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 .
Introduction
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filed on March 25, 2026. Claims 14-27 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 25, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s arguments filed March 25, 2026 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that claim 14 recites presenting coupling angles for selection, whereas claim 15 specifies that the explicit input itself comprises the selection step (Applicant’s Response, pg. 9), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 14 recites “presenting, via the human-machine interface, only coupling angles inside the maximum coupling-angle range for selection when an explicit input is used” on lines 23-24 and “the explicit input of the coupling angle selected from within the maximum coupling-angle range” on lines 25-26. Therefore, claim 14 explicitly states that the selection of the coupling angle is made using the human-machine interface.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the limitation of claim 16 further specifies the manner in which the maximum coupling angles is determined, adding specificity to the determination step of claim 14 through claim 15 (Applicant’s Response, pg. 9), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 14 recites “determining…a maximum coupling-angle range comprising only coupling angles for which (i) a predetermined minimum distance between the vehicle and a trailer body of the trailer is maintained in the coupled state” on lines 18-20. Therefore, the maximum coupling angle range is already determined such that “the predetermined minimum distance is maintained between the vehicle and the trailer body of the trailer.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the limitation of claim 17 adds the predetermined minimum distance can be specified by the occupant, which is not required by claim 14 or claim 16 (Applicant’s Response, pg. 9), the examiner agrees. It is noted that claim 17 was not rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(d) in the office action mailed on February 18, 2026.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the limitation of claim 18 introduces a constraint based on a predetermined maximum number of changes of direction, which is distinct from the collision-free and minimum distance constraints recited in claim 14 (Applicant’s Response, pg. 10), the examiner agrees. It is noted that claim 18 was not rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(d) in the office action mailed on February 18, 2026.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the limitation of claim 19 specifies the collision-free maneuvering constraint on the occupant’s selection process in the context of the explicit input mode, further limiting the selection step introduced by claim 15 (Applicant’s Response, pg. 10), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 14 recites “determining…a maximum coupling-angle range comprising only coupling angles for which (ii) collision-free maneuvering of the vehicle along the trajectory is possible based on the environment data” on lines 18-22 and “presenting, via the human-machine interface, only coupling angles inside the maximum coupling-angle range for selection when an explicit input is used” on lines 23-24. Therefore, the maximum coupling-angle range that is presented to the occupant for selection when the explicit input is used can only contain “coupling angle at which collision-free maneuvering of the vehicle along the trajectory is possible, wherein an assessment of collision-free maneuvering is based on the environment data”.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the added limitation “and does not exceed a predetermined maximum number of changes of direction” introduces a specific constraint that is not present in claim 14 (Applicant’s Response, pg. 10), the examiner agrees. The argument is moot in view of the new rejection below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Zhang’s allowable deviation range is merely a tolerance about a user-specified angle, not a constraint-derived range that excludes angles based on evaluation of minimum distance maintenance or collision-free feasibility (Applicant’s Response, pg. 12), the examiner agrees. It is noted that the allowable deviation range was not used to meet the limitation of minimum distance maintenance or collision-free feasibility.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Zhang does not teach computing a maximum coupling-angle range that enforces both (i) a predetermined minimum distance between the vehicle and a trailer body maintained in the coupled state and (ii) collision-free maneuvering feasibility based on environment data (Applicant’s Response, pg. 12), the examiner agrees. It is noted that Zhang was used to meet the limitation (ii) a collision-free maneuvering feasibility based on environment data (Col. 6, lines 53-56 regarding the controller instructing the user to input a different specified angle to avoid a collision with an object (i.e., the user could only input an angle between the no collision angle to the maximum angle possible for connecting the trailer) and Mauroka was used to meet the limitation (i) a predetermined minimum distance between the vehicle and a trailer body maintained in the coupled state ([0060] regarding using a distance between the vehicle and trailer to determine if the connection angle reaches a first angle & [0031] regarding the first angle being an angle that is impossible to be decreased (i.e., a jackknife condition)).