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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8 and 9 of the Applicant’s Response, Applicant argues Hejase uses the phrase “articulation angle” and none of the recited paragraphs disclose “performing a two-step, recursive process using two separate values of the articulation angle. This can be confirmed by text searching using ‘articulation angle’”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The presently claimed language does not claim a recursive process argued and is not as narrow as Applicant may have intended. Given its BRI, the claimed limitation requires that the finally calculated future hitch angle predicted is based on a future hitch angle that was calculated, which could be any future hitch angle that was determined at any time prior. Indeed articulation angle is the same as hitch angle that is commonly interchangeable within the same art. It is not clear how text searching articulation angle within Hejase confirm the lack of teaching of performing the two-step, recursive process using two separate values of the articulation angle argued. In fact, the originally filed specification of the present application also does not disclose the same. On the contrary, Hejase actually discloses recursively calculating the articulation angle in paragraphs in 0092-0093. Therefore, Hejase teaches the claims as presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 5, 9, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hejase et al. (US 2020/0001920 A1).
For claims 1, and 12, Hejase discloses a jackknife suppression device that is applicable to a combined vehicle including a tractor and a trailer to be towed by the tractor, wherein:
the jackknife suppression device is configured to execute an acquisition process, a prediction process, a determination process, and a treatment process (Fig. 1-3, abstract, para. 0003, where the vehicle combination system suppress jackknife conditions by acquisition, prediction, determination and control processes);
the acquisition process is a process of acquiring a hitch angle variable and a steered angle variable, the hitch angle variable being a variable that indicates a hitch angle that is an angle between a front-rear direction of the tractor and a front-rear direction of the trailer, and the steered angle variable being a variable that indicates a steered angle of the tractor (Fig. 1B, 4, para. 0005, 0033, where the articulation angles and steering angles over time period are measured and acquired);
the prediction process is a process of calculating a predicted value of the hitch angle using the hitch angle variable and the steered angle variable as inputs (Para. 0006, 0029, 0034, 0098, 0140, where expected articulation angles are predicted based on the variables and steering angle variable inputs);
the determination process is a process of determining whether there is a high risk that a jackknife occurs using the predicted value and the steered angle variable as inputs (Para. 0005, 0007, 0050, 0107, where it is determined if there is high risk of jackknife condition will occurs based on predicted and steered angle parameters); and
the treatment process is a process of operating predetermined hardware in order to suppress occurrence of the jackknife when it is determined that the risk is high (Fig. 6, para. 0008, 0030, 0035, 0036, where the jackknife suppression system execute vehicle control commands to suppress jackknife of the vehicle when the risk of occurrence is high),
the acquisition process includes a process of acquiring a detected value from a sensor that detects the hitch angle as the hitch angle variable (Para. 0005, 0034, 0053, where hitch angle changes are measured by appropriate sensor(s)); and
the prediction process includes executing a process of calculating a future hitch angle using the detected value as an input, thereafter executing a process of calculating a further future hitch angle using the calculated future hitch angle as an input at least once, and setting a finally calculated future hitch angle to the predicted value (Para. 0029, 0050, 0098, 0141).
For claim 5, Hejase discloses the jackknife suppression device according to claim 1, wherein the determination process includes: a threshold value setting process of setting a threshold value that is a value of the steered angle variable at which the jackknife occurs using the predicted value as an input; and a risk determination process of determining that the risk is high when an amount by which a maximum possible value of the steered angle variable exceeds the threshold value is equal to or less than a prescribed value (Para. 0003, 0007, 0010, 0032, 0035, 0050, where maximum steering angle range is set and is used to determine the high risk of steering angle change exceeding the limit, based on the dynamic model of the vehicle combination set).
For claim 9, Hejase discloses the jackknife suppression device according to claim 1, wherein: the jackknife suppression device is configured to execute an automatic steering process of automatically operating a steered angle of the trailer; and the treatment process includes a gain increase process of increasing a gain of the automatic steering process (Para. 0051, 0141, 0156, 0165, where control gain is being tuned to operate the jackknife prevention).
For claim 10, Hejase discloses the jackknife suppression device according to claim 1, wherein:
the jackknife suppression device is configured to execute an automatic steering process of automatically operating a steered angle of the trailer; and
the treatment process includes a track change process of changing a travel track of the combined vehicle during the automatic steering process (Para. 0067, 0069, 0070, 0095, 0098, where the control safety governor controls the steering of the combine vehicle automatically to suppress jackknife situation and track the changes of the vehicle path).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hejase et al. (US 2020/0001920 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cotter et al. (US 2020/0164919 A1).
For claim 7, Hejase discloses the jackknife suppression device according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose a reception process of receiving an intention of a user about a criterion for determining that the risk is high; and a setting process of setting the criterion according to the intention received in the reception process. Cotter in the same field of the art discloses a reception process of receiving an intention of a user about a criterion for determining that the risk is high; and a setting process of setting the criterion according to the intention received in the reception process (Fig. 14, para. 0008-0010, 0019, 0050, 0051, 0076, 0082, where the limits associate with the vehicle combination operations may be set by the user between different modes). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hejase to receive an intention of a user about a criterion for determining that the risk is high; and a setting process of setting the criterion according to the intention received in the reception process, as taught by Cotter to allow user to intuitively and conveniently to adjust desirable settings relate to vehicle combination operations.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hejase et al. (US 2020/0001920 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiu et al. (US 2015/0165850 A1).
For claim 8, Hejase discloses the jackknife suppression device according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose the treatment process includes an informing process of informing a user of the combined vehicle that the risk is high. Chiu in the same field of the art discloses the treatment process includes an informing process of informing a user of the combined vehicle that the risk is high (Para. 0052, 0078, where user is notified of the conditions). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hejase to includes an informing process of informing a user of the combined vehicle that the risk is high, as taught by Chiu to appropriately inform user of the vehicle status to allow corrective actions.
For claim 11, Hejase discloses the jackknife suppression device according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the treatment process includes a process of limiting a vehicle speed to a lower side. Chiu in the same field of the art discloses wherein the treatment process includes a process of limiting a vehicle speed to a lower side (Para. 0076, 0078, 0111, where the vehicle speed is reduced to mitigate jackknife). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Hejase to includes a process of limiting a vehicle speed to a lower side, as taught by Chiu to maintain the stability of the vehicle automatically and safely.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 15 are allowed.
Claims 4 and 6 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.
For claim 4, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically the prediction process includes a process of calculating the predicted value at a time when the combined vehicle travels at the acquired vehicle speed for a predetermined period when the vehicle speed is equal to or more than a reference value, and calculating the predicted value at a time when the combined vehicle travels at a vehicle speed greater than zero assumed in advance for the predetermined period when the vehicle speed is not equal to or more than the reference value.
For claim 6, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as a whole and specifically the prediction process includes a threshold value setting process of setting a threshold value that is a value of the steered angle variable at which the jackknife occurs using the predicted value as an input, and includes a process of continuing calculation of the predicted value until the threshold value reaches a predetermined value; and the determination process includes a risk determination process of determining that the risk is high when a predicted time before the threshold value reaches the predetermined value is equal to or less than a predetermined time.
Claims 14 and 15, including the allowable subject matter in claims 4 and 6 respectively and therefore are patentable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2020/0189591 A1) Mellinger III et al. discloses an autonomous vehicle steering command limiting system for setting and controlling the steering wheel angle limit threshold to mitigate jackknife condition.
(US 2022/0126915 A1) Conrad et al. discloses a trailer jackknife warning system for driver of the vehicle combination.
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 Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights