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 .
Status of the Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 10/23/2025. Claims 1 - 20 were previously pending, of which claims 1 - 4, 7, 9 - 20 have been amended, and no new claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1 - 20 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
3. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 8 - 13, filed on 10/23/2025; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
4. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the newly amended limitations of claim 1. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that Raad, Park, and Knaub did disclose these limitations as mapped in the final office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 describes a “controller area network bus” but the specification doesn’t describe any sort of specific “controller area network bus” as claimed. A wireless network is recited in the specification but it is unclear whether this wireless network is considered this “controller area network bus” or if this “controller area network bus” is a communication process of its own.
As the examiner, “controller area network bus” will be interpreted as a controller inside of a vehicle that helps components communicate with each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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.
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.
8. Claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 - 6, 10, 12, 16 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160229451A1 (hereinafter, “Raad”), and further in view of US20230382451A1 (hereinafter, “Knaub”), and further in view of US20160179092A1 (hereinafter, “Park”).
9. Regarding claims 1, 10, & 19, Raad teaches a steering control system comprising [0021]: The vehicle (14) has a steering system (62) to steer the vehicle (14).
a user interface configured to generate an initiation signal in response to a user input ([0075] Fig. 10); Raad teaches having a display (82) (user interface) initiate the trailer backup assist system (134) by a user input.
10. Raad further does not explicitly teach a vehicle controller for determining a vehicle transmission state including a forward
mode and a reverse mode;
However, Knaub in the same field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle controller for determining a vehicle transmission state including a forward
mode and a reverse mode [0041]; The controller (100) can be configured to engage a reverse position polarity steering mode of the steering system. If the controller (100) is engaging the reverse position polarity steering mode, then before that mode is engaged, the vehicle is in a forward mode until it is engaged. Therefore, the controller (100) is determining both a forward and reverse polarity mode.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Raad with the teachings of Knaub, to specify which mode that vehicle is in via the transmission.
11. Raad teaches a steering angle sensor to detect a steering direction and a steering angle from a center steering position [0025]; Raad incorporates a steering angle sensor (67) that can measure the steering angle. The steering direction can be measured from the steering angle. If the angle of the steering is a specific degree, we can conclude from that specific degree the steering direction since both go hand in hand. The steering direction has to be in at certain position in order to match a specific steering angle.
12. Raad does not explicitly teach a steering controller configured to generate a variable steering ratio in response to
the vehicle transmission state, the steering angle and the steering direction from the steering angle sensor, such that the variable steering ratio has a negative value in response to the initiation signal and the vehicle transmission state being in the reverse mode…
However, Knaub in the same field of endeavor, teaches a steering controller configured to generate a variable steering ratio in response to
the vehicle transmission state, the steering angle and the steering direction from the steering angle sensor, such that the variable steering ratio has a negative value in response to the initiation signal and the vehicle transmission state being in the reverse mode… [0041], [0045] Knaub teaches
on the controller (100) being configured to engage a reverse position polarity steering mode of the steering system. We can treat this reverse position polarity steering mode as the controller (100) generating a negative value for a variable steering ratio because both mean the steering command’s sign is inverted so that input in one direction produces wheel motion in the opposite direction. Both are the same mathematically. The reverse position polarity steering is sending a signal to the controller (100) that is mathematically equivalent to -1 in order to invert the steering direction. The variable steering ratio is also a negative value of -1 for the same reason. Therefore, both are the same because both are using a mathematical equivalent of -1 to invert the steering direction.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Raad with the teachings of Knaub, to accurately invert the steering direction of the vehicle wheels.
13. Raad does not explicitly teach …and the variable steering ratio having a positive value in response to at a time duration between generation of the initiation signal and the transmission state being shifted to the reverse mode being greater than five seconds; and
However, Knaub in the same field of endeavor, teaches …and the variable steering ratio having a positive value… [0041]; The controller (100) can be configured to engage a reverse position polarity steering mode of the steering system. If the controller (100) is engaging the reverse position polarity steering mode, then before the reverse position polarity steering mode is engaged, the vehicle is in a forward state mode. Therefore, the controller (100) is determining both a forward and reverse polarity mode.
Raad as modified by Knaub does not appear to explicitly teach …in response to at a time duration between generation of the initiation signal and the transmission state being shifted to the reverse mode being greater than five seconds; and
However, Park teaches …in response to at a time duration between generation of the initiation signal and the transmission state being shifted to the reverse mode being greater than five seconds; and [0066] – [0067] Park teaches a controller (212) that initiates a countdown once a specific condition is met. This condition being when the vehicle is being maintained at the same speed or similar to the current speed for a pre-set reference time (anytime greater than five seconds), the vehicle’s driving mode is automatically changed. This demonstrates a timer-based control mechanism where preset duration, such as anything greater than five seconds, triggers a change in system state. The same logical structure is required by the present limitation, which conditions a mode change from a negative value (reverse mode) to a positive value (not in reverse mode) on no input being received within a five second interval. Functionally, both rely on an elapsed time threshold as the sole condition for altering a vehicle’s mode.
Knaub and Park are art used because Knaub teaches having a controller that is able to detect both a forward mode and reverse mode while Park teaches on having a timer that uses condition-based logic to switch the vehicle’s mode if no action is taken. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to avoid abrupt or unsafe control changes during a transmission shift would have been motivated to apply the same timeout technique to a steering controller. Therefore, combining the timer mechanism in Park with Knaub would have been obvious for reasons of safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Knaub and Park, to modify the teachings of Raad to include the teachings of Knaub and Park, to exit the vehicle out of the reverse mode for safety precaution when no signal has been active in case the user forgets.
14. Raad does not explicitly teach a vehicle control system for controlling a movement of a vehicle, including front wheels and a
steering wheel, in response to the variable steering ratio such that the steering direction of the front wheels is opposite to the steering direction of the steering wheel when the variable steering ratio has a negative value.
However, Knaub in the same field of endeavor, teaches a vehicle control system for controlling a movement of a vehicle, including front wheels and a
steering wheel, in response to the variable steering ratio such that the steering direction of the front wheels is opposite to the steering direction of the steering wheel when the variable steering ratio has a negative value ([0043] Fig. 4A – 4B). Knaub teaches on having the handwheel steer in a direction
where the front wheels are in the opposite direction of the steering wheel when the reverse position polarity steering mode (negative value) is active.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application
with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Raad with the teachings of Knaub, to have the vehicle perform this type of inverted steering to make it easier for the user to reverse the vehicle with the trailer attached.
15. Regarding claims 2 & 12, Raad teaches the steering control system of claim 1 wherein the vehicle control system is further configured to generate an error code in response… [0031] Raad teaches a vehicle alert system (76) that may prompt visual, auditory, and tactile alerts/warnings.
Raad as modified by Knaub does not appear to explicitly teach …to the time duration between generation of the initiation signal and the transmission state being shifted to the reverse mode being greater than five seconds and wherein the initiation signal is disabled in response to the error code.
However, Park teaches …to the time duration between generation of the initiation signal and the transmission state being shifted to the reverse mode being greater than five seconds and wherein the initiation signal is disabled in response to the error code. Park teaches a controller (212) that initiates a countdown once a specific condition is met. This condition being when the vehicle is being maintained at the same speed or similar to the current speed for a pre-set reference time (anytime greater than five seconds), the vehicle’s driving mode is automatically changed. This demonstrates a timer-based control mechanism where preset duration, such as anything greater than five seconds, triggers a change in system state. The same logical structure is required by the present limitation, which conditions a mode change from a negative value (reverse mode) to a positive value (not in reverse mode) on no input being received within a five second interval. Functionally, both rely on an elapsed time threshold as the sole condition for altering a vehicle’s mode. The initiation signal is inherently disabled because of the mode switch. The initiation signal being when the vehicle switches from forward mode to reverse mode. The change from a lack of input to a previous mode of some sort is the disabling of the initiation signal.
Raad and Park are art used because Raad teaches a vehicle alert system that can send a warning/error in relation to the steering system while Park teaches having a timer that uses condition-based logic to switch the vehicle’s mode if no action is taken which disables the initiation signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Knaub and Park, to modify the teachings of Raad to include the teachings of Knaub and Park, to exit the vehicle out of the reverse mode for safety precaution when no signal has been active in case the user forgets.
16. Regarding claim 4, Raad as modified by Park does not explicitly teach the steering control system of claim 1 wherein the variable steering angle is calculated in response to multiplying the steering angle by a negative unity value.
However, Knaub in the same field of endeavor, teaches the steering control system of claim 1 wherein the variable steering angle is calculated in response to multiplying the steering angle by a negative unity value ([0041] Fig. 4A - 4B). Knaub teaches on a reverse position polarity steering mode which turns the vehicles front wheels in the opposite direction. To achieve an opposite direction, a negative unity value would have to be multiplied by a positive value to achieve an opposite direction of the reverse steering to engage. Therefore, it is inherent that a negative unity value is baked into the math. We can see this as the steering angle that is achieved by the handwheel is turned in a direction to steer the wheels (10) to the left (reverse position polarity steering mode) instead of to the right (normal state).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Raad as modified by Park with the teachings of Knaub, to have the vehicle steer in an opposite direction more accurately.
17. Regarding claim 5 & 16, Raad teaches the steering control system of claim 1 wherein the user interface is generated by a software application on a mobile device and wherein the initiation signal is transmitted via a wireless network to the steering controller [0031], [0075]. Raad has a human machine interface in a vehicle (HMI) (80) which may be displayed on a portable device such as a mobile device. Inherently, if a portable device is displaying a human machine interface (80) some sort of software application would have to generate this interface to be displayed on the portable device such as a mobile device. The HMI may also communicate wirelessly [0031]. If the HMI can communicate wirelessly then it is inherent that a wireless communication network is present. Wireless communication cannot occur without a communication protocol, a shared communication medium, and addressing or pairing mechanisms.
18. Regarding claim 6, Raad teaches the steering control system of claim 1 wherein the user interface is generated by a software application and is displayed on a vehicle infotainment display ([0031] Fig. 1). Raad teaches displaying a human machine interface (HMI) on an infotainment display. Inherently, a software application would have to be present in order to produce and display this human machine interface (HMI). This vehicle infotainment display is the display (82) in figure 1.
19. Regarding claim 17, Raad teaches the method for controlling the steering of the vehicle of claim 10 wherein the user interface is generated by a software application on a vehicle infotainment system and where the user input is transmitted via a controller area network bus to the vehicle control system ([0031], [0075] Fig. 1). Raad teaches displaying a human machine interface (HMI) on an infotainment display. Inherently, a software application would have to be present in order to produce and display this human machine interface (HMI). This vehicle infotainment display is the display (82) in figure 1. A selection can be made on the display (82) of the vehicle (14) where the trailer backup assist system (10) can be operated from [0075]. If a user input can be registered on this display (82), then inherently that input would have to be registered by a controller of some sort to process that input and send that signal to the trailer backup assist system (10) to operate the controlling of the vehicle steering system accordingly.
20. Regarding claim 18, Raad teaches the method for controlling the steering of the vehicle of claim 10 wherein the user interface is a physical button mounted within a vehicle cabin and wherein the user input is a voltage changed detected by the vehicle control system [0032], [0071]. Raad teaches on incorporating physical buttons that can be depressible to provide a desirable curvature (26). These buttons are located within a vehicle cabin. These buttons are also a point where a human interacts with the machine (vehicle) so therefore are considered as a portion of a user interface. It is inherent that when a button is pressed, you either open or close a circuit path. That change of opening or closing a circuit path will cause a change in voltage.
21. Regarding claim 20, Raad does not as modified by Park does not explicitly teach the driver assistance system of claim 19 wherein the variable inverted steering angle such that the inverted steering angle has a same angular magnitude as the steering angle and an opposite direction of the steering angle.
However, Knaub in the same field of endeavor, teaches the driver assistance system of claim 19 wherein the variable inverted steering angle such that the inverted steering angle has a same angular magnitude as the steering angle and an opposite direction of the steering angle [0041] – [0042]. Since the reverse position polarity steering mode (variable inverted steering angle) is an inversion mode, the same angular magnitude will be kept. This is because the reverse position polarity steering mode simply just inverted. Therefore, the same angular magnitude of the steering angle will be kept during this inversion.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Raad as modified by Park with the teachings of Knaub, to preserve the same magnitude of steering when the steering is inverted.
22. Claim(s) 3, 7 - 8, 11, 13, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160229451A1 (hereinafter, “Raad”), and further in view of US20230382451A1 (hereinafter, “Knaub”), and further in view of US20160179092A1 (hereinafter, “Park”), and further in view of US20140249723A1 (hereinafter, “Pilutti”).
23. Regarding claim 3 & 11, Raad teaches …and wherein the variable steering angle is generated in response to a detection of a connected trailer [0021], [0047]. Raad teaches on a steering system (62) that controls a steering angle δ. This steering angle is used in response when a trailer is connected because Raad determines a hitch angle γ. Raad can only determine this hitch angle when a trailer (12) is connected to the vehicle (14). Therefore, a steering angle is generated in response to when a trailer (12) is connected via a hitch.
Raad as modified by Knaub and Park does not appear to explicitly teach the steering control system of claim 1 including a trailer interface configured to detect a trailer connection…
However, Pilutti teaches the steering control system of claim 1 including a trailer interface configured to detect a trailer connection… (see [0172]) An angle detection apparatus (130), constitutes as an interface, can detect if a trailer is connected or disconnected.
Raad and Pilutti are analogous art because Raad teaches on generating a steering angle in response to when a trailer is connected while Pilutti teaches an interface/apparatus that can detect whether a trailer is connected or disconnected.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Pilutti, to modify the teachings of the combination of Raad as modified by Knaub and Park to include the teachings of Pilutti to prevent unnecessary inverted generated steering angles from occurring. They will only generate when a trailer is detected and connected.
24. Regarding claim 7 & 13, Raad as modified by Park does not explicitly teach …and wherein the vehicle control system is configured to control the vehicle in response to the variable steering angle in response to a reverse detected direction of propulsion…
Knaub teaches …and wherein the vehicle control system is configured to control the vehicle in response to the variable steering angle in response to a reverse detected direction of propulsion… (see [0041] - [0042]) When the reverse position polarity steering mode is activated (variable steering angle), the controller (100) may reverse the motion of the vehicle (10) and correct the direction of travel. This constitutes as the controller (100) controlling the vehicle (10) in response to when the reverse position polarity steering mode (variable steering angle) is activated.
Raad as modified by Knaub does not appear to explicitly recite the steering control system of claim 1 including a direction sensor configured to detect a direction of propulsion of the vehicle…and to control the vehicle in response to the steering angle in response to a detected change in the direction of propulsion from the reverse detected direction of propulsion to a forward detected direction of propulsion.
However, Pilutti in the same field of endeavor teaches the steering control system of claim 1 including a direction sensor configured to detect a direction of propulsion of the vehicle…and to control the vehicle in response to the steering angle in response to a detected change in the direction of propulsion from the reverse detected direction of propulsion to a forward detected direction of propulsion (see [0267]). Pilutti teaches on incorporating directional speed sensors to confirm that the vehicle is in reverse propulsion. It is inherent that if a directional speed sensor can detect when a vehicle is in reverse propulsion then it can also detect when a vehicle is in the forward propulsion.
Knaub and Pilutti are analogous art because Knaub teaches on switching the inversion of the steering when the vehicle is in the reverse position polarity steering mode and Pilutti teaches on directional speed sensors that can detect when a vehicle is in the reverse propulsion state or forward propulsion state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Knaub and Pilutti, to modify the teachings of the combination of Raad to include the teachings of Knaub and Pilutti in order to prevent the unwanted switching on of the inverted steering when the vehicle is forward propulsion.
25. Regarding claim 8, Raad as modified by Knaub and Park does not explicitly teach the steering control system of claim 1 wherein the vehicle control system is further configured to detect a direction of propulsion…
However, Pilutti in the same field of endeavor teaches the steering control system of claim 1 wherein the vehicle control system is further configured to detect a direction of propulsion (see [0267]) and a trailer connection state (see [0172]) and to generate a user alert in response to the direction of propulsion being in a forward direction (see [0109]) and the trailer connection state indicating an absence of a connected trailer (see [0172]). Pilutti teaches on incorporating directional speed sensors to confirm that the vehicle is in reverse propulsion. It is inherent that if a directional speed sensor can detect when a vehicle is in reverse propulsion then it can also detect when a vehicle is in the forward propulsion. Pilutti also teaches on incorporating a hitch angle detection apparatus (130) which can detect whether a trailer is connected or disconnected from the vehicle. The trailer backup steering input apparatus (125) can be configured to provide feedback the driver, constitutes as generating a user alert, of the vehicle such as driving forward and monitoring whether the trailer has been correctly placed within a desired target placement zone. Providing feedback to the driver on whether the trailer has been correctly placed within a desired target placement is the equivalent to monitoring the absence of a connected trailer because if the target remains outside of the zone, functionally this target-outside-zone condition is identical to an “absence of a connected trailer”. If the trailer has not entered the connection zone, then by definition, it is not connected.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Raad as modified by Knaub and Park with the teachings of Pilutti, to alert the user so that the user can know ahead of time before they decide to drive on ahead knowing nothing is connected to the vehicle (see [0267], [0172], [0109]).
26. Regarding claim 15, Raad as modified by park does not explicitly teach the method for controlling the steering of the vehicle of claim 10 wherein the vehicle is controlled in response to the variable steering angle in response to the vehicle being used in a trailering operation.
However, Knaub in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method for controlling the steering of the vehicle of claim 10 wherein the vehicle is controlled in response to the variable steering angle in response to the vehicle being used in a trailering operation (see [0041] – [0042]). The controller (100) may be configured to engage the reverse position polarity steering mode (variable steering angle) of the steering system of the vehicle (10). This mode is only to be used when the vehicle (10) is reversing with a payload (50) (trailer) which we can consider this as the trailering operation.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Raad as modified by Park with the teachings of Knaub, to engage the steering to the proper configuration when the reverse position polarity steering mode is active.
27. Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160229451A1 (hereinafter, “Raad”), and further in view of US20230382451A1 (hereinafter, “Knaub”), and further in view of US20160179092A1 (hereinafter, “Park”), and further in view of US20200406967A1 (hereinafter, “Yunus”).
28. Regarding claim 9, Raad as modified by Knaub and Park does not explicitly teach the steering control system of claim 1 wherein the steering controller is configured to perform a variable rate steering algorithm and wherein the inverted steering angle has an opposite value to the steering angle.
However, Yunus in the same field of endeavor, teaches the steering control system of claim 1 wherein the steering controller is configured to perform a variable rate steering algorithm and wherein the inverted steering angle has an opposite value to the steering angle (see [0045]). Yunus performs variable steering. Any type of variable steering requires an algorithm to be performed in order to have the variable steering follow a rule set. Inverted steering mirrors the original steering response. Yunus behaves identically except for direction which can simply be adjusted to be inverted variable steering by multiplying the original steering by the opposite value. They are effectively the same algorithm since both compute steering curvatures and so forth, one is just adding a sign flip.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Raad as modified by Knaub and Park with the teachings of Yunus, to more accurately have the steering angle inverted in order to help aid the driver when reversing to show the angle of the trailer as the driver reverses with the trailer connected (see [0045]).
29. Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20160229451A1 (hereinafter, “Raad”), and further in view of US20230382451A1 (hereinafter, “Knaub”), and further in view of US20160179092A1 (hereinafter, “Park”), and further in view of US11932120B1 (hereinafter, “Prax”).
30. Regarding claim 14, Raad as modified by park does not explicitly teach the method for controlling the steering of the vehicle of claim 10 including detecting, by a trailer interface, a change in capacitance between two connections in a trailer connection and wherein the variable steering angle is generated in response to the detection of the change in capacitance.
Prax teaches the method for controlling the steering of the vehicle of claim 10 including detecting, by a trailer interface, a change in capacitance between two connections in a trailer connection…in response to the detection of the change in capacitance. (see [Col. 14] Row 10 – 21 Fig. 1C) A trailer may be detected by a form of capacitance via the connector (124).
Prax does not appear to explicitly recite …and wherein the variable steering angle is generated…
However, Knaub recites …and wherein the variable steering angle is
generated… [0041], [0045] Knaub teaches
on the controller (100) being configured to engage a reverse position polarity steering mode of the steering system. We can treat this reverse position polarity steering mode as the controller (100) generating a negative value for a variable steering ratio because both mean the steering command’s sign is inverted so that input in one direction produces wheel motion in the opposite direction. Both are the same mathematically.
Prax and Knaub are analogous art because Prax teaches on determining if a trailer is connected via capacitance at the connection while Knaub teaches on generating a variable steering angle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Prax and Knaub, to modify the teachings of the combination of Raad as modified by Park to include the teachings of Prax and Knaub to more accurately determine if a trailer is connected or not so that the reverse assistance can acuate in the case that a trailer is connected.
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 DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights