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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 16-22, 24-35 remain pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application DE10 2022 201 554.1 filed on 02/15/2022 and DE10 2022 201 731.5 filed on 02/18/2022.
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 16-22, 24, 25, 27-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Laine (US20160114831).
Regarding claim 16, Laine teaches a method for operating an assistance system of an at least semi-autonomously operated motor vehicle, the method comprising ([0028] disclosing autonomous control of the vehicle):
recording a trajectory of the motor vehicle when the motor vehicle is driving forward from a starting point to an endpoint in surroundings of the motor vehicle using a detection device of the assistance system ([0031] disclosing a forward path being recorded at positions); and
determining, based on the recorded trajectory, a plurality of further trajectory points defining a further trajectory for a future backup maneuver of the motor vehicle from the starting point to the endpoint using an electronic processing device of the assistance system ([0031]-[0038] disclosing a path from the start point of a path to the end point of the path that is recorded in a forward direction and is followed by the vehicle in the reverse direction, by following the path, the vehicle is ensured to remain within a swept area. [0028] disclosing the automated steering control of the steering along the specified path, i.e., the autonomous vehicle follows the trajectory autonomously along the recorded path. See also [0044]-[0048] disclosing positions recorded, and the path is saved, then the swept area is calculated and modified for the reverse movement such that when the vehicle reverses along the path, it does not extend outside the swept area. Since [0044]-[0048] disclosing determining the positions along the travelled trajectory, and that same trajectory is the specified trajectory to be followed by the vehicle in reverse, thus the further trajectory plurality points are determined.. note the claim does not necessitate following the trajectory points just following the trajectory which is what is done in the prior art); and
providing the further trajectory to the assistance system for autonomously following the further trajectory by providing longitudinal guidance and or lateral guidance of the motor vehicle ([0011]-[0013], [0028], [0036] disclosing automatically driving the vehicle along the specified path. Note the claim does not state following the trajectory points recorded just following the trajectory).
While Laine does not specifically disclose the future trajectory from the starting point to the end point being the same starting point and ending point of the forward trajectory, Laine in at least [0040] discloses that the swept areas are saved in memory for use even in vehicles who have not been at the specific positions before, thus it would be obvious to try and determine the path using the starting point and ending point of the forward trajectory with reasonable expectation of success, with simple mathematical equations the result can be reached.
Regarding claim 17, Laine teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the trajectory is recorded when (i) a trailer is attached to the motor vehicle, or (ii) when the motor vehicle does not have a trailer attached (Laine [0028]-[0036] disclosing the trajectory is recorded while the trailer is attached to the vehicle, see also [0045]- [0048].).
Regarding claim 18, Laine teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising autonomously following the further trajectory in the presence of a trailer attached to the motor vehicle (Laine [0026]-[0048] disclosing the autonomously following of the further trajectory in the presence of the trailer attached to the vehicle).
Regarding claim 19, Laine teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising considering at least one of the following factors when following the further trajectory:
a length of the trailer; a length of the motor vehicle; a position of a trailer hitch relative to the motor vehicle and the trailer; a maximum steering angle of the motor vehicle; a number of axles of the trailer; a wheelbase of the motor vehicle; a wheelbase of the trailer; and a maximum steering angle of the trailer (Laine at least [0011]-[0013] and [0029] disclosing taking the length of the trailer and the vehicle in consideration).
Regarding claim 20, Laine teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising:
detecting a plurality of trajectory points of the recorded trajectory (Laine [0031] disclosing recording points on the trajectory at a time/distance rate, i.e., equidistant); and
determining a plurality of equidistant further trajectory points for the further trajectory based on the detected trajectory points ([0031] disclosing the equidistant trajectory points, [0031]-[0048] disclosing the specified path is also followed in reverse, thus the points are identified for the specified path).
Regarding claim 21, Laine teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising determining another trajectory for reversing the motor vehicle with an attached trailer from the endpoint to the starting point during the backup maneuver (Laine [0031]-[0048] disclosing determining the trajectory for reversing from the end point to the start point during backup maneuver).
Regarding claim 22, Laine teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the further trajectory is at least semi- autonomously followed by providing longitudinal guidance and/or lateral guidance of the motor vehicle, with or without an attached trailer (Laine [0028]-[0048] disclosing the control of the steering autonomously according to the trajectory).
Regarding claim 24, Laine teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising generating a driving path for the further trajectory, wherein the motor vehicle, with or without an attached trailer, follows the driving path during the backup maneuver (Laine [0028]-[0048] disclosing the control of the steering autonomously according to the trajectory).
