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 .
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.
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:
“a tow determining unit configured to determine whether a towed vehicle is coupled to a rear of the own vehicle” and “a changing unit configured to… change how the range sensor detects an object” in claim 1;
“power calculation unit configured to calculate reception power of the reflected wave” of claims 4 and 6;
“object number calculation unit configured to calculate a number of an object” of claims 5 and 9;
“distance acquisition unit configured to acquire a distance” of claims 8 and 12;
“form information acquisition unit configured to acquire form information” of claim 10;
“turn determining unit configured to determine whether the own vehicle is making a turn” of claim 11;
The terms “tow determining”, “changing”, “power calculation”, “object number calculation”, “distance acquisition”, “form information acquisition” and “turn determining” are not structural modifiers of the generic placeholder “unit”; rather they are merely labels reflective of the respective function performed by the “unit”. Further, the specification discloses “units” correspond to “steps” rather than particular structures (page 13, lines 25-27; page 14, lines 10-11).
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. The “units” are interpreted as computer implemented limitations. The corresponding structure is a special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithms, and equivalents thereof (e.g. specification page 5, lines 14-23, page 13, lines 25-27; page 14, lines 10-11; Figures 9, 11 & discussion).
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a “program” without any structural recitations. That the program is “applied to a vehicle” is not a structural recitation of the claimed “program” itself. Rather, the program is claimed as “including” two steps. Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as a computer program per se are not directed to one of the statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sim et al. (US 2021/0149044).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Sim discloses an object recognition device (Fig. 2) and program ([0033]) applied to a vehicle (100) having a range sensor (radar 110) that transmits a probe wave and receives a reflected wave of the probe wave and configured to recognize an object behind an own vehicle based on detection information of the range sensor, the object recognition device (controller 120; [0034]-[0039]) comprising:
a tow determining unit (310) configured to determine whether a towed vehicle is coupled to a rear of the own vehicle ([0035]); and
a changing unit (340/350) configured to, in response to determining that the towed vehicle is coupled to the rear of the own vehicle, change how the range sensor detects an object to suppress reception of the reflected wave caused by presence of the towed vehicle ([0036]-[0037]).
Regarding claim 2, Sim discloses the changing unit is configured to, in response to determining that the towed vehicle is coupled to the rear of the own vehicle, change how the range sensor detects an object by reducing transmission power of the probe wave transmitted from the range sensor (turning off elements, [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, Sim discloses the changing unit is configured to, in response to determining that the towed vehicle is coupled to the rear of the own vehicle, change how the range sensor detects an object by changing a detection area of the range sensor towards a side where the towed vehicle is not present (Figure 2, FOVa & FOVb, [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Sim discloses a power calculation unit configured to calculate reception power of the reflected wave received by the range sensor from a direction in which the towed vehicle is present, wherein the changing unit is configured to, in response to determining that the towed vehicle is coupled to the rear of the own vehicle, change how the range sensor detects an object based on the reception power calculated by the power calculation unit ([0038]; high amplitude reflections are filtered out).
Regarding claim 8, Sim discloses a distance acquisition unit configured to acquire a distance between the own vehicle and the towed vehicle, wherein the changing unit is configured to, in response to determining that the towed vehicle is coupled to the rear of the own vehicle, set a degree to which the transmission power of the probe wave is reduced based on the distance ([0003], [0009] distance is a component of location).
Regarding claim 10, Sim discloses a form information acquisition unit configured to acquire form information on a form of the towed vehicle, wherein the changing unit is configured to change how the range sensor detects an object based on the acquired form information ([0032]).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prasad et al. (US2018/0061239).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Prasad discloses an object recognition device (Fig. 1) and program ([0018]) applied to a vehicle (14) having a range sensor (radar 46) that transmits a probe wave and receives a reflected wave of the probe wave and configured to recognize an object behind an own vehicle based on detection information of the range sensor, the object recognition device (controller 44) comprising:
a tow determining unit configured to determine whether a towed vehicle is coupled to a rear of the own vehicle ([0025]); and
a changing unit configured to, in response to determining that the towed vehicle is coupled to the rear of the own vehicle, change how the range sensor detects an object to suppress reception of the reflected wave caused by presence of the towed vehicle ([0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 3, Prasad discloses the changing unit is configured to, in response to determining that the towed vehicle is coupled to the rear of the own vehicle, change how the range sensor detects an object by changing a detection area of the range sensor towards a side where the towed vehicle is not present ([0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Prasad discloses a turn determining unit configured to determine whether the own vehicle is making a turn, wherein the changing unit is configured to, in response to determining that the towed vehicle is coupled to the rear of the own vehicle and the own vehicle is making a turn, change how the range sensor detects an object based on a turning state of the own vehicle ([0016]).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (2019/0170867).
Sim discloses in response to determining that the towed vehicle is coupled to the rear of the own vehicle, change how the range sensor detects an object based on user input dimensions of the trailer as established above. Sim is not found to disclose an object number calculation unit configured to calculate a number of an object recognized by the reflected wave received by the range sensor from a direction in which the towed vehicle is present, wherein the changing unit is configured to, in response to determining that the towed vehicle is coupled to the rear of the own vehicle, change how the range sensor detects an object based on the number of the object calculated by the object number calculation unit. Wang discloses a similar trailer detection system including an object number calculation unit configured to calculate a number of an object recognized by the reflected wave received by the range sensor from a direction in which the towed vehicle is present ([0032]-[0040], object detection counts are used to determine trailer dimensions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of Sim to calculate a number of an object recognized by the reflected wave received by the range sensor from a direction in which the towed vehicle is present in order to determine trailer dimensions in an automated manner as disclosed by Wang rather than relying on user input. In turn, how the range sensor detects an object (field of view) is changed based on the number of the object calculated by the object number calculation unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 9, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art show various approaches to towed vehicle recognition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM-4:30 PM; Fri 8 AM-12 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights