Lu, Stormer (DE 10 2018 212 900 A1, a machine translation is attached and is being relied upon), and Bucknor (US 2022/0126714 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Higashitani does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more resources available with the object comprise one or more of a battery and a fuel and wherein the one or more resources available with the item comprise a battery.
Stormer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the one or more resources available with the object comprise one or more of a battery and a fuel (see at least Figs. 1-6, [0009, 0049] – trailer 1 includes modular use of batteries 14, combustion engine generator units, fuel cells 21, combustion engines 16, or the like to provide energy for the respective towing vehicle that pulls the trailer 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Stormer into the invention of Higashitani with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of improving and simplifying the transport capacity and usability of the trailer vehicle by allowing a modular construction of the energy supply unit which can be separated or isolated from the transported goods to improve the safety of the trailer vehicle (Stormer – [0020]).
Bucknor, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the one or more resources available with the item comprise a battery (see at least Fig. 1, [0030-0032, 0035] – powered trailer 14 is provided with a propulsion unit 16 configured as a battery pack 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Bucknor into the invention of Higashitani with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of increasing a towing capacity and extending a towing range of an electric towing vehicle (Bucknor – [0003]).
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higashitani in view of Lu and Hall (US 2019/0210418 A1).
Regarding claim 52, Higashitani does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the method upon receiving a signal and data from the item that is attached, alerts driver about contact zones, due to the overall length on a route.
Hall, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the method upon receiving a signal and data from the item that is attached, alerts driver about contact zones, due to the overall length on a route (see at least [0081, 0085-0086, 0089, 0095, 0322, 0325] – length of the trailer…the trailer path and tow vehicle path optimization system may alert the driver to make a wider turn as approaching the corner in order to prevent off-tracking… the system may alert the driver that the truck has approached the turning radius limit and must be adjusted to avoid jack-knifing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Hall into the invention of Higashitani with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of assuring safe travel of the tow vehicle and trailer along a defined path, for example to carry out turns safely without off-tracking of the trailer (Hall – [0072, 0075]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Dieckmann (US 2002/0030590 A1) is directed to a method and apparatus for data exchange between a towing vehicle and an attached trailer uses radio contact via transmission/receiving modules contained in the towing vehicle and in the trailer. To recognize that the towing vehicle and the trailer are connected, the transmission/receiving module of the towing vehicle transmits an identification signal, and at the same time, changes the electrical status of a connection line between the towing vehicle and the trailer. If the transmission/receiving module located in the trailer recognizes the change in the electrical status of the connection line simultaneously with receiving the transmitted identification signal, the identification signal is stored within the trailer. In subsequent communications between the towing vehicle and the trailer, the identification signal is always transmitted before the message. As such, only the attached trailer, with the appropriate stored identification signal, can communicate with its towing vehicle. Moreover, the same technique can be used for multiple trailers attached to the same towing vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669