DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 02/12/2024 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: image acquiring section, determining section, area setting section and detection section in claims 1-4.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenwood (US 2016/0001705 A1) in view of Shehan (US 2016/0101730 A1) and in further view of Lu (US 2017/0001566 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Greenwood discloses a monitoring system comprising: (abstract: a view from any camera can be presented to the driver on a display)
an image acquiring section that acquires images obtained by photographing a left rear side and a right rear side of a towing vehicle, respectively; (paragraph 16: The vehicle 1 is fitted with three video cameras. A first video camera 5 is mounted on the rear of the vehicle 1 and looks rearwards towards the trailer 4. This rearward-looking camera has a zoom facility. Two door mirror mounted video cameras 6, 7 are also provided. These door mirror mounted cameras 6, 7 may be panned so that they look forwards, rearwards and to a side of the vehicle 1. All three cameras 5, 6, 7 are controlled by a camera controller 8 and the outputs from each camera are fed to an image processor 9.)
a determining section that determines whether or not a towed vehicle towed by the towing vehicle is present in the respective images; (paragraph 7: A rear-ward-looking camera may be used to detect the presence of a trailer. One method of detecting the trailer includes the steps of comparing an image from a rearward-looking, vehicle mounted video camera with stored data representing a trailer. Paragraph 36: The path can be overlaid on the rear camera's view, but will only be useful to the driver if the rear corners of the trailer are also displayed. The projected path is overlaid on to a view from one of the door mirror mounted cameras 6, 7, specifically, the camera which can see the trailer 4 at that particular moment in the maneuver.)
an area setting section that, when the determining section determines that the towed vehicle is present in the image, (paragraph 7: the camera which can see the trailer) sets a (paragraphs 5 and 36: Greenwood teaches means for predicting a path of a trailer and displaying the predicted path to the driver of a vehicle to which the trailer is attached. The path being displayed as an overlay on a view from a vehicle-mounted video camera. One method of predicting the trailer path includes the steps of determining a hitch angle, 0t, between the vehicle and trailer, determining a hitch length, H, between an axle of the trailer and a point of attachment of the trailer to the vehicle, calculating a turning radius R where R=H/0t, where the trailer is predicted to follow the circumference of a circle of radius R. A view from a video camera mounted on the rear of the vehicle or on a door mirror is utilized.) (paragraph 36: The path can be overlaid on the rear camera's view, but will only be useful to the driver if the rear corners of the trailer are also displayed. The projected path is overlaid on to a view from one of the door mirror mounted cameras 6, 7, specifically, the camera which can see the trailer 4.)
Greenwood does not specifically disclose that the curved region is a dangerous area used as an operational detection region for detecting a collision hazardous object present in the dangerous area, nor does Greenwood specifically disclose the region as extending along lateral surfaces of the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle as a detection gate. As described above, Greenwood described the curved region as a projected path overlay for maneuvering assistance. (paragraphs 5 and 36)
In related art, Shehan teaches an area having a curved shaped shape extending along lateral surfaces of the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle. (paragraphs 5-6: Shehan discloses a blind spot detection system (BSD) may be configured to receive sensor information identifying whether an object is present within a defined blind spot area that surrounds the vehicle. Further, the BSD tool may receive trailer information when a trailer attachment is attached to the vehicle. Based on the received trailer information, the BSD tool may adjust the parameters of the blind spot area utilized by a blind spot detection algorithm to take into account the added presence of the trailer. The BSD of Shehan takes on different forms and/or shapes. For instance, the blind spot detection area created by the BSD system may take on a more radial shape to correspond to a sensing range for the driver-side BSDS and the passenger side BSDS. (paragraph 18)
Shehan does not disclose the object as a “collision hazardous object”; it calls it an object in a blind spot detection area with an audio noise indicating an object has been detected. (paragraphs 43-45)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Shehan into the teachings of Greenwood to effectively warn a driver about the object within the blind spot area.
Furthermore, in related art, Lu discloses a detecting section that detects a collision hazardous object present in the dangerous area. (paragraph 55: The system may provide an alert to the driver of a potentially hazardous situation during the reversing maneuver, such as responsive to detection of an object rearward of the trailer and in the path of the trailer such as via processing of images captured by sideview cameras of the towing vehicle and/or processing of images captured by a rearward viewing camera at the rear of the trailer.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lu into the teachings of Greenwood and Shehan to effectively determine an object in the rearward path of travel of the trailer and a determination that a collision may occur between the trailer and object.
Regarding claim 2, Greenwood, as modified by Shehan and Lu, discloses the claimed invention wherein when the determining section determines that the towed vehicle is not present in the images, the area setting section sets the dangerous area having a shape extending rearward on each of the left and right lateral sides of the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle. (Shehan paragraph 18: rectangular shape when no adjustment is required)
Regarding claim 3, Greenwood, as modified by Shehan and Lu, discloses the claimed invention wherein the determining section determines that the towed vehicle is present in the image, the dangerous area having a shape extending rearward is set on one lateral side of the left lateral side and the right lateral side of the towing vehicle, the one lateral side being a side where the image in which the towed vehicle is determined to be present is not photographed, and the dangerous area is smaller than the dangerous area that is set when the determining section determines that the towed vehicle is not present in the image. (Greenwood paragraph 36: the camera that can see the trailer; Shehan paragraphs 5 and 42: adjustment of blind spot detection areas; Lu paragraph 55: teaches object detection within the trailer path if needed)
Regarding claim 4, Greenwood, as modified by Shehan and Lu, discloses the claimed invention wherein when the determining section determines that the towed vehicle is present in the image, a dangerous area having a curved shape extending along lateral surfaces of the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle is set on one lateral side of the left and right lateral sides of the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle, the one lateral side being a side where the image in which the towed vehicle is determined to be present is not photographed. (Greenwood paragraphs 5 and 36-38; Shehan paragraphs 5-6; Lu paragraph 55)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665