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
In light of the changes made to the specifications, the objection pertaining to a non-descriptive title is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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) 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (“Chan”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2015/0066349) in view of Pazhayampallil et al. (“Paz”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0094399) and Joseph et al. (“Joseph”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0361397).
It is to be noted that the information provided by Paz is also supported in the provision applications of 62/980,131, filed Feb 21, 2020; 62/980,131, filed Feb 21, 2020; and 63/064,316, filed Aug 11, 2020.
In regards to claim 1, a navigation system is taught by Chan as seen in ¶0002 which uses sensor data to determine a position and orientation of cargo, including whether the cargo may be extending outside of the contour of the vehicle and notify the system of such a condition, this may include artificial illumination as described in ¶0032 and 0054 wherein, as an example, a lidar and/or radar system may be used for illumination of a specific light source towards the designated area [trailer, cargo, etc.] and associated sensor data for the retrieval of the image information from the light source. Chan, however, fails to specify that such a radar/lidar system would create a depth map. In a similar endeavor Paz teaches a vehicular navigation system wherein the lidar/radar system would create a depth map [three-dimensional distance map], such as one in the form of a 3D point cloud representing distances between the lidar sensor and the field of view of the lidar sensor as seen in at least ¶0033. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Paz into Chan because it allows for access to specific depth information of objects being imaged by the lidar system to correspond to their distance, thus increasing accuracy of such a system.
Therefore together Chan and Paz teach a system, comprising:
an illumination source associated with a vehicle (See ¶0032 of Chan wherein the system may use sensors and also may include artificial illumination, specifically a radar or lidar sensor system may be used as described in ¶0054 of Chan, this is taken in view of ¶0033 of Paz), the illumination source configured to emit a structured light pattern onto a portion of at least one of a trailer towed by the vehicle and, if present, a load hauled by the trailer (See ¶0054 wherein the radar/lidar illumination is aimed towards cargo for associated safety of the cargo);
a camera associated with the vehicle (See ¶0002 of Chan), the camera configured to capture the structured light pattern and generate one or more images of a scene including the structured light pattern illuminated onto the portion (See ¶0002 in view of 0054 of Chan in view of ¶0033 of Paz); and
a controller communicatively connected to the camera and configured to:
receive the one or more images from the camera (See FIG. 1 and 2 of Chan, this may be taken in view of ¶0033-0034 of Paz);
create one or more depth map of the scene based, at least in part, on the one or more images (See FIG. 1 and 2 of Chan, this may be taken in view of ¶0033-0034 of Paz);
determine at least one of a position and an orientation of at least one of the trailer and the load (See ¶0037 of Chan wherein the camera may analyze when cargo extends past the boundaries of the trailer, thus creating a potentially hazardous condition, also see ¶0044 and 0054 of Chan, this is taken in view of ¶0019 of Paz); and
detect a presence of a potentially hazardous condition related to towing the trailer (See ¶0037, 0044 and 0054 of Chan as described above, this may be taken in view of ¶0020 of Paz).
Chan additionally fails to teach determine if a hitch mount of the vehicle is properly connected to a hitch latch of the trailer.
In a similar endeavor Joseph teaches determine if a hitch mount of the vehicle is properly connected to a hitch latch of the trailer (See ¶0010-0013 and FIG. 2A-2B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Joseph into Chan because properly connecting or hitching a trailer to a hitch ball of the trailer hitch for vehicles is both an important and strenuous task which leads to common errors to occur as described in at least ¶0010, therefore having a system to secure such an important task would be greatly beneficial.
In regards to claim 4, Chan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the structured light pattern is emitted onto the portion of the load (See ¶0028, 0037, 0044 and 0054).
In regards to claim 5, Chan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the position and the orientation of the trailer are determined (See ¶0028, 0037, 0044 and 0054 in view of 0050).
In regards to claim 6, Chan teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the detection of the presence of the potentially hazardous condition is based, at least in part, on comparing the at least one of the position and the orientation of the trailer against a previously determined position or orientation, respectively (See ¶0050 in view of 0057, wherein as a given example, a trailer may change its perimeter due to the vehicle turning, and correspondingly may create a potentially hazardous situation based on movement of cargo within from the change in perimeter, additional examples are also given).
In regards to claim 8, Chan teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the detection of the presence of the potentially hazardous condition is based, at least in part, on comparing the at least one of the position and the orientation of the trailer against at least one of an expected position and orientation of the trailer (See ¶0028, 0037, 0044 and 0054 in view of 0050 and 0057).
In regards to claim 10, Chan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the position and the orientation of the load are determined (See ¶0028, 0037, 0044 and 0054 in view of 0050 and 0057).
In regards to claim 11, Chan teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the at least one of the position and the orientation of the load are determined relative to the trailer (See ¶0028, 0037, 0044 and 0054 in view of 0050 and 0057, also see ¶0042 with regards to load that may not fit within the bounds of the vehicle and must be taken into account).
In regards to claim 13, Chan teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the detection of the presence of the potentially hazardous condition is based, at least in part, on movement of the load relative to the trailer and the presence of safety ties (See ¶0028, 0037, 0044 and 0054 in view of 0050 and 0057, additionally it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the presence of safety ties helps lower the potential for hazardous conditions).
In regards to claim 15, Chan teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising a notification device communicatively connected to the controller, the notification device configured to provide at least one of a visual and audible alert based, at least in part, on the detection of the potentially hazardous condition (See ¶0033 and 0035 in view of ¶0028, 0037, 0044 and 0054).
In regards to claim 16, Chan teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the alert is provided to an occupant of the vehicle (See ¶0033 and 0035 in view of ¶0028, 0037, 0044 and 0054).
In regards to claim 17, Chan teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the controller is operably connected to a memory (See ¶0045-0050), the controller configured to store the one or more images from the camera (See ¶0045-0050).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (“Chan”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2015/0066349) in view of Pazhayampallil et al. (“Paz”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0094399) and Joseph et al. (“Joseph”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0361397), in further view of Raguin (U.S. PG Publication No. 2025/0046115).
In regards to claim 2, Chan fails to teach teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the structured light pattern includes a quasi-random arrangement of illumination elements.
In a similar endeavor Ranguin teaches wherein the structured light pattern includes a quasi-random arrangement of illumination elements (See ¶0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Ranguin into Chan because it allows for the use of structured light in extracting 3D information as seen and described in ¶0033.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (“Chan”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2015/0066349) in view of Pazhayampallil et al. (“Paz”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0094399) and Joseph et al. (“Joseph”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0361397), in further view of Huntimer (U.S. PG Publication No. 2009/0045603).
It is to be noted that the information provided by Paz is also supported in the provision applications of 62/980,131, filed Feb 21, 2020; 62/980,131, filed Feb 21, 2020; and 63/064,316, filed Aug 11, 2020.
In regards to claim 3, Chan fails to teach the system of claim 1, wherein determining if the hitch mount of the vehicle is properly connected to the hitch latch of the trailer includes comparing an angle between the vehicle and the trailer in a vertical direction to a threshold maximum angle.
In a similar endeavor Huntimer teaches determining if the hitch mount of the vehicle is properly connected to the hitch latch of the trailer includes comparing an angle between the vehicle and the trailer in a vertical direction to a threshold maximum angle (See ¶0026 in view of FIG. 4 wherein a maximum yaw angle [threshold] is set between a vehicle and a trailer hitched via commonly known hitch assemblies, wherein it is noted that an angle higher than this maximum leads to divergence or uncontrollable trailer motion which may lead to catastrophic failures such as tipping or rolling, it is additionally noted that this yaw angle may be an angle to the right or left relative to the direction of travel of the vehicle, as well as a motion about a vertical axis of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Huntimer into Chan because it allows for a system to determine angles at which danger or catastrophic failures may occur as described in ¶0026, thus allowing for information retrieval so that such a situation may be avoided.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (“Chan”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2015/0066349) in view of Pazhayampallil et al. (“Paz”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0094399) and Joseph et al. (“Joseph”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0361397), in further view of Juergens et al. (“Juergens”) (U.S. Patent No. 5,690,347).
In regards to claim 7, Chan fails to teach the system of claim 6, wherein the detection of the presence of the potentially hazardous condition is based, at least in part, on a comparison between inputs received from a steering system of the vehicle and movement of the trailer indicating that the trailer underwent movement that was at least one of large, repeated, cyclical, or erratic.
In a similar endeavor Juergens teaches wherein the detection of the presence of the potentially hazardous condition is based, at least in part, on a comparison between inputs received from a steering system of the vehicle and movement of the trailer indicating that the trailer underwent movement that was at least one of large, repeated, cyclical, or erratic (See col. 1, li. 66 – col. 2, li. 6 wherein it is understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the inputs from the driver would be those towards a steering system of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Juergens into Chan because it allows for the understanding of dangerous situations that may occur due to large swinging motions of a trailer relative to a tractor as described in col. 1, li. 66 – col. 2, li. 6, thus increasing safety.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (“Chan”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2015/0066349) in view of Pazhayampallil et al. (“Paz”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0094399) and Joseph et al. (“Joseph”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0361397), in further view of Steben et al. (“Steben”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0266928).
It is to be noted that the information provided by Paz is also supported in the provision applications of 62/980,131, filed Feb 21, 2020; 62/980,131, filed Feb 21, 2020; and 63/064,316, filed Aug 11, 2020.
In regards to claim 9, Chan fails to teach the system of claim 8, wherein the at least one of the expected position and orientation of the trailer is based, at least in part, on comparing a degree of steering of the vehicle with an expected angle threshold that correspond to an angle between the vehicle and the trailer..
In a similar endeavor Steben teaches wherein the at least one of the expected position and orientation of the trailer is based, at least in part, on comparing a degree of steering of the vehicle with an expected angle threshold that correspond to an angle between the vehicle and the trailer (See ¶0222-0227 in view of FIG. 56).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Steben into Chan because it allows for corrections in the overall trajectory of the main vehicle and trajectory of the trailer to reduce, or stay below, certain threshold angles as described in 0222-0227 which may cause dangerous situations as the main vehicle is making a turn, thus enabling a safter turning environment.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (“Chan”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2015/0066349) in view of Pazhayampallil et al. (“Paz”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0094399) and Joseph et al. (“Joseph”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0361397), in further view of King et al. (“King”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0339555).
It is to be noted that the information provided by Paz is also supported in the provision applications of 62/980,131, filed Feb 21, 2020; 62/980,131, filed Feb 21, 2020; and 63/064,316, filed Aug 11, 2020.
In regards to claim 12, Chan fails to teach the system of claim 11, wherein the detection of the presence of the potentially hazardous condition is based, at least in part, on comparing the at least one of the position and the orientation of the load relative to the trailer to determine if the load is balanced on the trailer to prevent instability in movement of the trailer.
In a similar endeavor King teaches wherein the detection of the presence of the potentially hazardous condition is based, at least in part, on comparing the at least one of the position and the orientation of the load relative to the trailer to determine if the load is balanced on the trailer to prevent instability in movement of the trailer (See ¶0006 and 0040 wherein a load balancing system is used to ensure safe operation of the trailer according to load balancing, weight and other factors, and to warn against dangerous or unbalanced load distribution as described in 0010).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of King into Chan because it allows for a load balancing system to use various sensors as seen in ¶0006 and 0040 to assure that control of the trailer is operated safely, which further allows for alerts to notify the driver of an unbalanced or dangerous load distribution as seen in ¶0010.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (“Chan”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2015/0066349) in view of Pazhayampallil et al. (“Paz”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0094399) and Joseph et al. (“Joseph”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0361397), in further view of Wichner et al. (“Wichner”) (U.S. Patent No. 5,491,549).
In regards to claim 14, Chan fails to teach the system of claim 11, wherein the detection of the presence of the potentially hazardous condition is based, at least in part, on disappearance of the load from the one or more images.
In a similar endeavor Wichner teaches wherein the detection of the presence of the potentially hazardous condition is based, at least in part, on disappearance of the load from the one or more images (See col. 1, li. 45-57, this is taken in view of Chan’s teachings).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Wichner into Chan because it allows for the understanding that it is indeed dangerous for load to disappear from the field of view of scanning devices due to larger motions, thus an attempt to increase safety.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (“Chan”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2015/0066349) in view of Pazhayampallil et al. (“Paz”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0094399) and Joseph et al. (“Joseph”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0361397), in further view of Donderici (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0391371).
In regards to claim 18, Chan teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is at least partially autonomously driven (See ¶0001, 0028-0029, 0040, 0066-0067 and 0069).
Chan, however, fails to teach configured to pull over based, at least in part, on the detection of the presence of the potentially hazardous condition.
In a similar endeavor Donderici teaches configured to pull over based, at least in part, on the detection of the presence of the potentially hazardous condition (See ¶0053 in view of 0028-0029).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Donderici into Chan because it allows for the identification and execution of pull-over using sensor data according to when such a need is required, thus increasing efficiency and decision making.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 PM.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483