DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
The term “as little as possible” in Claims 1, 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “as little as possible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, the phrase "as little as possible" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how “little” the trajectory difference should be to reflect the limitations. A clear description is required.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 9 of U.S. Publication US2025/0026405 A1 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
It is clear all the elements of claims 1, 9 are to be found in Claims 1, 9 of US2025/0026405 A1. The difference between Claims 1, 9 of the current application and Claims 1, 9 of US2025/0026405 A1 lie in the fact that Claims 1, 9 of US2025/0026405 A1 include more elements and are therefore more specific. Thus the invention of Claims 1, 9 of US2025/0026405 A1 is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of Claims 1, 9 of the current applications. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by “species.” Since Claims 1, 9 of the current application are anticipated by Claims 1, 9 of US2025/0026405 A1, it is not patentably distinct from Claims 1, 9 of the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laine (US2020/0180691 A1).
Regarding to Claim 1, Laine teaches a method for assisted reversing with a trailer having a towing vehicle and a coupled trailer vehicle as well as a driver assistance system, wherein the trailer is initially driven forwards, comprising:
storing a corresponding forward trajectory in the driver assistance system (Paragraph 67, 68);
detecting, using a sensor system of the towing vehicle, at least one object arranged laterally next to the forward trajectory (Paragraphs 67, 68 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
planning the following:
a) a reversing trajectory, which deviates as little as possible from the driven forward trajectory (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 61-88, especially Steps S6-S8, since it is unclear the meaning of “as little as possible”, the examiner considered the adjusting process would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
b) for each vehicle of the trailer, a vehicle-specific reversing corridor corresponding to the planned reversing trajectory (Fig. 1 shows the trailers, and Figs. 3, 4, Paragraphs 61-88 teaches the operation would reflect the limitations);
classifying the detected at least one object as collision object if the at least one corresponding object lies in one or in both of the planned reversing corridors (Paragraphs 67, 68, Fig. 4, Step S7, Paragraphs 80-84, based on the teachings, the examiner considered if enter Steps S7 and S8, it means the detected object would be considered as a collision object, which would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
generating, if one or more of the at least one detected object has been classified as a collision object, a new reversing trajectory and, as a result, for each vehicle a new vehicle-specific reversing corridor, which deviates as little as possible from the reversing corridor planned, such that the collision object does not lie in either of the new vehicle-specific reversing corridors (Paragraphs 67, 68, Fig. 4, Paragraphs 61-88, especially Steps S6-S8, since it is unclear the meaning of “as little as possible”, the examiner considered the adjusting process would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
reversing the trailer with the aid of the driver assistance system, wherein the driver assistance system intervenes in transverse guidance of the towing vehicle at least such that the trailer is driven along the reversing trajectory or the new reversing trajectory, respectively, and, as a result, through the vehicle-specific reversing corridors or the new vehicle-specific reversing corridors, respectively (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 61-88, especially Steps S6-S9 would reflect the limitations. Based on the claimed language, the reference is not required to teach all the limitations).
Regarding to Claim 2, Laine teaches the method, wherein reversing takes place in one go along the entire new reversing trajectory and, as a result, through the new vehicle-specific reversing corridors (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 61-88, especially Steps S6-S9).
Regarding to Claim 3, Laine teaches the method, wherein during reversing, the driver assistance system completely takes over the transverse guidance of the towing vehicle and/or a longitudinal guidance of the towing vehicle (Paragraphs 71-78).
Regarding to Claim 9, Laine teaches a driver assistance system configured to perform a method for assisted reversing with a trailer having a towing vehicle and a coupled trailer vehicle as well as a driver assistance system, comprising:
storing a corresponding forward trajectory in the driver assistance system (Paragraphs 67, 68);
detecting, using a sensor system of the towing vehicle, at least one object arranged laterally next to the forward trajectory (Paragraphs 67, 68 would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
planning the following:
a) a reversing trajectory, which deviates as little as possible from the driven forward trajectory (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 61-88, especially Steps S6-S8, since it is unclear the meaning of “as little as possible”, the examiner considered the adjusting process would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation); and
b) for each vehicle of the trailer, a vehicle-specific reversing corridor corresponding to the planned reversing trajectory (Fig. 1 shows the trailers, and Figs. 3, 4, Paragraphs 61-88 teaches the operation would reflect the limitations);
classifying the detected at least one object as collision object if the at least one object lies in one or in both of the planned reversing corridors (Paragraphs 67, 68, Fig. 4, Step S7, Paragraphs 80-84, based on the teachings, the examiner considered if enter Steps S7 and S8, it means the detected object would be considered as a collision object, which would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
generating, if one or more of the at least one detected object has been classified as a collision object, a new reversing trajectory and, as a result, for each vehicle a new vehicle-specific reversing corridor, which deviates as little as possible from the reversing corridor planned, such that the collision object does not lie in either of the new vehicle-specific reversing corridors (Paragraphs 67, 68, Fig. 4, Paragraphs 61-88, especially Steps S6-S8, since it is unclear the meaning of “as little as possible”, the examiner considered the adjusting process would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation);
reversing the trailer with the aid of the driver assistance system, wherein the driver assistance system intervenes in transverse guidance of the towing vehicle at least such that the trailer is driven along the reversing trajectory or the new reversing trajectory, respectively, and, as a result, through the vehicle-specific reversing corridors or the new vehicle-specific reversing corridors, respectively (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 61-88, especially Steps S6-S9 would reflect the limitations. Based on the claimed language, the reference is not required to teach all the limitations).
Regarding to Claim 10, Laine teaches a motor vehicle with the driver assistance system of claim 9, wherein the motor vehicle is configured to function as the towing vehicle for the trailer (Figs. 1, 2).
Regarding to Claim 11, Laine teaches the driver assistance system, wherein reversing takes place in one go along the entire new reversing trajectory and, as a result, through the new vehicle-specific reversing corridors (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 61-88, especially Steps S6-S9).
Regarding to Claim 12, Laine teaches the driver assistance system, wherein during reversing, the driver assistance system completely takes over the transverse guidance of the towing vehicle and/or a longitudinal guidance of the towing vehicle (Paragraphs 71-78).
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.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine (US2020/0180691 A1) in view of Nordbruch (US2019/0071069 A1).
Regarding to Claim 4, Laine fails to explicitly disclose, but Nordbruch teaches a method, wherein, for each vehicle of the trailer, an imaginary collision rectangle is specified to the driver assistance system, which rectangle completely encloses the corresponding vehicle and moves along with the vehicle,
for each vehicle of the trailer, an imaginary circle is specified to the driver assistance system, on which circle the vertices of the associated collision rectangle always lie,
the at least one detected object is classified as a critical object if the corresponding object has been intersected by one or both circles when driving forwards,
during classifying, only a critical object of the at least one detected object is classified, if applicable, as a collision object when the corresponding object would be intersected by the collision rectangle during reversing assisted by means of the driver assistance system [the examiner considered Laine, Paragraphs 67, 68 would teaches an imaginary circle to detect the object under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Nordbruch teaches a vehicle comprises a system to determine a safety area (Nordbruch, Fig. 5, Part 505, Paragraphs 95-101, the area can be considered as a imaginary collision rectangle under the broadest reasonable interpretation) to reduce a risk of a collision of the vehicle (Nordbruch, Paragraph 104).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Laine to incorporate the teachings of Nordbruch to design the vehicle to set an imaginary collision area in order to reduce a risk of a collision of the vehicle (Nordbruch, Paragraph 104).
Regarding to Claim 5, Laine in view of Nordbruch teaches the modified method, wherein, for each vehicle, a second imaginary collision rectangle, which lies completely within the first collision rectangle (Nordbruch, Fig. 5, Part 503), and third imaginary collision rectangle, which lies completely within the second collision rectangle (Nordbruch, Fig. 5, Part 201, surface of the vehicle can be considered as a third area), are specified, wherein, during reversing assisted by means of the driver assistance system, the collision object in each case is classified as a notice object as long as the corresponding collision object is intersected by the first collision rectangle but not by the second collision rectangle or by the third collision rectangle, wherein a notice action is performed by means of the driver assistance system in response to the notice object, is classified as a warning object as long as the corresponding collision object is intersected by the first collision rectangle and by the second collision rectangle but not by the third collision rectangle, wherein a warning action is performed by the driver assistance system in response to the warning object (Nordbruch, Paragraphs 106-110. Based on the teachings of the claimed language and the Specification of the claimed invention, the examiner considered the third imaginary rectangle can be an imaginary on the surface of the vehicle. The teachings of the Paragraphs of Nordbruch would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding to Claim 13, Laine fails to explicitly disclose, but Nordbruch teaches a driver assistance system, wherein, for each vehicle of the trailer, an imaginary collision rectangle is specified to the driver assistance system, which rectangle completely encloses the corresponding vehicle and moves along with the vehicle,
for each vehicle of the trailer, an imaginary circle is specified to the driver assistance system, on which circle the vertices of the associated collision rectangle always lie,
the at least one detected object is classified as a critical object if the object has been intersected by one or both circles when driving forwards,
during classifying, only a critical object of the at least one detected object is classified, if applicable, as a collision object when the corresponding object would be intersected by the collision rectangle during reversing assisted by means of the driver assistance system [the examiner considered Laine, Paragraphs 67, 68 would teaches an imaginary circle to detect the object under the broadest reasonable interpretation. Nordbruch teaches a vehicle comprises a system to determine a safety area (Nordbruch, Fig. 5, Part 505, Paragraphs 95-101, the area can be considered as a imaginary collision rectangle under the broadest reasonable interpretation) to reduce a risk of a collision of the vehicle (Nordbruch, Paragraph 104).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Laine to incorporate the teachings of Nordbruch to design the vehicle to set an imaginary collision area in order to reduce a risk of a collision of the vehicle (Nordbruch, Paragraph 104).
Regarding to Claim 14, Laine in view of Nordbruch teaches the modified driver assistance system, wherein, for each vehicle, a second imaginary collision rectangle, which lies completely within the first collision rectangle (Nordbruch, Fig. 5, Part 503), and third imaginary collision rectangle, which lies completely within the second collision rectangle (Nordbruch, Fig. 5, Part 201, surface of the vehicle can be considered as a third area), are specified, wherein, during reversing assisted by means of the driver assistance system, the collision object in each case is classified as a notice object as long as the corresponding collision object is intersected by the first collision rectangle but not by the second collision rectangle or by the third collision rectangle, wherein a notice action is performed by means of the driver assistance system in response to the notice object, is classified as a warning object as long as the corresponding collision object is intersected by the first collision rectangle and by the second collision rectangle but not by the third collision rectangle, wherein a warning action is performed by the driver assistance system in response to the warning object (Nordbruch, Paragraphs 106-110. Based on the teachings of the claimed language and the Specification of the claimed invention, the examiner considered the third imaginary rectangle can be an imaginary on the surface of the vehicle. The teachings of the Paragraphs of Nordbruch would reflect the limitations under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claims 6-8, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laine (US2020/0180691 A1) in view of Langer (US2023/0249675 A1)
Regarding to Claim 6, Laine fails to explicitly disclose, but Langer teaches a method, wherein departing from the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned in that a
perpendicular, which intersects an outer contour point, to the tangent of the reversing trajectory is positioned at a problem point of the reversing trajectory initially planned, at which the reversing trajectory and the outer contour point of a collision object are spaced apart from each other by a minimum distance,
on a side of the reversing trajectory lying opposite the outer contour point and as a straight-line extension of the perpendicular, a new planning point is placed, wherein a trajectory offset distance is formed between the initially planned reversing trajectory and the new planning point,
on the initially planned reversing trajectory, a departure point is determined, which lies, with reference to the reversing direction, before the problem point on the initially planned reversing trajectory,
during generating, a new reversing trajectory portion and, as a result, for each vehicle, new vehicle-specific reversing corridor portions for departing from the initially planned reversing trajectory are planned between the departure point and the new planning point [Langer teaches a trajectory determination method which would reflect the limitations (Langer, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 64, 65, the trajectory would be adjusted based on the obstacle, which would reflect the limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation) to improve the operation of a vehicle (Langer, Paragraph 5).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Laine to incorporate the teachings of Langer to adjust the trajectory based on the obstacle in order to improve the operation of a vehicle (Langer, Paragraph 5).
Regarding to Claim 7, Laine in view of Langer teaches the modified method, wherein returning to the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned in that
on the initially planned reversing trajectory, a return point is determined, which lies, with reference to the reversing direction, after the problem point on the initially planned reversing trajectory,
during generating, an additional new reversing trajectory portion and, as a result, for each vehicle, additional new vehicle-specific reversing corridor portions for returning to the initially planned reversing trajectory are planned between the new planning point and the return point (Laine, Paragraphs 61-88 and applying the teachings of Langer, Paragraphs 64, 65).
Regarding to Claim 8, Laine in view of Langer teaches the modified method, wherein
departing from the initially planned reversing trajectory and returning to the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned for the entire planned reversing trajectory before the driver assistance system intervenes in the transverse guidance of the towing vehicle for the first time, or
departing from the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned as soon as it is determined using the driver assistance system that a specified minimum planning distance between a current position of the trailer and the problem point has been reached, and returning to the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned when the trailer is located on the new reversing trajectory portion (Laine, Paragraphs 61-88 and applying the teachings of Langer, Paragraphs 64, 65. Based on the claimed language, the references are not required to teach all the limitations).
Regarding to Claim 15, Laine fails to explicitly disclose, but Langer teaches a driver assistance system, wherein departing from the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned in that a
perpendicular, which intersects an outer contour point, to the tangent of the reversing trajectory is positioned at a problem point of the reversing trajectory initially planned, at which the reversing trajectory and the outer contour point of a collision object are spaced apart from each other by a minimum distance,
on a side of the reversing trajectory lying opposite the outer contour point and as a straight-line extension of the perpendicular, a new planning point is placed, wherein a trajectory offset distance is formed between the initially planned reversing trajectory and the new planning point,
on the initially planned reversing trajectory, a departure point is determined, which lies, with reference to the reversing direction, before the problem point on the initially planned reversing trajectory,
during generating, a new reversing trajectory portion and, as a result, for each vehicle, new vehicle-specific reversing corridor portions for departing from the initially planned reversing trajectory are planned between the departure point and the new planning point [Langer teaches a trajectory determination method which would reflect the limitations (Langer, Fig. 5, Paragraphs 64, 65, the trajectory would be adjusted based on the obstacle, which would reflect the limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation) to improve the operation of a vehicle (Langer, Paragraph 5).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Laine to incorporate the teachings of Langer to adjust the trajectory based on the obstacle in order to improve the operation of a vehicle (Langer, Paragraph 5).
Regarding to Claim 16, Laine in view of Langer teaches the modified driver assistance system, wherein returning to the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned in that
on the initially planned reversing trajectory, a return point is determined, which lies, with reference to the reversing direction, after the problem point on the initially planned reversing trajectory,
during generating, an additional new reversing trajectory portion and, as a result, for each vehicle, additional new vehicle-specific reversing corridor portions for returning to the initially planned reversing trajectory are planned between the new planning point and the return point (Laine, Paragraphs 61-88 and applying the teachings of Langer, Paragraphs 64, 65).
Regarding to Claim 17, Laine in view of Langer teaches the modified driver assistance system, wherein
departing from the initially planned reversing trajectory and returning to the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned for the entire planned reversing trajectory before the driver assistance system intervenes in the transverse guidance of the towing vehicle for the first time, or
departing from the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned as soon as it is determined using the driver assistance system that a specified minimum planning distance between a current position of the trailer and the problem point has been reached, and returning to the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned when the trailer is located on the new reversing trajectory portion (Laine, Paragraphs 61-88 and applying the teachings of Langer, Paragraphs 64, 65. Based on the claimed language, the references are not required to teach all the limitations).
Regarding to Claim 18, Laine in view of Langer teaches the modified driver assistance system, wherein
departing from the initially planned reversing trajectory and returning to the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned for the entire planned reversing trajectory before the driver assistance system intervenes in the transverse guidance of the towing vehicle for the first time, or
departing from the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned as soon as it is determined using the driver assistance system that a specified minimum planning distance between a current position of the trailer and the problem point has been reached, and returning to the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned when the trailer is located on the new reversing trajectory portion (Laine, Paragraphs 61-88 and applying the teachings of Langer, Paragraphs 64, 65. Based on the claimed language, the references are not required to teach all the limitations).
Regarding to Claim 19, Laine in view of Langer teaches the modified method, wherein
departing from the initially planned reversing trajectory and returning to the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned for the entire planned reversing trajectory before the driver assistance system intervenes in the transverse guidance of the towing vehicle for the first time, or
departing from the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned as soon as it is determined using the driver assistance system that a specified minimum planning distance between a current position of the trailer and the problem point has been reached, and returning to the initially planned reversing trajectory is planned when the trailer is located on the new reversing trajectory portion (Laine, Paragraphs 61-88 and applying the teachings of Langer, Paragraphs 64, 65. Based on the claimed language, the references are not required to teach all the limitations).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-KAI WANG whose telephone number is (313)446-6613. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 5712721196. 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.
/YI-KAI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747