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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process of detecting a relative angle) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recite(s):
“analyzes the image captured by the imaging device to detect a relative angle of the towed vehicle with respect to the towing vehicle.”; Which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer viewing and mentally analyzing a captured image to determine a relative angle.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because of additional elements:
“…imaging device that captures an image of one of the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle from the other”; is a generically recited extra-solution activity of data gathering.
“…a radiation device that emits marker light to a position where the image is to be captured by the imaging device” and “an image analysis device”; is/are generically recited computer element(s) that does/do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it/they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and pertain to a generically recited radiation device and a generically recited image analysis device.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of additional elements:
“…imaging device that captures an image of one of the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle from the other”; is a well-understood, routine, and conventional extra-solution activity of data gathering.
“…a radiation device that emits marker light to a position where the image is to be captured by the imaging device” and “an image analysis device”; is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer element(s) that does/do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it/they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and pertain to a well-understood, routine, and conventional radiation device and a well-understood, routine, and conventional image analysis device.
Depending claims 2-13 do not remedy these deficiencies.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an additional element of an imaging device mounted on the towing truck for obtaining the image of claim 1. The imaging device is recited generically such that it does not provide any meaningful limitations on performing the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of detecting a relative angle based on a shape of a figure projected by a radiation device. This is a mental process. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of detecting a hitch angle based on image analysis. This is a mental process. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an additional element of an radiation device emitting marker light based vehicle movement. The radiation device is recited generically such that it does not provide any meaningful limitations on performing the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to additional elements of an imaging device and a radiation device mounted on the towing vehicle. The imaging device and a radiation device are recited generically such that they do not provide any meaningful limitations on performing the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 7 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of detecting a hitch angle and a pitch angle based on a position of the towed-side connecting member. This is a mental process. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to additional elements of an imaging device mounted on the towing vehicle and a radiation device mounted on the towed vehicle. The imaging device and a radiation device are recited generically such that they do not provide any meaningful limitations on performing the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of detecting a hitch angle and a pitch angle based on a size of the marker light. This is a mental process. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of detecting a roll angle based on a tilt of the marker light. This is a mental process. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to additional element of a radiation device emitting a marker light such that a portion of the marker light disappears based on the hitch angle. The radiation device is recited generically such that it does not provide any meaningful limitations on performing the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“imaging device” in claim(s) 1.
“radiation device” in claim(s) 1, 3, and 5.
“image analysis device” in claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-8, and 10-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the limitation(s): “The relative angle detection device for the combination vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the radiation device irradiates the towed vehicle at such a position and in such a range that part of the marker light to be captured by the imaging device disappears according to a magnitude of a hitch angle of the combination vehicle”, wherein parent claim 9 recites the limitation “the radiation device is mounted on the towed-side connecting member or the towed vehicle and irradiates the towed vehicle”.
However, paragraph 0049 of the Specification recites “since the radiation device 62 is mounted on the towing vehicle 2, the shape of the marker light that is captured by the imaging device 61 is less likely to change according to the hitch angle etc., compared to the second example embodiment. Therefore, in this example, the radiation device 62 irradiates the towed vehicle at such a position and in such a range that part of the marker light to be captured by the imaging device 61 disappears according to the magnitude of the hitch angle”. Thus, the Specification states that because the radiation device is mounted on the towing vehicle, a portion of the marker light is able to disappear based on the hitch angle magnitude. Therefore, the limitations directed to disappearance of marker light according to a hitch angle of the combination vehicle when the radiation device is not mounted on the towing vehicle are not supported by the written disclosure.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "an imaging device that captures an image of one of the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle from the other”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as “an imaging device that captures an image of either the towing vehicle from the towed vehicle or the towing vehicle from the towed vehicle” (In the Specification (0032), it is disclosed “the imaging device 61 and the radiation device 62 are mounted on the rear end of the towing vehicle 2…The imaging device 61 is disposed above the radiation device 62, and captures an image of the towed vehicle 3”. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted in the disjunctive because while the claim is written in the conjunctive, the Specification only provides support for the disjunctive.).
Regarding claim 2-13, it/they is/are rejected under 112b for inheriting and failing to cure the deficiencies of the parent claim 1.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ip et al. (US2022198702A1) hereinafter referenced as Ip.
Regarding claim 1, Ip discloses: A relative angle detection device for a combination vehicle (Ip: Figure 1; Abstract), the relative angle detection device being used in the combination vehicle in which a towing vehicle and a towed vehicle are connected by a towing-side connecting member and a towed-side connecting member (Ip: 0001: “The present disclosure relates to detecting a position of a trailer is in relation to a vehicle attached to the trailer. The trailer is attached to the vehicle through a tow hitch point that allows the trailer to pivot around as the vehicle moves.”), the relative angle detection device comprising: an imaging device that captures an image of one of the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle from the other (Claim limitation is interpreted according to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) disclosed above.); a radiation device that emits marker light to a position where the image is to be captured by the imaging device (Ip: 0034-0035: “In order to determine the angle A of the trailer relative to the vehicle 20, a projector 50 and a camera 28 located on the rear of vehicle 20 are utilized. The projector 50 and the camera 28 are both in electrical communication with a controller 30 ( FIG. 5) for directing the projector 50 and the camera 28 to perform the operations outlined below…As shown in FIG. 5, the projector 50 includes a light source 52 and a projector screen 54 for generating a projection 56 on the front surface 46 of the trailer 40 .”); and
an image analysis device that analyzes the image captured by the imaging device to detect a relative angle of the towed vehicle with respect to the towing vehicle (Ip: 0042: “Once the projection 56 has been generated on the front surface 46 of the trailer 40, the image 60 of the projection 56 is obtained by the camera 28 and stored by the controller 30 (Step 120 ). The controller 30 can then process the image 60 to determine an angle A ( FIG. 4) of the trailer 40 relative to the vehicle 20 (Step 130). Determining the angle A of the trailer 40 is based comparing the image 60 of the projection 56 with a known pattern of the projection 56.”).
Regarding claim 2, Ip discloses: The relative angle detection device for the combination vehicle
according to claim 1, wherein the imaging device is mounted on the towing vehicle and captures an image of the towed vehicle (Ip: 0038: “The camera 28 is located on the rear of the vehicle 20 for viewing the trailer 40 and the surrounding environment. The controller 30 is in electrical communication with the camera 28 to control the capturing, storing, and/or processing of the images 60 from the point of view of the camera 28 . The camera 28 may be part of a traditional rear-view camera system on the vehicle 20 or a separate camera 28 from the rear-view camera system. The camera 28 includes a lens and an image sensor for capturing images 60 on a pixel-by-pixel basis (See FIG. 5).”).
Regarding claim 3, Ip discloses: The relative angle detection device for the combination vehicle
according to claim 1, wherein: the radiation device projects a figure with a predetermined shape by the
marker light; and the image analysis device detects the relative angle based on a shape of the figure that is captured (Ip: 0041-0042: “FIG. 7 illustrates a method 100 of determining an angle of the trailer 40 relative to a vehicle 20 . The method 100 includes generating the projection 56 on the front surface 46 of the trailer 40 with the projector 50 (Step 110 ). The projection 56 can include any number of patterns, such as the light-slit projection 57 - 1 or the grid projection 56 - 2 . In particular, the pattern of the projection 56 may be chosen by the controller 30 based on a profile of the front surface 46 of the trailer 40…The controller 30 can then process the image 60 to determine an angle A (FIG. 4) of the trailer 40 relative to the vehicle 20 (Step 130). Determining the angle A of the trailer 40 is based comparing the image 60 of the projection 56 with a known pattern of the projection 56.”).
Regarding claim 4, Ip discloses: The relative angle detection device for the combination vehicle
according to claim 1, wherein the relative angle that is detected by the image analysis device includes a hitch angle of the combination vehicle (Ip: 0015: “ In a further embodiment of any of the above, the angle of the trailer relative to the vehicle is measured about a hitching point on the vehicle for attaching the trailer.”).
Regarding claim 5, Ip discloses: The relative angle detection device for the combination vehicle
according to claim 1, wherein the radiation device emits the marker light when the combination vehicle reverses (Ip: 0001-0002: “The present disclosure relates to detecting a position of a trailer is in relation to a vehicle attached to the trailer…As a vehicle is reversing, it is possible for the trailer to turn quickly based on steering inputs from a driver of the vehicle. The driver must continually monitor an angle of the trailer about the tow hitch while in reverse to ensure that the trailer is heading towards a desired location and is not rotating to a degree that would result in the trailer contacting a rear portion of the vehicle.”).
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ip, and further in view of Maruoka et al. (US2020010018A1) hereinafter referenced as Maruoka.