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Maruoka does not teach pre-coupling angle selection of computing a range of selectable coupling angles based on minimum distance constraints for presentation to a user before coupling occurs (Applicant’s Response, pg. 12), the examiner agrees. It is noted that Zhang was used to teach pre-coupling angle section of computing a range of selectable coupling angles (Col. 6, lines 9-11 regarding the system prompting the user to input the specified angle & Col. 6, lines 53-56 regarding the controller instructing the user to input a different specified angle to avoid a collision with an object (i.e., the specified angle is not within the allowable range of selectable angles)) and Maruoka was used to modify Zhang to include the minimum distance constraint ([0060] regarding using a distance between the vehicle and trailer to determine if the connection angle reaches a first angle & [0031] regarding the first angle being an angle that is impossible to be decreased (i.e., a jackknife condition)) within the range of selectable coupling angles.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Xu does not teach computing or enforcing a coupling-angle range based on a driver-specified clearance at the coupled state (Applicant’s Response, pg. 13), the examiner agrees. It is noted that Chiu was used to teach a driver-specified clearance at the coupled state.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Xu does not teach determining a maximum coupling-angle range that simultaneously enforces both a predetermined minimum distance between the vehicle and trailer body in the coupled state and collision-free maneuvering feasibility (Applicant’s Response, pg. 13), the examiner agrees. It is noted that Zhang was used to teach a collision-free maneuvering feasibility and Maruoka was used to teach a predetermined minimum distance between the vehicle and trailer body in the coupled state.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Niewiadomski does not teach computing a maximum coupling-angle range based on simultaneous evaluation of minim distance maintenance and collision-free trajectory feasibility, the restricting HMI presentation to only angles within that computed range (Applicant’s Response, pg. 13), the examiner agrees. It is noted that Zhang was used to teach computing a maximum coupling-angle range based on collision-free trajectory feasibility, Maruoka was used to teach minimum distance maintenance, and Xu was used to teach HMI presentation to only angles within the computed range.
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 15-19 and 27 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.
In claim 15, line 2, the limitation “selection of the coupling angle” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same selection previously recited in claim 1, line 24, claim 1, line 26, both, or a new selection.
In claim 19, line 2, the limitation “the occupant can select” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same selection previously recited in claim 15, line 2, claim 1, line 24, claim 1, line 26, all, or a new selection.
In claim 27, line 2, the limitation “each candidate coupling angle” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if it is referring to the coupling angles presented previously recited in claim 1, line 23, or new coupling angles.
In claim 27, line 4, the limitation “angles” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to each candidate coupling angle previously recited in claim 27, line 2, the coupling angles presented previously recited in claim 1, line 23, or new angles.
In claim 27, line 5, the limitation “the range” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the maximum coupling-angle range previously recited in claim 27, lines 1-2, or a new range.
In claim 27, line 5, the limitation “the range presented to the occupant” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear if it is referring to the maximum coupling-angle range presented for selection previously recited in claim 14, lines 23-24, or a new range being presented.
Claims 16-19 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15-19 and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 15, as best understood, fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 14, from which it depends. Claim 15, lines 2-3, require “the explicit input further compris[ing] selection of the coupling angle from the maximum coupling-angle range via the human-machine interface” which is synonymous with “presenting, via the human-machine interface, only coupling angles inside the maximum coupling-angle range for selection when an explicit input is used” from claim 14, lines 23-24, in combination with “the explicit input of the coupling angle selected from within the maximum coupling-angle range” from claim 14, lines 25-26.
Claim 16 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 15, from which it depends. Claim 16, lines 2-4, require “wherein the maximum coupling angle range is determined such that the predetermined minimum distance is maintained between the vehicle and the trailer body of the trailer” which is synonymous with “determining…a maximum coupling-angle range comprising only coupling angles for which…a predetermined minimum distance between the vehicle and a trailer body of the trailer is maintained in the coupled state” from claim 14, lines 18-20.
Claim 19, as best understood, fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 15, from which it depends. Claim 19, lines 2-5, require “when the explicit input is used, the occupant can select, from the maximum coupling angle range, only those coupling angles at which collision-free maneuvering of the vehicle along the trajectory is possible, wherein an assessment of collision-free maneuvering is based on the environment data” which is synonymous with “the explicit input of the coupling angle selected from within the maximum coupling-angle range” from claim 14, lines 25-26, in combination with “determining…a maximum coupling-angle range comprising only coupling angles for which…collision-free maneuvering of the vehicle along the trajectory is possible based on the environment data” from claim 14, lines 18-22.
Claim 27, as best understood, fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 14, from which it depends. Claim 27, lines 1-5, require “wherein the maximum coupling-angle range is computed by evaluating, for each candidate coupling angle, whether the predetermined minimum distance between the vehicle and the trailer body would be maintained at the coupled state and whether a collision-free trajectory exists, and wherein angles failing either criterion are excluded from the range presented to the occupant” is synonymous with “determining…a maximum coupling-angle range comprising only coupling angles for which (i) a predetermined minimum distance between the vehicle and a trailer body of the trailer is maintained in the coupled state, and (ii) collision-free maneuvering of the vehicle along the trajectory is possible based on the environment data” from claim 14, lines 18-22, in combination with “presenting…only coupling angles inside the maximum coupling-angle range for selection” from claim 14, lines 23-24.
Claims 16-19 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
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.
Claims 14-16 and 18-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 10,144,417) in view of Maruoka (US 2020/0010018), Xu (US 11,279,405), and Niewiadomski (US 2021/0146998).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses a method for assisting an occupant of a vehicle in a process of coupling the vehicle to a trailer, comprising:
receiving environment data from at least one environment sensor (Zhang, Fig. 3 regarding a detection system including an imager),
acquiring parameters of the trailer via the environment data, wherein the parameters describe at least a trailer longitudinal axis and a trailer coupling-unit position of a trailer coupling unit of the trailer (Zhang, Col. 5, lines 32-34 regarding the detection system being configured to determine a trailer heading & Col. 3, lines 43-45 regarding the images captured by the imager being processed to identify a hitch coupler),
determining an attitude of the vehicle via the environment data and/or in consideration of the parameters of the trailer, wherein the attitude describes at least a starting point of the vehicle relative to the trailer coupling-unit position, and a vehicle longitudinal axis relative to the trailer longitudinal axis (Zhang, Col. 6, lines 1-2 regarding a start position of the vehicle relative to the trailer (i.e., the trailer coupler (Col. 5, lines 60-63)), Col. 5, lines 32-33 regarding the detection system being configured to determine a vehicle heading & Col. 5, lines 57-60 regarding the vehicle and trailer headings being related by a specified angle),
acquiring a system input from the occupant of the vehicle via a human-machine interface, wherein the system input describes a request for assistance to couple the trailer to the vehicle (Zhang, Col. 7, lines 27-28 regarding the user inputting a specified angle to connect the trailer at), and
planning a trajectory for the vehicle, wherein the trajectory commences at the starting point and is determined such that a vehicle coupling unit of the vehicle is in a tolerance range around the trailer coupling-unit position following maneuvering of the vehicle along the trajectory (Zhang, Col. 7, lines 30-33 regarding the controller generating a path from the vehicle toward the trailer based on a specified angle or another angle encompassed by the allowable deviation range),
determining, using the environment data and/or the parameters of the trailer, a maximum coupling-angle range comprising only coupling angles for which collision-free maneuvering of the vehicle along the trajectory is possible based on the environment data (Zhang, Col. 6, lines 53-56 regarding the controller instructing the user to input a different specified angle to avoid a collision with an object (i.e., the user could only input an angle between the no collision angle to the maximum angle possible for connecting the trailer) & Col. 5, lines 34-36 regarding the detection system being used to detect other objects proximate to the vehicle and/or trailer),
presenting, via the human-machine interface, for selection when an explicit input is used (Zhang, Col. 6, lines 9-11 regarding the system prompting the user to input the specified angle),
wherein the system input comprises either (i) the explicit input of the coupling angle selected from within the maximum coupling-angle range, or (ii) a request for automatic determination of the coupling angle (Zhang, Col. 7, lines 27-28 regarding the user inputting a specified angle to connect the trailer at & Col. 7, lines 4-5 regarding the user deferring selection of the specified angle to the system), and
wherein the trajectory is additionally determined by the vehicle longitudinal axis, following maneuvering of the vehicle along the trajectory, being at the coupling angle in relation to the trailer longitudinal axis (Zhang, Col. 7, lines 36-41 regarding the path terminating at the final position in which the vehicle and trailer headings are related by the specified angle), and
further comprising controlling at least a steering system of the vehicle to at least partially automatically maneuver the vehicle along the trajectory so that the vehicle coupling unit enters the tolerance range around the trailer coupling-unit position and the vehicle longitudinal axis is at the coupling angle in relation to the trailer longitudinal axis (Zhang, Col. 7, lines 30-33 regarding the controller generating a path from the vehicle toward the trailer based on a specified angle or another angle encompassed by the allowable deviation range, Col. 7, lines 34-41 regarding the controller issuing commands for autonomously maneuvering the vehicle toward the trailer along the path and the path terminating at the final position in which the vehicle and trailer headings are related by the specified angle).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose determining, using the environment data and/or the parameters of the trailer, a maximum coupling-angle range comprising only coupling angles for which (i) a predetermined minimum distance between the vehicle and a trailer body of the trailer is maintained in the coupled state,
presenting, via the human-machine interface, only coupling angles inside the maximum coupling-angle range for selection when an explicit input is used, and
wherein, when the coupling angle is automatically determined, the coupling angle is determined to minimize a number of changes of direction during the at least partially automated maneuvering while satisfying the maximum coupling-angle range.
Maruoka teaches determining, using the environment data and/or the parameters of the trailer, a maximum coupling-angle range comprising only coupling angles for which (i) a predetermined minimum distance between the vehicle and a trailer body of the trailer is maintained in the coupled state (Maruoka, [0060] regarding using a distance between the vehicle and trailer to determine if the connection angle reaches a first angle & [0031] regarding the first angle being an angle that is impossible to be decreased (i.e., a jackknife condition)).
Zhang and Maruoka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of trailer connection angle. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate having the maximum connection angle be the jackknife angle, as disclosed by Maruoka, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of preventing the vehicle from connecting to the trailer in a jackknife condition.
Xu teaches presenting, via the human-machine interface, only coupling angles inside the maximum coupling-angle range for selection when an explicit input is used (Xu, Fig. 13 & Col. 14, lines 59-63 regarding illustrating various vehicle heading directions for the user to choose from).
Zhang and Xu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of trailer connection angle. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang, as modified, to incorporate displaying all of the possible connection angles for the user to select from, as disclosed by Xu, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of letting the user select what angle they want the trailer to be attached at.
Niewiadomski teaches wherein, when the coupling angle is automatically determined, the coupling angle is determined to minimize a number of changes of direction during the at least partially automated maneuvering while satisfying the maximum coupling-angle range (Niewiadomski, [0069] regarding the primary path generated being the shortest route which results in a final relative heading angle).
Zhang and Niewiadomski are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of trailer connection. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang, as modified, to incorporate connecting the trailer with the shortest route as possible, as disclosed by Niewiadomski, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of saving time for the driver when connecting the trailer.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the method as claimed in claim 14. Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein the explicit input further comprises selection of the coupling angle from the maximum coupling-angle range via the human-machine interface (Zhang, Col. 6, lines 9-11 regarding the system prompting the user to input the specified angle) (Xu, Fig. 13 & Col. 14, lines 59-63 regarding illustrating various vehicle heading directions for the user to choose from).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the method as claimed in claim 15. Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein the maximum coupling angle range is determined such that the predetermined minimum distance is maintained between the vehicle and the trailer body of the trailer (Maruoka, [0060] regarding using a distance between the vehicle and trailer to determine if the connection angle reaches a first angle & [0031] regarding the first angle being an angle that is impossible to be decreased (i.e., a jackknife condition)).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the method as claimed in claim 15. Niewiadomski further teaches wherein the occupant can select, from the maximum coupling angle range, only those coupling angles at which a predetermined maximum number of changes of direction of travel is not exceeded during maneuvering of the vehicle along the trajectory (Niewiadomski, [0070] regarding the system providing the maximum heading angles that can be achieved with one reversing maneuver (i.e., no direction changes)).
Zhang and Niewiadomski are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of trailer coupling. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang, as modified, to incorporate only allowing the user to select an angle that requires no direction changes, as disclosed by Niewiadomski, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of attaching the trailer as quickly as possible.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the method as claimed in claim 15, wherein, when the explicit input is used, the occupant can select, from the maximum coupling angle range, only those coupling angles at which collision-free maneuvering of the vehicle along the trajectory is possible, wherein an assessment of collision-free maneuvering is based on the environment data (Zhang, Col. 6, lines 53-56 regarding the controller instructing the user to input a different specified angle to avoid a collision with an object & Col. 5, lines 34-36 regarding the detection system being used to detect other objects proximate to the vehicle and/or trailer).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the method as claimed in claim 14. Niewiadomski further teaches wherein when the coupling angle is automatically determined based on the system input, the coupling angle is determined such that the number of changes of direction during an at least partially automated maneuvering is minimal and does not exceed a predetermined maximum number of changes of direction (Niewiadomski, [0070] regarding the system providing the maximum heading angles that can be achieved with one reversing maneuver (i.e., no direction changes) & [0069] regarding the primary path generated being the shortest route which results in a final relative heading angle being whatever results from the primary path).
Zhang and Niewiadomski are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of trailer connection. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang, as modified, to incorporate connecting the trailer with the shortest route as possible, as disclosed by Niewiadomski, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of saving time for the driver when connecting the trailer.
Regarding claim 21, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the method as claimed in claim 14, wherein, when the coupling angle is automatically determined based on the system input, the coupling angle is predefined by the angle of the vehicle longitudinal axis relative to the trailer longitudinal axis, which is calculated based on the attitude of the vehicle and on the parameters of the trailer (Zhang, Fig. 5 regarding the specified angle being the angle from the trailer heading to the vehicle heading).
Regarding claim 22, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the method as claimed in claim 14. Zhang further discloses a computing device configured to perform a method for assisting an occupant of a vehicle in a process of coupling the vehicle to a trailer, according to claim 14 (Zhang, Col. 3, lines 23-25 regarding a hitch assist system for autonomously maneuvering a vehicle toward a trailer).
Regarding claim 23, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the method as claimed in claim 14. Zhang further discloses a computer program, comprising instructions that cause the computing device of claim 22 to perform the method according to claim 14 (Zhang, Col. 3, lines 23-25 regarding a hitch assist system for autonomously maneuvering a vehicle toward a trailer. As this is a system that performs actions using a controller, the system would use a computer program to perform all of the commands that cause the vehicle to maneuver the vehicle toward the trailer.).
Regarding claim 24, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the computer program as claimed in claim 23. Zhang further discloses a computer-readable (memory) medium, on which the computer program according to claim 23 is stored (Zhang, Fig. 2 regarding a memory 86).
Regarding claim 25, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the computing device as claimed in claim 23. Zhang further discloses an assistance system for assisting an occupant of a vehicle in a process of coupling the vehicle to a trailer, comprising:
a computing device according to a computing device according to claim 22 (Zhang, Col. 3, lines 23-25 regarding a hitch assist system for autonomously maneuvering a vehicle toward a trailer),
a human-machine interface for acquiring a system input from the occupant, wherein the system input describes a request from the occupant for assistance to couple the trailer to the vehicle (Zhang, Col. 6, lines 6-9 regarding an HMI receiving the specified angle input by a user), and
at least one environment sensor, which provides environment data that describe an environment of the vehicle (Zhang, Fig. 3 regarding a detection system including an imager).
Regarding claim 26, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the assistance system as claimed in claim 25. Zhang further discloses a vehicle comprising an assistance system according to claim 25 (Zhang, Fig. 1 regarding a vehicle 12 having the hitch assist system 10).
Regarding claim 27, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the assistance system as claimed in claim 14, wherein the maximum coupling-angle range is computed by evaluating, for each candidate coupling angle, whether a collision-free trajectory exists (Zhang, Col. 6, lines 53-56 regarding the controller instructing the user to input a different specified angle to avoid a collision with an object (i.e., the user could only input an angle between the no collision angle to the maximum angle possible for connecting the trailer) & Col. 5, lines 34-36 regarding the detection system being used to detect other objects proximate to the vehicle and/or trailer).
Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein the maximum coupling-angle range is computed by evaluating, for each candidate coupling angle, whether the predetermined minimum distance between the vehicle and the trailer body would be maintained at the coupled state (Maruoka, [0060] regarding using a distance between the vehicle and trailer to determine if the connection angle reaches a first angle & [0031] regarding the first angle being an angle that is impossible to be decreased (i.e., a jackknife condition)), and wherein angles failing either criterion are excluded from the range presented to the occupant (Zhang, Col. 6, lines 9-11 regarding the system prompting the user to input the specified angle) (Xu, Fig. 13 & Col. 14, lines 59-36 regarding illustrating various vehicle heading directions for the user to choose from. If the angle is not part of the maximum coupling-angle range it would not be displayed as an option to choose from.).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski, and further in view of Chiu (US 2014/0277941).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the method as claimed in claim 16, but does not explicitly teach wherein the predetermined minimum distance between the vehicle and the trailer body can be specified by the occupant.
Chiu teaches wherein the predetermined minimum distance between the vehicle and the trailer body can be specified by the occupant (Chiu, [0055] regarding the driver inputting trailer parameters that are then used to determine the jackknife warning angle).
Zhang and Chiu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of trailer coupling. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang, as modified, to incorporate having a driver enter the trailer dimensions for calculating the jackknife angle, as disclosed by Chiu, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the jackknife angle to ensure the vehicle does not attach the trailer at the jackknife angle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights