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 Status
Claims 1-12 are pending
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12 is drawn to a “computer program” per se, therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention.
A claim directed to a computer program itself is non-statutory because it is not:
A process occurring as a result of executing the program, or
A machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program, or
A manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the program in a manner which enable the program to act as a computer component and realize its functionality, or
A composition of matter.
See MPEP § 2106.01. Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention, which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ISHII (US Pub. 2010/0171828).
Regarding claims 1,
Ishii teaches a control device, corresponding method and program for causing a computer to perform processes, the device (2 in fig. 19) for a combination vehicle including a tractor (11) and a trailer (12) that is towed by the tractor, the control device being configured to perform a state quantity acquisition process, a predicted trajectory information calculation process, and a display process, wherein:
the state quantity acquisition process is a process of acquiring a state quantity of the combination vehicle ([0083]-[0084] teaches acquiring a plurality of shot images shot at different time points (step S11) wherein it is assumed that time point t1 and time point t2 occur in this order and that, between time points t1 and t2, the articulated vehicle 10 moves. And further, after the acquisition of the shot images at time points t1 and t2, at step S12, the optical flow between time points t1 and t2 is determined. [0094] teaches that the optical flow is a set of a plurality of movement vectors, and the optical flow determined at step S12 includes the movement vectors. The movement of a characteristic point on the bird's-eye view coordinate system results from the movement of the trailer 12 in the real space; in addition, the plane on which the bird's-eye view coordinate system is defined is parallel to the road surface; thus a vector having the opposite direction to the movement vectors represents information on the movement of the trailer 12 between time points t1 and t2);
the predicted trajectory information calculation process is a process of calculating predicted trajectory information of the trailer according to the state quantity (the Abstract teaches that a predicted movement trajectory of the trailer is obtained from both the connection angle and the movement information on the tractor; [0104] teaches that once the rudder angle of the tractor 11 and the coupling angle at a given time point are determined, it is possible to predict the movement course of the trailer 12 i.e., "predicted trajectory"); and
the display process is a process of displaying the predicted trajectory information by operating a display device ([0006] teaches a display image is generated by superimposing a sign based on the predicted movement course on an image based on the shot images; see 205 in fig. 19; [0053] teaches display device 3 comprising a liquid crystal display panel or the like. The image processor 2 and the display device 3 may be installed near the driver's seat inside the tractor 11.)
Regarding claim 9,
Ishii teaches that the display process includes a process of superimposing the predicted trajectory information on an image of an outside of the combination vehicle captured by a camera ([0112] teaches that the display image 120 is obtained by superimposing the vehicle guide lines 121 and 122 on the bird's-eye view image (corresponding to “an image of an outside of the combination vehicle”) based on the shot image.)
Regarding claim 10,
Ishii teaches that the display process includes a process of superimposing the predicted trajectory information on a bird's-eye view of an area around the combination vehicle ([0112] teaches that the display image 120 is obtained by superimposing the vehicle guide lines 121 and 122 on the bird's-eye view image based on the shot image.)
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) 2, 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHII (US Pub. 2010/0171828) in view of MATSUSHITA (US Pub. 2021/0206213).
Regarding claim 2,
Ishii teaches the control device of claim 1 but fails to expressly teach the further features recited in claim 2.
MATSUSHITA teaches that the combination vehicle includes an interface for a driver to specify a target virtual steering angle (fig. 5A, 5B) ;
the target virtual steering angle is a target value of a virtual steering angle ([0074] teaches that the amount of the steering differs depending on an angle at which the trailer angle γ is changed wherein the target trailer angle θt is calculated in accordance with a direction of a swipe by a passenger to a trailer model (towed vehicle model) M3, which is an input to the input portion 28 of the controller 11 via the touch screen 27 or the like);
the virtual steering angle is a variable indicating a direction of travel at a connection point between the tractor and the trailer ([0075] teaches that the trailer angle γ and the target trailer angle θt are variables of the trailer set relative to the current angle and used to control steering toward the target);
the control device is configured to perform a target virtual steering angle acquisition process and a steering process ([0074] teaches that the target trailer angle θt is calculated based on a driver’s swipe input via the touch screen, thereby disclosing a target angle acquisition process performed by the control device. It is further supported by paragraphs [0075] and [0076], which describe limiting and controlling steering based on the target trailer angle, thereby disclosing a steering process carried out by the control device);
the target virtual steering angle acquisition process is a process of acquiring the target virtual steering angle according to an input operation that is performed on the interface by the driver ([0085] teaches a touch operation detection portion 230 detects the direction of the trailer 3 to be moved based on the direction to which the touched position is moved by the swipe operation);
the predicted trajectory information calculation process is a process of, by using the virtual steering angle as an input, calculating a predicted trajectory of the trailer in a case of controlling an actual virtual steering angle to as close as possible to the target virtual steering angle within a range in which a magnitude of a steered angle of the tractor is equal to or less than an upper limit value ([0088] teaches that the steering allowable range display model Mas described above is displayed as a guide to prevent the angle (target trailer angle γ) at which the trailer model M3 and the trailer model position auxiliary line M6 rotate by the swipe operation from exceeding the jackknife angle θjk);
the display process is a process of displaying the predicted trajectory ([0092] teaches that the calculated predicted movement trajectory is displayed on the camera image display portion 121 as the movement direction display model M4. For example, as shown in FIGS. 5A to 5E, the predicted movement trajectory is displayed in a band shape); and
the steering process is a process of controlling the steered angle of the tractor so as to control the virtual steering angle toward the target virtual steering angle ([0080] teaches that the controller 11 shall send to the auto-steering system 22 the steerable area restriction signal for the automatic steering limited within the narrowed limited area 63 by communication with the auto-steering system 22 of the towing vehicle 1).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the system of Ishii per the further teachings of Matsushita to use a target virtual steering angle at the tractor–trailer connection point as recited for the purpose of providing a higher-level of articulation-based control that more directly controls trailer motion, thereby improving stability and reducing jackknife risk.
Regarding claim 3,
Matsushita teaches that the control device is configured to perform a target trajectory calculation process ([0092] The movement direction model display processing portion 250 calculates a predicted movement trajectory of the trailer 3);
the target trajectory calculation process is a process of calculating a target trajectory that is a trajectory of the trailer when the target virtual steering angle is used as an input and the virtual steering angle is set to the target virtual steering angle ([0093]The movement trajectory prediction portion 251 is configured to calculate the movement trajectory of the trailer 3 based on the rotation angles of the trailer model M3 d the trailer model position auxiliary line M6 and/or the swipe operation amount. Also, the movement trajectory prediction portion 251 is configured to obtain a steering angle δ for achieving the trailer angle γ by the swipe operation ); and
the display process includes a process of displaying the target trajectory in addition to the predicted trajectory ([0092] teaches that the calculated predicted movement trajectory is displayed on the camera image display portion 121 as the movement direction display model M4.)
Regarding claim 6,
Matsushita teaches that the control device is configured to perform a determination process; the determination process is a process of determining whether a reverse assist mode is selected; the reverse assist mode is a process of implementing a process of reversing the combination vehicle by the steering process; and the display process is configured to be performed in the reverse assist mode ([0095] teaches the process shown in FIG. 14 which starts when the operation for the backward movement is selected; [0048] teaches in FIGS. 5A to 5C, the camera image display portion 121 of the display screen 120 displays an image or a moving image of the rearward area from the trailer 3 captured by the camera 23B when the backward movement of the towing vehicle 1 is operated.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach or to suggest: the control device of claim 4 further wherein: the state quantity acquisition process includes a process of acquiring a hitch angle; the hitch angle is an angle between a front-rear direction of the tractor and a front-rear direction of the trailer; the predicted trajectory information calculation process includes a target steered angle calculation process, an upper limit guard process, and a displacement prediction process; the target steered angle calculation process includes a process of calculating a target steered angle that is a target value of the steered angle of the tractor, by using the target virtual steering angle and the hitch angle as inputs; the upper limit guard process is a process of setting a magnitude of the target steered angle to the upper limit value when the magnitude of the target steered angle is larger than the upper limit value; the displacement prediction process includes a process of predicting a displacement of the trailer using the target steered angle subjected to the upper limit guard process as an input; and the steering process includes a process of controlling the virtual steering angle toward the target virtual steering angle by controlling the steered angle toward the target steered angle.
The prior art fails to teach or to suggest: the control device of claim 5 further wherein: the control device is configured to perform a hitch angle prediction process; the hitch angle prediction process is a process of predicting a future value of the hitch angle using the target steered angle subjected to the upper limit guard process as an input; and the control device is configured to perform the following three processes a plurality of times: the target steered angle calculation process that uses the predicted hitch angle as an input; the hitch angle prediction process that uses the target steered angle subjected to the upper limit guard process as an input; and the displacement prediction process that uses the predicted hitch angle and the target steered angle subjected to the upper limit guard process as inputs.
The prior art fails to teach or to suggest: the control device of claim 7 further wherein: the display process is configured to be continued even when the combination vehicle switches from reversing to traveling forward in the reverse assist mode.
The prior art fails to teach or to suggest: the control device of claim 8 further wherein: the control device is configured to perform a cancellation process; and the cancellation process is a process of canceling the reverse assist mode when a forward traveling speed of the combination vehicle becomes equal to or higher than a threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONNE PENDLETON whose telephone number is (571)272-7497. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5pm.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/DIONNE PENDLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689