Regarding claim 6, Ip discloses: The relative angle detection device for the combination vehicle according to claim 1, wherein: the imaging device and the radiation device are mounted on the towing vehicle (Ip: 0034: “In order to determine the angle A of the trailer relative to the vehicle 20, a projector 50 and a camera 28 located on the rear of vehicle 20 are utilized. ”).
Ip does not disclose expressly: the towed-side connecting member and a road surface on both sides of the towed-side connecting member in a vehicle width direction of the towing vehicle are included in a radiation range of the marker light from the radiation device.
Maruoka discloses: An apparatus for determining the connection angle between a towing vehicle and a vehicle being towed, based on rear images acquired by the towing vehicle (Maruoka: Abstract). Wherein the towed-side connecting member and a road surface on both sides of the towed-side connecting member in a vehicle width direction of the towing vehicle are included in a range of the imaging device (Maruoka: Figure 5; 0023: “The imaging unit 24 a is provided at a wall portion below a rear window of a rear hatch 10 a at a rear side of the towing vehicle 10 . An optical axis of the imaging unit 24 a is set obliquely downward. Therefore, the imaging unit 24 a successively captures a rear image including a rear region of the towing vehicle 10 (for example, see a range indicated by a two-dotted chain line in FIG. 1) including a rear end portion of the towing vehicle 10 , the connection member 20 , and at least a front end portion of the towed vehicle 12 and outputs the aforementioned image as captured image data.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the known technique of angling the imaging devices obliquely as taught by Maruoka to the camera and projector disclosed by Ip. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “The captured image data obtained by the imaging unit 24 a that includes the rear region may be employed for detection of a connection state of the towing vehicle 10 and the towed vehicle 12 (for example, a connection angle there between and whether or not the towed vehicle 12 is connected to the towing vehicle 10 )” (Maruoka: 0023). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ip with Maruoka to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Ip in view of Maruoka discloses: The relative angle detection device for the combination vehicle according to claim 6, wherein the image analysis device detects a hitch angle of the
combination vehicle based on a position in the vehicle width direction of the towed-side connecting member in the radiation range of the marker light (Ip: 0033: “As shown in FIG. 3, the tongue 48 and the trailer 40 rotate about the pivot point P. The pivot point P corresponds to a central vertical axis through the tow ball 26 . As the trailer 40 pivots about the pivot point P, an angle A is generated between the central longitudinal axis V of the vehicle 20 and the central longitudinal axis T of the trailer 40 as shown in FIG. 4.”;
0043-0044: “ The known pattern of the projection 56 can be based on a calibrated image of the projection 56 stored on the controller 30 that corresponds to the angle A of the trailer 40 at a predetermined reference orientation. For example, the reference orientation may be when the trailer 40 and the vehicle 20 are positioned such that the vehicle longitudinal axis V and the trailer longitudinal axis T are parallel and aligned through a central of the tow ball 26. This reference orientation would correspond to the angle A being at zero degrees…The controller 30 identifies the pattern in the projection 56 by identifying the illuminated portions of projection 56 through the use of an algorithm. The controller 30 can then compare the pattern identified from the projection 56 with the known pattern of the projection.”; Wherein the camera and projector are angled obliquely).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ip in view of Maruoka, and further in view of Diessner (US2023249673A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ip in view of Maruoka discloses: The relative angle detection device for the combination vehicle according to claim 6, wherein the image analysis device detects an angle of the towed vehicle with respect to the towing vehicle based on a difference in position between the towed-side connecting member and the road surface that are irradiated with the marker light (Ip: 0033: “As shown in FIG. 3, the tongue 48 and the trailer 40 rotate about the pivot point P. The pivot point P corresponds to a central vertical axis through the tow ball 26 . As the trailer 40 pivots about the pivot point P, an angle A is generated between the central longitudinal axis V of the vehicle 20 and the central longitudinal axis T of the trailer 40 as shown in FIG. 4.”;
0043-0044: “The known pattern of the projection 56 can be based on a calibrated image of the projection 56 stored on the controller 30 that corresponds to the angle A of the trailer 40 at a predetermined reference orientation. For example, the reference orientation may be when the trailer 40 and the vehicle 20 are positioned such that the vehicle longitudinal axis V and the trailer longitudinal axis T are parallel and aligned through a central of the tow ball 26. This reference orientation would correspond to the angle A being at zero degrees…The controller 30 identifies the pattern in the projection 56 by identifying the illuminated portions of projection 56 through the use of an algorithm. The controller 30 can then compare the pattern identified from the projection 56 with the known pattern of the projection.”; Wherein the camera and projector are angled obliquely).
Ip in view of Maruoka does not disclose expressly: wherein the image analysis device detects a pitch angle of the towed vehicle with respect to the towing vehicle based on a difference in position in a front-rear direction of the towing vehicle between the towed-side connecting member and the road surface that are irradiated with the marker light.
Diessner discloses: wherein the image analysis device detects a pitch angle of the towed vehicle with respect to the towing vehicle based on a difference in position in a front-rear direction of the towing vehicle (Diessner: Figure 4A; 0047-0048: “the vehicle controller 150 includes an angle detection system 160 that outputs at least one of a relative trailer yaw angle ΨR, pitch angle θR , and roll angle ΦR . The angle detection system 160 executes an algorithm 162 that estimates the angles ΨR /θR /ΦR of the trailer 104 attached to the vehicle 102. Using projective geometry, the angle detection system 160 estimates the relative angle of vehicle-trailer system 100 . In other words, the angle detection system 160 determines the angles ΨR /θR /ΦR between an attached trailer 104 and the two vehicle 102 using the camera 136. In this example the camera 136 is a mono camera and optionally vehicle information such as vehicle steering wheel angle, wheel ticks, vehicle velocity, gear, and/or IMU information. The angle detection system 160 utilizes features selected from images provided by the rear camera 136 to determine a relative angle of the trailer 104 to the tow vehicle 102 as compared to a determined zero angle.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the algorithms for pitch angle determination as taught by Diessner into the relative angle detection device disclosed by Ip in view of Maruoka. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “The present disclosure relates to a trailer levelling system that aids in levelling a trailer about its transverse axis (corresponding to a pitch angle) and its fore-aft axis (corresponding to a roll angle)…In certain situations, it is desirable for a trailer to be level when parked. For example, it is desirable for a camping trailer to be levelled in a campsite where the ground may be slanted or uneven” (Diessner: 0002-0003). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ip in view of Maruoka with Diessner to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ip, and further in view of Salter et al. (US2015345939A1) hereinafter referenced as Salter.
Regarding claim 9, Ip discloses: The relative angle detection device for the combination vehicle according to claim 1, wherein: the imaging device is mounted on the towing vehicle.
Ip does not disclose expressly: wherein: the radiation device is mounted on the towed-side connecting member or the towed vehicle and irradiates the towed vehicle.
Salter discloses: wherein the radiation device is mounted on the towed-side connecting member or the towed vehicle and irradiates the towed vehicle (Salter: Figure 3; 0039-0040: “A light source 26 may be disposed on and/or within the hitch angle detection component 12 (e.g., the target assembly 14 ). The light source 26 may comprise any form of light source. For example fluorescent lighting, light emitting diodes (LEDs), organic LEDs (OLEDs), polymer LEDs (PLEDs), solid state lighting, or any other form of lighting configured to output the first emission may be utilized. As illustrated, the light source 26 is disposed on the trailer tongue 144 of the trailer 18 and is oriented to emit light upwardly and/or forwardly towards the vehicle 16…One or more light sources 26 may be disposed within the lighting system 10 and configured to emit light towards a target assembly 14 location.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the known technique of placing a plurality of light sources, including on the hitch, as taught by Salter into Ip by incorporating an additional projector on the hitch of Ip. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “One or more light sources 26 may be disposed within the lighting system 10 and configured to emit light towards a target assembly 14 location…It is contemplated that the lighting system 10 may have a wide range of target assembly 14 locations such that the lighting system 10 may be used for a plurality of functions. Exemplary functions include usage as a target, ambient lighting, and/or a lamp that provides illumination to an area proximate the trailer hitch connector 34 .” (Salter: 0040). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ip with Salter to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Ip in view of Salter discloses: The relative angle detection device for the combination vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the image analysis device detects a hitch angle of the combination vehicle based on a size of the marker light that is captured in a vehicle width direction of the towing vehicle (Ip: Figure 5; 0035-0039: “As shown in FIG. 5, the projector 50 includes a light source 52 and a projector screen 54 for generating a projection 56 on the front surface 46 of the trailer 40 . In the illustrated example, the projector screen 54 includes multiple elongated light slits 57 formed by elongated dividers 59 that allow light from the light source 52 to pass through the projector screen 54 and onto the front surface 46 of the trailer 40 . The elongated slits 57 are straight on the projector screen 54 . However, a corresponding light-slit projection 57 - 1 can become distorted, such as expanding, contracted, or sloped, on the projection 56 on the front surface 46 of the trailer 40.”; Wherein distortions in the width direction are analyzed during image analysis.).
Regarding claim 13, Ip in view of Salter discloses: The relative angle detection device for the combination vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the radiation device irradiates the towed vehicle at such a position and in such a range that part of the marker light to be captured by the imaging device disappears according to a magnitude of a hitch angle of the combination vehicle (Ip: Figure 5; 0033: “FIGS. 2 and 3 illustrate the trailer 40 in alignment with the vehicle 20…As shown in FIG. 3, the tongue 48 and the trailer 40 rotate about the pivot point P. The pivot point P corresponds to a central vertical axis through the tow ball 26 . As the trailer 40 pivots about the pivot point P, an angle A is generated between the central longitudinal axis V of the vehicle 20 and the central longitudinal axis T of the trailer 40 as shown in FIG. 4. If the angle A becomes too large, the trailer 40 may contact a rear portion of the vehicle 20 or the trailer 40 may no longer move in the desired direction.”;
0035: “As shown in FIG. 5, the projector 50 includes a light source 52 and a projector screen 54 for generating a projection 56 on the front surface 46 of the trailer 40. In the illustrated example, the projector screen 54 includes multiple elongated light slits 57 formed by elongated dividers 59 that allow light from the light source 52 to pass through the projector screen 54 and onto the front surface 46 of the trailer 40 . The elongated slits 57 are straight on the projector screen 54 . However, a corresponding light-slit projection 57 - 1 can become distorted, such as expanding, contracted, or sloped, on the projection 56 on the front surface 46 of the trailer 40 .”; Wherein since the angle’s maximum depends on the trailer’s width, once angle A becomes “too large”, a portion of the projector on the vehicle’s light will no longer be present on the trailer due to distortion.).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ip in view of Salter, and further in view of Haug (DE102004022113A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ip in view of Salter discloses: The relative angle detection device for the combination vehicle according to claim 9.
Ip in view of Salter does not disclose expressly: wherein the image analysis device detects a pitch angle of the towed vehicle with respect to the towing vehicle based on a size of the marker light that is captured in an up-down direction of the towing vehicle.
Haug discloses: wherein the image analysis device detects a pitch angle of the towed vehicle with respect to the towing vehicle based on a size of the marker light that is captured in an up-down direction of the towing vehicle (Haug: 0052: “To measure the yaw angle, the illumination plane of the line projector is ideally chosen to be horizontal or contains a horizontal component. To measure the pitch angle, a second line projector is chosen whose measuring plane is perpendicular…The light line projectors for pitch and roll angles can be combined, e.g. For example, by using a cross projector.”;
0057: “In Fig. 5, the vertically drawn light section line 42 is evaluated to determine the pitch angle, provided that the camera and the projector are not arranged vertically above each other. Varying the pitch angle results in the dashed section line for evaluation and further processing according to the invention as described above”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the algorithms for measuring rolling and pitch taught by Haug into the relative angle detection device disclosed by Ip in view of Salter. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “By measuring the roll angle, lateral tilting movements can be detected, and by determining the pitch angle, pitching movements of the trailer that lead to driving instability can be detected” (0019). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ip in view of Salter with Haug to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Ip in view of Salter discloses: The relative angle detection device for the combination vehicle according to claim 9.
Ip in view of Salter does not disclose expressly: wherein the image analysis device detects a roll angle of the towed vehicle with respect to the towing vehicle based on a tilt of the marker light that is captured.
Haug discloses: wherein the image analysis device detects a roll angle of the towed vehicle with respect to the towing vehicle based on a tilt of the marker light that is captured (Haug: 0019: “A further advantageous embodiment of the present invention is the acquisition of angular information, which contains information about the instantaneous roll and/or pitch angle between the transverse and/or vertical axes of the towing vehicle and trailer. By measuring the roll angle, lateral tilting movements can be detected”;
0054: “roll angle measurement based on light section analysis is possible if horizontal surfaces on the trailer can be illuminated from the towing vehicle using a line projector.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the algorithms for measuring rolling and pitch taught by Haug into the relative angle detection device disclosed by Ip in view of Salter. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been “By measuring the roll angle, lateral tilting movements can be detected, and by determining the pitch angle, pitching movements of the trailer that lead to driving instability can be detected” (0019). Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ip in view of Salter with Haug to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights