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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 7-8, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 16 and their respective dependent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 10, Applicant argues that the claims have been amended in accordance with Option 2 discussed during the 11/05/2025 interview, which was discussed and agreed upon as being sufficient to overcome the teachings of Lavoie and Golgiri. The Examiner is in agreement with Applicant’s argument. Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 and their respective dependent claims has been withdrawn.
Regarding independent claim 16, Applicant argues that the claims have been amended in accordance with Option 1 discussed during the 11/05/2025 interview, which was discussed and agreed upon as being sufficient to overcome the teachings of Lavoie and Golgiri. The Examiner is in agreement with Applicant’s argument. Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claim 16 and its respective dependent claims has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Lavoie, Golgiri, Musial, and Martin.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, a semicolon should be inserted following the limitation “and stop movement of the trailer”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16 and 18-21 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.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “wherein the remote control is configured to send signals to an in-vehicle controller of the vehicle when the sensor detects that the user is grasping the remote control at the one or more grips, and wherein the in-vehicle controller is configured to switch an operating mode of the vehicle if the in-vehicle controller does not receive the signal within a predetermined time.” However, antecedent basis already exists in the claim for “a transceiver configured to send signals to the vehicle, wherein the transceiver sends the signals based on the user commands received via the input device, wherein the signals are configured to:…” Therefore, it is unclear whether the signals sent by the remote control are the same as the signals sent by the transceiver, or if these signals are separate signals entirely. Further, the claim recites to “signals” (plural), but goes on to also recite to “the signal” (singular); therefore, it is unclear whether multiple signals are required, or if only one signal is required. For the purposes of this examination, the signals sent by the remote control are being interpreted as the same signals sent by the transceiver.
Regarding claims 18-21, these claims are dependent upon claim 16 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 18-21 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “wherein the signals are configured to cause in-vehicle controller to: …” However, claim 21 is dependent upon claim 16, discussed further above, and inherits the above-described deficiencies with respect to “the signals”. As such, claim 21 is rendered indefinite because it is unclear which signals are being referred to. For the purposes of this examination, the signals of claim 21 are being interpreted as the same signals sent by the remote control and the transceiver, as discussed above with respect to claim 16.
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.
Claim(s) 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie et al. (US 2022/0390942 A1), hereinafter Lavoie, in view of Golgiri et al. (US 2022/0161616 A1), hereinafter Golgiri, and in further view of Musial (US 2017/0111487 A1), and in even further view of Martin et al. (US 2022/0382275 A1), hereinafter Martin.
Regarding claim 16, Lavoie teaches a remote control for remotely operating a vehicle, the remote control comprising:
an input device that is configured to receive commands from a user,
Lavoie teaches ([0055]): "More generally, the movement of the vehicle 200 and trailer 210 may be remotely controlled by a user 290 using the mobile device 100. The mobile device 100 generally includes a memory 300 and a processor 302. The memory 300 stores an application 304 including program instructions that, when executed by the mobile device processor 302, performs aspects of the disclosed embodiments. The application 304 may be part of a vehicle control system described herein or may provide and or receive information from the vehicle control system." Lavoie further teaches ([0068]): "The mobile device 100 further includes the user engagement input 188. The user engagement input 188 may be a separate input and is contacted to reveal or hide the control input 190. In operation, referring to FIG. 2, when a user (e.g., user's thumb) is in contact with the user engagement input 188, the mobile device 100 provides or displays a control input 190." Lavoie even further teaches ([0070]): "After contacting the user engagement input 188, a user may contact the control input 190 to control the vehicle (e.g., generates a control signal) according to the settings of the inputs 148, 158, 178."
a sensor configured to detect a [touch] by the user of the [sensor];
Lavoie teaches ([0020]): "The mobile device 100 further includes a user engagement input 188. The user engagement input 188 is a separate input and is contacted to reveal or hide a control input 190. In operation, referring to FIG. 2, when a user (e.g., user's thumb) is in contact with the user engagement input 188, the mobile device 100 provides or displays the control input 190." Lavoie further teaches ([0021]): "The user engagement input may alternatively or additionally a physical button 189 (e.g., volume) of the mobile device 100 that is depressed to reveal the control input 190."
a transceiver configured to send signals to the vehicle,
Lavoie teaches ([0055]): "More generally, the movement of the vehicle 200 and trailer 210 may be remotely controlled by a user 290 using the mobile device 100. The mobile device 100 generally includes a memory 300 and a processor 302. The memory 300 stores an application 304 including program instructions that, when executed by the mobile device processor 302, performs aspects of the disclosed embodiments. The application 304 may be part of a vehicle control system described herein or may provide and or receive information from the vehicle control system." Lavoie further teaches ([0068]): "The mobile device 100 further includes the user engagement input 188. The user engagement input 188 may be a separate input and is contacted to reveal or hide the control input 190. In operation, referring to FIG. 2, when a user (e.g., user's thumb) is in contact with the user engagement input 188, the mobile device 100 provides or displays a control input 190." Lavoie even further teaches ([0070]): "After contacting the user engagement input 188, a user may contact the control input 190 to control the vehicle (e.g., generates a control signal) according to the settings of the inputs 148, 158, 178." Lavoie still further teaches ([0047]): " The automotive computer 240 may be disposed in communication with the mobile device 100 and one or more server(s) 252 via a network 254. Each of the mobile device 100 and the server 252 may include a processor and a memory as described above."
wherein the transceiver sends the signals based on the user commands received via the input device,
Lavoie teaches ([0055]): "More generally, the movement of the vehicle 200 and trailer 210 may be remotely controlled by a user 290 using the mobile device 100. The mobile device 100 generally includes a memory 300 and a processor 302. The memory 300 stores an application 304 including program instructions that, when executed by the mobile device processor 302, performs aspects of the disclosed embodiments. The application 304 may be part of a vehicle control system described herein or may provide and or receive information from the vehicle control system." Lavoie further teaches ([0068]): "The mobile device 100 further includes the user engagement input 188. The user engagement input 188 may be a separate input and is contacted to reveal or hide the control input 190. In operation, referring to FIG. 2, when a user (e.g., user's thumb) is in contact with the user engagement input 188, the mobile device 100 provides or displays a control input 190." Lavoie even further teaches ([0070]): "After contacting the user engagement input 188, a user may contact the control input 190 to control the vehicle (e.g., generates a control signal) according to the settings of the inputs 148, 158, 178."
wherein the signals are configured to: move the vehicle forward or backward;
Lavoie teaches ([0070]): "After contacting the user engagement input 188, a user may contact the control input 190 to control the vehicle (e.g., generates a control signal) according to the settings of the inputs 148, 158, 178." Lavoie further teaches ([0059]): "The mobile device 100 may display one of the forward path graphic 120 and the reverse path graphic 122 based on a setting of a directional input 148 that includes a forward setting 150 and a reverse setting 152. For example, when the directional input 148 is set to the forward setting 150, the mobile device 100 displays the forward path graphic 120 and when the directional input 148 is set to the reverse setting 152 the mobile device 100 displays the reverse path graphic 122."
steer the vehicle;
Lavoie teaches ([0070]): "After contacting the user engagement input 188, a user may contact the control input 190 to control the vehicle (e.g., generates a control signal) according to the settings of the inputs 148, 158, 178." Lavoie further teaches ([0060]): "The mobile device 100 further includes a curvature input 158 that includes a leftmost setting 160, a rightmost setting 162, and a straight line setting 164. The curvature input 158 may include various degrees of curvature between the straight line setting 164 and each of the leftmost setting 160 and the rightmost setting 162. The degrees of curvature define the curvature of the path 130."
wherein the remote control is configured to send signals to an in-vehicle controller of the vehicle when the sensor detects that the user is [touching] the remote control…
Lavoie teaches ([0068]): "The mobile device 100 further includes the user engagement input 188. The user engagement input 188 may be a separate input and is contacted to reveal or hide the control input 190. In operation, referring to FIG. 2, when a user (e.g., user's thumb) is in contact with the user engagement input 188, the mobile device 100 provides or displays a control input 190." Lavoie further teaches ([0070]): "After contacting the user engagement input 188, a user may contact the control input 190 to control the vehicle (e.g., generates a control signal) according to the settings of the inputs 148, 158, 178."
However, while Lavoie does teach an input 148 for controlling forward and reverse travel (see at least [0059]), Lavoie does not outright teach that this input controls stopping movement of the vehicle and the trailer. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of modifying the teachings of Lavoie to provide:
stop movement of the vehicle;
Lavoie teaches ([0070]): "After contacting the user engagement input 188, a user may contact the control input 190 to control the vehicle (e.g., generates a control signal) according to the settings of the inputs 148, 158, 178." Lavoie further teaches ([0059]): "The mobile device 100 may display one of the forward path graphic 120 and the reverse path graphic 122 based on a setting of a directional input 148 that includes a forward setting 150 and a reverse setting 152." FIG. 1, included below, depicts the mobile device 100 and input 148 for control of forward or reverse travel, which is shown as being a slider input. Lavoie is modified such that the midpoint of directional input 148's slider corresponds to a non-moving state.
PNG
media_image1.png
442
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and stop movement of the trailer
Lavoie teaches ([0070]): "After contacting the user engagement input 188, a user may contact the control input 190 to control the vehicle (e.g., generates a control signal) according to the settings of the inputs 148, 158, 178." Lavoie further teaches ([0059]): "The mobile device 100 may display one of the forward path graphic 120 and the reverse path graphic 122 based on a setting of a directional input 148 that includes a forward setting 150 and a reverse setting 152." FIG. 1, included above, depicts the mobile device 100 and input 148 for control of forward or reverse travel, which is shown as being a slider input. Lavoie is modified such that the midpoint of directional input 148's slider corresponds to a non-moving state. As FIG. 1 illustrates, the vehicle and trailer are hitched. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that stopping the movement of the vehicle likewise stops the movement of the trailer.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Lavoie such that the forward/reverse inputs allow for stopping of the vehicle. Lavoie provides an input 148 which is depicted as being a slider control element in FIG. 1. Further, Lavoie teaches directional input 160 for controlling travel in a rightward, leftward, or straight line setting, wherein the straight line setting corresponds to the midpoint of directional input 160 (see at least [0060]). Therefore, as Lavoie already provides a teaching of a slider midpoint representing a "middle" or "neutral" control option, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the input 148 to implement a similar midpoint control option corresponding to a middle state between forward and reverse travel; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the middle state between forward and reverse travel as traveling in neither direction (i.e., stopping traveling of the vehicle). Doing so serves to augment the ability of the user in controlling the vehicle based on the settings of the inputs (see at least [0070]).
However, Lavoie does not outright teach that the commands relate to operation of the vehicle to couple the trailer to the vehicle or decouple the trailer from the vehicle while the user is outside the vehicle and the vehicle and trailer are in a field of view of the user. Golgiri teaches a system and method for remote vehicle control, comprising:
wherein the commands relate to operation of the vehicle to couple the trailer to the vehicle or decouple the trailer from the vehicle while the user is outside the vehicle and the vehicle and trailer are in a field of view of the user;
Golgiri teaches ([0061]): "Referring now to FIGS. 1 and 5-12, the coordinated operation of the system 10 in combination with the remote device 30 is discussed in further detail. In operation, the remote device 30 may serve as a peripheral device or remote user interface to support remote operation of the vehicle 12 with the user U located outside of a passenger compartment 120 of the vehicle 12." Golgiri further teaches ([0064]): "Once the hitch viewing zone 130a and the coupler viewing zone 130b are determined, the controller 14 may define the viewing zones 30a and 30b as the union between the hitch viewing zone 130a and the coupler viewing zone 130b. With the hitch viewing zones 30a and 30b defined for the combination of the vehicle 12 and the trailer 18, the system 10 may control the vehicle HMI 66 and/or the remote device 30 to display the simulated scene 122 of the travel zone 30c and the related viewing zones 30a and 30b based on the specific geometry of the vehicle 12 and the trailer 18 as demonstrated and further discussed in reference to FIGS. 7 and 8. In this way, the system 10 may communicate a position for the user U to stand with the remote device 30 to provide an optimum view of the alignment of the hitch 22 of the vehicle 12 with the coupler 16 of the trailer 18." Golgiri even further teaches ([0078]): "By continuing to monitor the location of remote device 30, the method 170 may determine if the remote device 30 is located in the viewing zone in step 186. If the remote device 30 is not located in one of the viewing zones 30a, 30b, a motion control operation of the vehicle may be suspended (188)." FIG. 7, included below, illustrates that the user is outside of the vehicle and the vehicle and trailer are in a field of view of the user.
PNG
media_image2.png
466
646
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lavoie to incorporate teachings of Golgiri to provide that the commands relate to operation of the vehicle to couple a trailer to the vehicle or decouple the trailer from the vehicle while the user is outside the vehicle and the vehicle and trailer are in a field of view of the user. Lavoie and Golgiri are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of remote control for vehicles with trailers. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Golgiri, as doing so advantageously allows for suspending operation of the vehicle if the user is not located within a designated viewing zone outside of the vehicle, wherein the viewing zone is used in monitoring the hitch and coupler while connecting a trailer to the vehicle, as recognized by Golgiri (see at least [0075]-[0078]).
However, while Lavoie does teach a sensor configured to detect a touch by a user of the sensor (see at least [0020]-[0021]), the sensor of Lavoie is a touchscreen element and does not amount to one or more grips sized and shaped to be grasped by the user, a sensor configured to detect a grasp by the user of the one or more grips, wherein the remote control is configured to send signals to an in-vehicle controller of the vehicle when the sensor detects that the user is grasping the remote control at the one or more grips. Musial teaches a method and device for external operation of a vehicle, comprising:
one or more grips sized and shaped to be grasped by the user;
Musial teaches ([0022]): "There may be provision for the external use to be possible only when a dead man function of the key device is activated. This dead man function may be a simple pushbutton switch that needs to be kept depressed for remote control. As soon as the pushbutton switch is no longer activated, that is to say depressed, remote control is terminated."
a sensor configured to detect a grasp by the user of the one or more grips;
Musial teaches ([0037]): "The key device 18 can comprise a dead man switch 38 that needs to be depressed to use the vehicle 12. When the user 14 releases the dead man switch 38, remote control is immediately ended."
wherein the remote control is configured to send signals to an in-vehicle controller of the vehicle when the sensor detects that the user is grasping the remote control at the one or more grips,
Musial teaches ([0022]): "There may be provision for the external use to be possible only when a dead man function of the key device is activated. This dead man function may be a simple pushbutton switch that needs to be kept depressed for remote control. As soon as the pushbutton switch is no longer activated, that is to say depressed, remote control is terminated."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lavoie and Golgiri to incorporate teachings of Musial to provide one or more grips sized and shaped to be grasped by the user, a sensor configured to detect a grasp by the user of the one or more grips, wherein the remote control is configured to send signals to an in-vehicle controller of the vehicle when the sensor detects that the user is grasping the remote control at the one or more grips. Lavoie, Golgiri, and Musial are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of remote control for vehicles. Further, Lavoie already teaches functions similar to the dead man switch 38 of Musial (in particular, user engagement input 188). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to modify the user engagement input/control input of Lavoie to utilize the dead man switch of Musial, as doing so beneficially allows for remote control only when a pushbutton switch is kept depressed, and ending remote control immediately when the switch is released, as recognized by Musial (see at least [0022] and [0037])
However, Lavoie does not outright teach that the in-vehicle controller is configured to switch an operating mode of the vehicle if the in-vehicle controller does not receive the active signal within a predetermined time. Martin teaches an apparatus and method for controlling vehicle movement, comprising:
and wherein the in-vehicle controller is configured to switch an operating mode of the vehicle if the in-vehicle controller does not receive the signal within a predetermined time.
Martin teaches ([0106]): "Accordingly, it will be appreciated that certain embodiments of the present invention provide a “dead man's handle”. That is, if the user stops maintaining the touch in the second region (i.e., if the first user input stops being detected/received by the device 100), performance of the defined maneuver by the vehicle 700 may halt." Martin further teaches ([0096]): "In another example, the user may have a limited amount of time to move the touch to the second region; that is, a timeout will occur if the user does not move the touch from the first region all the way into the second region within a predetermined period of time, where timeout may result in removal of the indication of the second region (and, optionally, the first region also) so as to prevent provision of the first user input until the method is restarted." Thus, as a result of failing to receive the active signal within the predetermined time, the operating mode of the vehicle is switched to prevent performance of the user's input.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lavoie, Golgiri, and Musial to incorporate teachings of Martin to provide that the in-vehicle controller is configured to switch an operating mode of the vehicle if the in-vehicle controller does not receive the active signal within a predetermined time. Lavoie, Golgiri, Musial, and Martin are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of remote control for vehicles. Further, Lavoie already teaches a user engagement input (see at least [0020]-[0021]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Martin, as implementing the dead man's handle of Martin beneficially prevents implementation of a user input if the user stops maintaining a touch-based input, including stopping performance of a defined maneuver (see at least [0106]).
Regarding claim 18, Lavoie, Golgiri, Musial, and Martin teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 16. Lavoie further teaches:
the remote control communicates using at least one of a Wi-Fi protocol, an RFID protocol, or a Near-Field Communication (NFC) protocol.
Lavoie teaches ([0047]): " The automotive computer 240 may be disposed in communication with the mobile device 100 and one or more server(s) 252 via a network 254. Each of the mobile device 100 and the server 252 may include a processor and a memory as described above." Lavoie further teaches ([0048]): "The network(s) 254 illustrate an example communication infrastructure in which the connected devices may communicate. The network(s) 254 may be and/or include the Internet, a private network, public network or other configuration that operates using any one or more known communication protocols such as, for example, transmission control protocol/Internet protocol (TCP/IP), Bluetooth®, Wi-Fi based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standard 802.11, Ultra-Wide Band (UWB), and cellular technologies such as Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), High Speed Packet Access (HSPDA), Long-Term Evolution (LTE), Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM), and Fifth Generation (5G), to name a few examples."
Regarding claim 19, Lavoie, Golgiri, Musial, and Martin teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 16. Lavoie further teaches:
the remote control includes a plurality of the input devices and a display,
Lavoie teaches ([0056]): "Referring to FIGS. 1-2, the mobile device 100 includes the display 102. For example, the display 102 is a touchscreen display and the mobile device 100 is configured to display inputs that can be selected or manipulated through contact with or gestures on the display 102." Lavoie further teaches ([0070]): "After contacting the user engagement input 188, a user may contact the control input 190 to control the vehicle (e.g., generates a control signal) according to the settings of the inputs 148, 158, 178."
wherein the display is configured to display at least one of a battery status, an operational status of the vehicle, feedback relating to user commands, or connection status.
Lavoie teaches ([0056]): "Referring to FIGS. 1-2, the mobile device 100 includes the display 102. For example, the display 102 is a touchscreen display and the mobile device 100 is configured to display inputs that can be selected or manipulated through contact with or gestures on the display 102." Lavoie further teaches ([0070]): "After contacting the user engagement input 188, a user may contact the control input 190 to control the vehicle (e.g., generates a control signal) according to the settings of the inputs 148, 158, 178." FIG. 1, included above, demonstrates that the display 102 is configured to display feedback relating to user commands. In particular, inputs 148, 158, and 178 each provide visual feedback reflecting the current command values input by the user.
Regarding claim 20, Lavoie and Golgiri teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 16. Lavoie further teaches:
the input device includes one or more of the following: a joystick, a toggle switch, a button, a wheel, a touchscreen, or a virtual actuator.
Lavoie teaches ([0056]): "Referring to FIGS. 1-2, the mobile device 100 includes the display 102. For example, the display 102 is a touchscreen display and the mobile device 100 is configured to display inputs that can be selected or manipulated through contact with or gestures on the display 102." Lavoie further teaches ([0070]): "After contacting the user engagement input 188, a user may contact the control input 190 to control the vehicle (e.g., generates a control signal) according to the settings of the inputs 148, 158, 178."
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are allowed.
While dependent claim 21 is presently subject to a 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the Examiner nonetheless notes that the claim includes subject matter substantially similar to that discussed below with respect to independent claims 1 and 10. Therefore, claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites “A system for operating a vehicle, the vehicle including a drive system, the system comprising: a connector; a receiver; the connector positioned on one of the vehicle or a trailer, the receiver positioned on the other of the vehicle or the trailer… wherein the remote control includes an input device that is configured to receive commands from a user, wherein the commands relate to operation of the vehicle to couple a trailer to the vehicle or decouple the trailer from the vehicle while the user is outside the vehicle and the vehicle and trailer are in a field of view of the user, wherein the remote control sends the signals based on the user commands, and wherein the signals are configured to cause the in-vehicle controller to: adjust a relative position between the connector and the receiver by moving the vehicle forward or backward and adjusting a height of a suspension system on the vehicle; steer the vehicle; release a trailer lock when the relative position is at a desired position of coupling or decoupling the vehicle and the trailer stop movement of the vehicle; and stop movement of the trailer.” The closest prior art of record, Lavoie, Golgiri, Musial, and Martin, fail to teach or suggest, alone or in combination, in combination with the other claimed elements, the above-recited limitations. Lavoie teaches adjusting a relative position between the connector and the receiver by moving the vehicle forward or backward (see at least [0059] and [0070]); however, Lavoie fails to teach adjusting the relative position between the connector and the receiver by both moving the vehicle forward or backward and adjusting a height of a suspension system on the vehicle. Further, Lavoie fails to teach or suggest releasing a trailer lock when the relative position is at a desired position of coupling or decoupling the vehicle and the trailer. Golgiri, Musial, and Martin fail to cure this deficiency.
Additional search and consideration proved unfruitful, yielding no results which teach or suggest, alone or in combination, in combination with the other claimed elements, the above-recited limitations. Carpenter et al. (US 2020/0097021 A1) teaches (see at least [0054]) adjusting a height of a suspension system when coupling a tractor hitch coupler to a trailer hitch coupler; however, Carpenter et al. fails to teach doing so based on remote control of a user outside the vehicle when the vehicle and trailer are in a field of view of the user. Carpenter et al. is likewise silent regarding releasing a trailer lock when the relative position is at a desired position of coupling or decoupling the vehicle and the trailer. Healy (US 2019/0202421 A1) teaches a vehicle immobilization mechanism, including remotely actuating a trailer wheel-lock mechanism (see at least [0008] and [0023]). However, Healy fails to teach releasing the trailer lock when the relative position is at a desired position of coupling or decoupling the vehicle and the trailer.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 is considered to be allowable. Claims 2-3 and 5-9 are dependent upon claim 1 and therefore inherit the above-discussed allowable subject matter. Therefore, claims 2-3 and 5-9 are likewise considered to be allowable under similar reasoning as independent claim 1 above.
Regarding independent claim 10, the claim includes limitations substantially similar to those discussed above with respect to claim 1, but with minor differences in phrasing. As such, independent claim 10 is likewise considered to be allowable under similar reasoning as independent claim 1 above. Claims 11-15 are dependent upon claim 10 and therefore inherit the allowable subject matter of claim 10. Therefore, claims 11-15 are likewise considered to be allowable under similar reasoning as independent claims 1 and 10 above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/F.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662