Regarding claim 25, Laine teaches method of claim 24, further comprising one of:
(1) maintaining the motor vehicle, with or without an attached trailer, within the generated driving path by performing miniature movements of the motor vehicle, (Laine [0028]-[0050] disclosing the movement along a path incorporating multiple points, i.e., miniature movement )or
(ii) maintaining at least one rear axle point of the motor vehicle and/or a rear axle point of the trailer within the generated driving path
Claims 27-34 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 16-23, respectively, see above rejection.
Claim 35 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, see above rejection.
Claims 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Laine (US20160114831) in view of Sandblom (US20200180691).
Regarding claim 26, Laine teaches the method of claim 16, Laine does not teach further comprising determining an articulation angle during the backup maneuver when a trailer is attached to the motor vehicle.
Sandblom teaches comprising determining an articulation angle during the backup maneuver when a trailer is attached to the motor vehicle ([0088] disclosing determining the articulation angle during the reverse in order to correct the path based on a simulation of the movement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Laine to combine the teaching of Sandblom yielding predictable results and improving the backup path by changing directions when needed based on the feedback from articulation angle determined by sensors as taught by Sandblom [0088].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101 rejection: the amendment overcomes the 101 rejection by incorporating longitudinal or lateral guidance of the vehicle.
103 rejection:
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection that Laine does not disclose determining a plurality of further trajectory points defining a further trajectory, examiner respectfully disagrees, Laine in at least [0030]-0038], [0044]-[0048] discloses the specified path that is used in a forward motion and determining positions for this path, then determines that same specified path to be used for the reverse motion, thus it is interpreted that since the same path is used and the points are recorded for the path that the plurality of the trajectory points are determined for the further trajectory and that is based on the recorded trajectory.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Laine does not disclose “determining based on the recorded trajectory, a plurality of further trajectory points defining a further trajectory for a future backup maneuver of the motor vehicle from the starting point to the end point”, as cited above, in [0030]-[0048] Laine teaches the path to be followed in reverse based is the specified path and discloses determining the trajectory positions for the specified path. While Laine does not specifically disclose the future trajectory from the starting point to the end point being the same starting point and ending point of the forward trajectory, Laine in at least [0040] discloses that the swept areas are saved in memory for use even in vehicles who have not been at the specific positions before, thus it would be obvious to try and determine the path using the starting point and ending point of the forward trajectory with reasonable expectation of success, with simple mathematical equations the result can be reached.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that Laine determines a swept area and not the path, as cited in the rejection, Laine teaches determining the specified path and positions on the path and uses them to determine the swept area which is to be not exceeded when the vehicle drives along the path. Thus the differentiation is made between the path and the swept area. One of ordinary skill in the art realizes that a vehicle follows a path but makes adjustment to avoid obstacles in real time and to stay within a corridor. Laine teaches following a specified path while reversing while ensuring the vehicle remains within the swept area, this is done by simply following the path while allowing the vehicle to steer to correct a swept area to not be exceeded and returning to a path. The claim does not require following any points on the trajectory, it only determines the points on the trajectory which is done by Laine in [0030]-[0048].
In response to applicant’s argument that Laine describes the articulated vehicle within the swept area rather than determining a defined trajectory point, Laine explicitly calculates the swept area for the specified path for the exact positions that are recorded which are later followed in reverse, see [0034]-[0035] explicitly mathematically ensuring the swept area for the specified path, then later the vehicle remains within the swept area while reversing following the specified path, thus a defined path is determined to determine that the vehicle is following the specified path that includes the positions. The claim does not require following the trajectory points. Furthermore see [0028] disclosing the vehicle is autonomously steered when reversing along the traveled path, thus the vehicle in the least determines the travelled path or specified path which is saved as positions and controls the steering to remain in swept area while reversing along the path thus having the determined positions, the vehicle does not need to follow the exact points, only follow the trajectory which is done by traveling along the specified path. See [0040] disclosing the swept area is determined for the specific position for a reversal, thus the ensuring the vehicle remains in a swept area is for the specific positions.
Further note, trying to interpret the method otherwise would result in a wrongful control of the vehicle, if the vehicle is only controlled to follow a swept area without a position of points along a trajectory, the vehicle can follow a swept area outside of the roads or onto a grass area which is not a specified path.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20190270451 discloses backing up based on a forward path.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights