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 November 13, 2025. Claims 14-26 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.
Response to Arguments
All of applicants arguments files November 13, 2025 have been considered.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Zhang’s allowable deviation range is not a “maximum coupling-angle range” (Applicant’s Response, pg. 13). It is noted that Zhang’s allowable deviation range is used to meet the limitation “a tolerance range”. See below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Zhang does not compute a set of allowed final coupling angle based on clearance constraints at the coupled state or trajectory feasibility (Applicant’s Response, pg. 13), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang teaches trajectory feasibility as Zhang will instruct the user to input a different angle when a collision is expected to occur (Col. 6, lines 53-56). Therefore, Zhang determines if it is feasible for the trailer to couple with the trailer at the angle based on the objects in its vicinity.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Niewiadomski ‘320 does not teach computing a coupling-angle range for final orientation at the coupling state (Applicant’s Response, pg. 13). It is noted that Zhang is used to meet this limitation. See below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Niewiadomski ‘320 does not teach enforcing a driver-specified minimum clearance between the vehicle and the trailer body (Applicant’s Response, pg. 13). It is noted that this limitation is not required by claim 14. See claim 17 below for rejection regarding this limitation.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Niewiadomski ‘320 does not teach restricting HMI choices to a computed range of final orientations (Applicant’s Response, pg. 13). It is noted that Xu is used to meet this limitation. See below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Maruoka does not teach computing a set of allowable coupling angles for a coupling maneuver based on a driver-specified minimum clearance (Applicant’s Response, pg. 13). It is noted that this limitation is not required by claim 14. See claim 17 below for rejection regarding this limitation.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Maruoka does not teach restricting selectable final orientations (Applicant’s Response, pg. 13). It is noted that Zhang is used to meet this limitation. See below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Chiu does not teach pre-coupling angle selection/ranging (Applicant’s Response, pg. 14). It is noted that Zhang is used to meet this limitation. See below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Chiu does not teach HMI restriction to only allowable final orientations derived from environment data (Applicant’s Response, pg. 14). It is noted that Zhang is used to meet this limitation. See below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Chiu does not teach ensuring a driver-specified clearance at the coupled state (Applicant’s Response, pg. 14), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Chiu teaches inputting measurement of the trailer to determine the jackknife angle ([0055]). Zhang teaches limiting the coupling angle range to a no collision angle to the maximum angle possible for connecting the trailer (Col. 6, lines 53-56). Maruoka teaches limiting the angle between the vehicle and the trailer to a jackknife angle using the distance between the vehicle and trailer ([0031 & 0060]). Therefore, Zhang, as modified, teaches limiting the coupling angle range to a no collision angle to the jackknife angle, which could then be calculated using measurements input from the driver.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Niewiadomski ‘998 does not teach computing and enforcing a coupling-angle range based on a driver-specified post-maneuver clearance and trajectory-feasibility checks (Applicant’s Response, pg. 14). It is noted that Zhang is used to meet this limitation. See below.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Niewiadomski ‘998 does not teach minimizing direction changes when automatically determining the coupling angle subject to those constraints (Applicant’s Response, pg. 14), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Niewiadomski ‘998 teaches generating a path that has the shortest route which results in the final angle ([0069]). By taking the shortest route, this would include limiting the number of direction changes. Zhang teaches automatic angle selection (Col. 7, lines 4-5). Therefore, Zhang, as modified, teaches minimizing direction changes when automatically determining the coupling angle subject to those constraints.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the office action rational relies on general “prevent jackknife” goals, which at most might suggest warning the driver, not computing and enforcing a selectable set of final coupling angles derived from the sensed environment and driver-specified minimum clearance in a pre-coupling operation (Applicant’s Response, pg. 14), the examiner respectfully disagrees. It would be important to ensure that the trailer is not attached in a jackknife condition as it would prevent that driver from being able maneuver the trailer reverse while connected.
Specification
Amendments to the specification were received on November 13, 2025.
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 14-26 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 14, line 27, the limitation “an explicit input of a coupling angle” renders the claim indefinite because it is a double inclusion and it is unclear if it is the same explicit input previously recited on line 24 or a new explicit input.
In claim 15, line 2, the limitation “a maximum coupling angle range” renders the claim indefinite because it is a double inclusion and it is unclear if it is the same maximum coupling-angle range previously recited in claim 14, lines 18-19 or a new maximum coupling angle range.
In claim 16, lines 2-3, the limitation “a predetermined minimum distance” renders the claim indefinite because it is a double inclusion and it is unclear if it is the same predetermined minimum distance previously recited in claim 14, lines 19-20 or a new predetermined minimum distance.
In claim 16, lines 3-4, the limitation “a trailer body of the trailer” renders the claim indefinite because it is a double inclusion and it is unclear if it is the same trailer body of the trailer previously recited in claim 14, line 20 or a new trailer body of the trailer.
In claim 19, line 2, the limitation “the occupant can select” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same as the selection when an explicit input is used previously recited in claim 14, line 24 or a new selection.
Claims 15-26 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 15-20 are 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 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 14 from which it depends. Claim 15, lines 3-4, require “the coupling angle can be selected via the human-machine interfaces as part of the explicit input” 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” in claim 14, lines 23-24. Claim 15, lines 2-3, additionally require “a maximum coupling angle range is determined” which is synonymous with “determining…a maximum coupling -angle range” in claim 14, lines 18-19.
Claim 16 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 14 from which it depends. Claim 16, lines 2-4, require “the maximum coupling angle range is determined such that a predetermined minimum distance is maintained between the vehicle and a trailer body of the trailer” which 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” in claim 14, lines 18-21.
Claim 19 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 14 from which it depends. Claim 19, lines 2-4, require “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 “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” in claim 14, lines 18-22, in combination with “presenting…only coupling angles inside the maximum coupling-angle range for selection when an explicit input is used” in claim 14, lines 23-24.
Claim 20 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 14 from which it depends. Claim 20, lines 2-5, require “when the coupling angle is automatically determined based on the system input, the coupling angle is determined such that number of changes of direction during an at least partially automated maneuvering is minimal” which is synonymous with “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” in claim 14, lines 36-39.
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 18-26 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) (Xu, Fig. 13 & Col. 14, lines 59-36 regarding illustrating various vehicle heading directions for the user to choose from),
wherein the system input comprises either (i) an explicit input of a 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 59-36 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 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 15, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the method as claimed in claim 14. Zhang, as modified, teaches wherein, when the explicit input is used, a maximum coupling angle range is determined, from which the coupling angle can be selected via the human-machine interfaces as part of the explicit input (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).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang in view of Maruoka, Xu, and Niewiadomski teaches the method as claimed in claim 15. Maruoka further teaches wherein the maximum coupling angle range is determined such that a predetermined minimum distance is maintained between the vehicle and a 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)).
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.
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 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 (Niewiadomski, [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).
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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