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 .
This communication is in response to election to specie restriction filed on 07/06/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1a, 2a, and 3a: 3a1, claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-12, in the reply filed, on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-19 are pending, claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-12 will be examined. Claims 5, 8, and 13-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant is requested to amend the term “and/or” in claims 3, 6, and 9, as either “and” or “or.”
Per the 2019 (PEG) guidance, claim(s) 1-19 were reviewed for abstract idea. Claims 1-19 “fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)”. Claim(s) 1-19 satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirement at step 2B, “additional element(s) amount to more significantly more than the judicial exception.”
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.
“object detection means” in claims 1 and 6 is interpreted to be “a camera which can operate in the non-visible range, for example in the infrared range, and/or in the visible spectrum.” See ¶ 0011
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:
“coupling element, which in an end position detachably holds the target object” in claims 1 is interpreted to be “coupling element is a fifth wheel,” based on the elected claimed specie;
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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niewiadomski, Luke et al. (US 2021/0114521 A1); hereinafter, Niew, and further in view of Mizusawa, Kazufumi et al. (US 2002/0145662 A1).
Consider claim 1, Niew teaches, an alignment system for approaching a vehicle (12) to a target object (16/18) spatially spaced therefrom, Niew teaches, “hitch assist system 10 includes a controller 14 configured to acquire position data of a coupler 16 of a trailer 18. The controller 14 may be configured to derive a vehicle path 20 to align a hitch ball 22 of the vehicle 12 with the coupler 16.” See ¶ 0039, comprising:
an object detection means attached to the vehicle, Niew teaches, “Hitch assist system 10 may also incorporate the imaging system 60 that includes one or more exterior cameras…” See ¶ 0019 and
a coupling element (16), which in an end position detachably holds the target object (14), Niew teaches, “Trailer alignment system 10 includes a sensor 18 that is adapted to sense vehicle hitch 16, if sensor 18 is positioned at the trailer hitch, and to sense the trailer hitch if sensor 18 is positioned at the vehicle hitch.” See ¶ 0017
the object detection means being aligned in the direction of the target object, Niew teaches, “the system 10 may track a position of the trailer 18 and the coupler position 24 in image data or various sensory data captured by the vehicle 12 while maneuvering the vehicle 12 along the path 20… the tracking of the trailer 18 should be sufficiently accurate to ensure that the coupler position 24 remains within a maneuvering range of the vehicle 12. Such tracking of the trailer 18 and/or the coupler 16 may be accomplished by processing image data captured via an imaging system.” See ¶ 0040, and
the data from the object detection means being used to generate an image in which the target object (16/18) together with a guide marker (120a/120b) can be seen during the approach of the vehicle, Niew teaches, “In response to the tailgate being oriented in a closed position, the controller is configured to output a notification indicating the closed position and derive a vehicle path aligning the forward hitch with the coupler.” See ¶ 002, Niew teaches, “controller 14 may be configured to derive a vehicle path 20 to align a hitch ball 22 of the vehicle 12 with the coupler 16. Deriving the vehicle path 20 may include a variety of steps including detecting and compensating for a change in a coupler position 24 in order to control the vehicle 12 to locate a hitch ball position 26 aligned with the coupler 16.” See ¶ 0039, Niew teaches, “the controller of the system may select a navigation routine and calculate a corresponding vehicle path 20 to align the vehicle with the trailer 18 for connection. Such operation may considerably improve a user experience by simplifying a procedure for aligning the vehicle 12 with the trailer 18 for connection.” See ¶ 0042, “a pre-processing module of the imaging system 60a or the controller 14 may augment the image data by various techniques” See ¶ 0066, “FIG. 5 is a projected view of image data demonstrating an alignment sequence with the trailer;” See ¶ 0031.
Nonetheless, in an analogous art, Mizusawa teaches, generate an image in which the target object together with a guide marker can be seen during the approach of the vehicle, Mizusawa teaches, “a driving aiding system that makes it possible for the driver to back the vehicle with good precision while looking at a picked-up image of a rear-view camera such that the hitch provided to the rear portion of the vehicle coincides with the destination coupler.” See ¶ 0007, Mizusawa teaches, “the locus superposing means has a means for superposing a line, that is obtained by projecting the locus estimated line onto a road surface, simultaneously on the screen to display when the locus estimated line of the hitch is superposed on the screen to display. Also, the locus superposing means has a means for superposing vertical lines indicating a height of a coupler as a coupling destination of the hitch at a proper interval onto the locus estimated line and a road-surface projected locus estimated line to display.” See ¶ 0012.
wherein the guide marker (Niew Figs. 3 and 5, and Mizusawa Figs. 3-5) is applied to at least one component of the vehicle (gooseneck hitch or fifth wheel hitch, See Fig. 5, element 18 b) arranged in an entry area of the coupling element, Niew teaches, “the image processing routine 86 and operating routine 90 may be used in conjunction with each other to determine the path 20 along which hitch assist system 10 can guide vehicle 12 to align hitch ball 22 and coupler 16 of trailer 18. In the example shown, an initial position of vehicle 12 relative to trailer 18 may be such that coupler 16 is only in the field of view 92c of side camera 60c, with vehicle 12 being positioned laterally from trailer 18 but with coupler 16 being almost longitudinally aligned with hitch ball 22.” Niew teaches, “the vehicle 12 may be equipped with a second hitch 30b or a forward hitch, which may correspond to a gooseneck hitch or fifth wheel hitch positioned forward of the hitch ball 22 relative to the forward operating direction of the vehicle 12.” See ¶ 0041; Nonetheless, Mizusawa teaches, “FIG. 4 is a view showing another example of the screen display in the driving aiding system shown in FIG. 2. In the example of the screen display shown in FIG. 3, only the hitch locus estimated line 10 is superposed on the picked-up image of the camera to display. In the example of the screen in FIG. 4, in order to make viewing further easier, in addition to the hitch locus estimated line 10, a locus line 10a that is obtained by vertically projecting the hitch locus estimated line onto a road surface in the real space is also displayed by superposing. Further, in addition to the hitch locus estimated line 10 and the on-road projected locus line 10a that is obtained by projecting this hitch locus estimated line 10 onto the road surface, lines 10b that are provided by connecting points on the hitch locus estimated line 10 and points on the road surface, which are obtained when these points are vertically projected onto the road surface, at a proper interval to reach a height of the coupler 5 is also superposed to display.” See ¶ 0038.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the invention of Niew and incorporate the teaching of Mizusawa and superposed on the picked-up image of the camera to display and vertically projecting the gooseneck hitch or fifth wheel hitch in an effort to effectively guide the driver to receive the trailer in the gooseneck hitch or fifth wheel hitch.
Consider claim 2, the alignment system according to claim 1, wherein the guide marker exists physically permanent (i.e. a sticker), Niew teaches, “the image processing routine 86 can identify the coupler 16 within the image data based on stored or otherwise known visual characteristics of coupler 16 or hitches in general. In another embodiment, a marker in the form of a sticker, or the like, may be affixed with trailer 18 in a specified position relative to coupler 16 in a manner similar to that which is described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 9,102,271, the entire disclosure of which is incorporated by reference herein.” See ¶ 0055
Consider claim 3, the alignment system according to claim 1, wherein the guide marker on the component is painted, glued, embossed, milled and/or is formed on the component as a protruding relief, Niew teaches a sticker which is glued, See ¶ 0055, and incorporated U.S. Pat. No. 9,102,271 teaches, “target 30 may include a sticker having adhesive on the bottom surface and a predetermined image pattern of a certain size and shape provided on the top surface for capture by the video camera and recognition by the image processing… fasteners… magnet, glued on, painted on, or any number of other suitable means.” Col. 28, lines 19+ of incorporated document ‘271.
Consider claim 4, the alignment system according to claim 1, wherein the guide marker comprises at least one directional element mounted rigidly [[or movably]] on the component, Niew teaches a sticker which is mounted rigidly.
Consider claim 6, the alignment system according to one of claim 1, wherein the guide marker is formed from at least one boundary line running towards an end position of the target object and/or towards the object detection means, (Niew Figs. 3 and 5, elements 120a and 120b show boundary line running towards an end position of the target object and towards the object detection means, and Mizusawa Figs. 3-5 elements 10, 10a, 10b show boundary line running towards an end position of the target object and towards the object detection means).
Consider claim 7, the alignment system according to claim 6, wherein the at least one boundary line is formed conically widened [[or tapered]] in the distal direction, Mizusawa Fig. 3 shows the boundary line is formed conically widened in the distal direction.
Consider claim 9, the alignment system according to claim 1,
wherein the guide marker extends in an x-y plane (horizontal), Mizusawa teaches, “the on-road projected locus line 10a” See ¶ 0041, Niew teaches 120a and 120b projected on the road, See Fig. 5.
y-z plane (vertical in the direction of movement), “the controller 14 may further project an approximation of a target location 150 for the forward hitch 18b to align along a vertical distance from the elevated coupler 108. Accordingly, the controller 14 may be configured to project the target location 150 along a vertical z-axis 152 from the identified coupler position 24.” See ¶ 0070, Mizusawa teaches, “the vertical lines 10b” See ¶ 0041
and/or
x-z plane (transverse to the direction of movement) or at least has sections that extend over at least two of these planes, Mizusawa teaches, “and the curved line 10c shown in FIG. 5” See ¶ 0041.
Consider claim 10, the alignment system according to claim 1, wherein there is an electronic control unit which determines a distance to the target object from the ratio of a known size of the guide marker and a known size of the target object,
Consider claim 11, the alignment system according to claim 1, wherein the coupling element is a fifth wheel (18b) and the target object is a kingpin (24) attached to a second vehicle, See Fig. 5 of Niew, ¶ 0041, 0061.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niew, in view of Mizusawa, further in view of Alguera Gallego; Jose Manuel et al (US 2009/0096188 A1).
Consider claim 12, the alignment system according to claim 11, wherein the component is formed from opposite flanks of coupling horns arranged to the side of the entry area, in an analogous art, Alguera teaches, the detail view of fifth wheel, and shows the opposing coupling horns. “FIG. 1 shows a top view of a fifth wheel 11 just prior to coupling up a kingpin 14. During the coupling process, the tractor vehicle (not otherwise shown), which carries the fifth wheel 11, moves in reverse, opposite the direction of travel 16. In order to simplify the introduction of the kingpin 14 into the fifth wheel 11, the fifth wheel 11 has a wedge-shaped entry opening 13 in its rear area, which is bounded on both sides by two coupling horns 12a, 12b.” See ¶ 0025, See Fig. 1 a.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Niew-Mizusawa and include a fifth wheel with opposing coupling horns 12a, 12b between the entry area, as suggested by Alguera, in an effort to securely receive and lock a kingpin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omer S. Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-5146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 8:00 pm 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, Brian A. Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/Omer S Khan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights