DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous claim objections, the previous claim objections are withdrawn in light of the present claim amendments.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicants argue that this interpretation is respectfully traversed. Applicants argue that the subject claim elements, as appropriately interpreted by one or ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of the specification as filed, would not be necessarily interpreted as means plus function language. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2181 recites that examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation if it meets the following 3-prong analysis: (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. MPEP 2181 also recites that the following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The present claims recite the generic placeholder of the unit and functional language of issuing a warning signal. Accordingly, the previous 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretation is maintained.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections, the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in light of the present claim amendments.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejections, Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicants argue that claim 13 has been amended to recite by means of a control unit that performs the steps of. MPEP 2161.05(a) recites that “Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient.” and MPEP 2106.05(f) recites “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.” The recitation of the means of a control unit that performs the steps is interpreted, under broadest reasonable interpretation, as a generic computer. Further, the means of a control unit is recited in the preamble. Accordingly, the previous 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments, pages 11-13, have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding claims 1-12, 20. Applicant’s arguments, pages 11-13, have been fully considered and are not persuasive regarding claims 13-19. Claim 13 does not require a control unit mounted to said rear end portion of said trailer as argued on at least pages 11 and 12 of the remarks. Applicant’s arguments regarding the mounting of the control unit and sensor rely on language recited in preamble recitations in claim 13. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitations are not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Further, Applicant’s arguments regarding that the forward looking radar module of Mills is not even a maneuvering guidance system, rather it is a system that monitors a normal operation, not a maneuver, by the vehicle and at most initiates a maneuver autonomously instead of merely guiding a maneuver carried out by the driver. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant specification page 1 describes that maneuvering guidance system is typically active when driving in reverse or while rounding a corner and the problem regarding reporting damage to the maneuvering assistant sensor or the vehicle with an increased integrity. Further, the instant specification on page 8 recites that the manoeuvring assistant sensor is chosen from a group comprising: an infrared sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an image sensor, particularly a camera, a laser and a radar, and particularly comprises an ultrasonic sensor. Mills discloses that the radar systems are common for vehicle system such as adaptive cruise control, forward collision warning, and pre-crash braking and that the radar must be properly aligned to the vehicle’s horizontal thrust direction and must be aligned parallel with the road surface (see at least Mills [0002]). Further, Greenwood teaches rear portion of a trailer (see at least [0070]: imaging device 16 may be mounted to the rear of the trailer 14 (as shown in FIG. 1), [0071]: control unit 11, configured to receive an input from an accelerometer 24 associated with the imaging device 16, herein referred to as an “imaging accelerometer”, determines the difference in alignment between the imaging device 16 and the vehicle 10, based on accelerometer data from the imaging accelerometer 24, [0075]: a tow vehicle 12 and trailer 14, [0114]: tow vehicle…a car, SUV, MPV, truck or tractor and the trailer 114…a caravan, horse box, boat trailer, semi-trailer). As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mills by incorporating the teachings of Greenwood with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide improved maneuvering for a trailer and mitigate variation in guidance during a maneuver (see at least Greenwood [0002]-[0004]). The combination would yield predictable results. Accordingly, the previous 35 USC 103 rejection is withdrawn regarding claims 1-12, 20 and is maintained for claims 13-19.
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 also 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: a control unit issues a warning signal… in claims 1-12.
Also, MPEP 2181 recites that a statement of function appearing only in the claim preamble is generally insufficient to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). O.I. Corp., 115 F.3d at 1583, 42 USPQ2d at 1782 ("[A] statement in a preamble of a result that necessarily follows from performing a series of steps does not convert each of those steps into step- plus-function clauses. The steps of ‘passing’ are not individually associated in the claims with functions performed by the steps of passing.").
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 § 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(s) 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See MPEP 2106.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim(s) 13 is/are directed to a method. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim(s) 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claims for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 13 recites:
determining an initial value of at least one of a pitch, roll and yaw of said maneuvering assistant sensor;
determining an actual value of said at least one of said pitch, roll and yaw of said maneuvering assistant sensor;
comparing said actual value with the corresponding initial value; and
issuing a warning signal when a difference between said actual value and said initial value exceeds a predetermined threshold value.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation(s) in the context of this claim may encompass a person observing identifying a damaged or tampered part including determining a first position such as a baseline/correct position of a part, determining a second position such as a damaged/tampered position of the part, and comparing the first position and the second position, identifying the part has been damaged or tampered with in light of a determined difference between the first position and the second position.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract idea):
Claim 13 recites:
determining an initial value of at least one of a pitch, roll and yaw of said maneuvering assistant sensor;
determining an actual value of said at least one of said pitch, roll and yaw of said maneuvering assistant sensor;
comparing said actual value with the corresponding initial value; and
issuing a warning signal when a difference between said actual value and said initial value exceeds a predetermined threshold value.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process and display a result. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. The additional limitation steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data, transmitting signals, storing data, outputting), and amounts to mere data gathering, storing, displaying a result that do not add a meaningful limitation to the process (MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754), which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Accordingly additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP 2106, representative independent claim does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations do not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 14-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. The additional limitations collecting data with sensors are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of an insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Moreover, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, dependent claims 14-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim.
Therefore, claim(s) 13-19 is/are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 13-17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130154870 (“Mills”) in view of US 20210042961 (“Greenwood”).
As per claim(s) 13, Mills discloses a method for guarding a condition of at least one maneuvering assistant sensor of a maneuvering guidance system comprising at least one maneuvering assistant sensor mounted to an exposed portion of a vehicle, said method comprising:
determining an initial value of at least one of a pitch, roll and yaw of said maneuvering assistant sensor (see at least [0036]: tilting/raising (jacking up) an end or side of vehicle a fixed known amount, using the internal x, y, z axis measurement to determine the module's azimuth (accelerometer yaw) alignment; using gravity accelerometer data as a reference vector (Z direction) and tilting the vehicle by lifting the front of the vehicle up a fixed height (h) above its resting position, [0037]: By continuously monitoring the internal accelerometer 104, and comparing results to the low-g 3-axis data available on a data bus from a tilt sensor 117 on the vehicle floor, inclination alignment of the radar 102 can be deduced…floor mounted tilt sensor provides a reference for the tilt of the vehicle, so that the tilt of the radar 102 can be calculated in comparison);
determining an actual value of said at least one of said pitch, roll and yaw of said maneuvering assistant sensor (see at least [0008] By utilizing an internal 3 axis low-g accelerometer, it is possible to allow the radar module to self diagnose its orientation and provide correcting information to an operator to adjust the radar's position, [0037]: By continuously monitoring the internal accelerometer 104, and comparing results to the low-g 3-axis data available on a data bus from a tilt sensor 117 on the vehicle floor, inclination alignment of the radar 102 can be deduced…floor mounted tilt sensor provides a reference for the tilt of the vehicle, so that the tilt of the radar 102 can be calculated in comparison);
comparing said actual value with the corresponding initial value (see at least [0037]: By continuously monitoring the internal accelerometer 104, and comparing results to the low-g 3-axis data available on a data bus from a tilt sensor 117 on the vehicle floor, inclination alignment of the radar 102 can be deduced. The floor mounted tilt sensor provides a reference for the tilt of the vehicle, so that the tilt of the radar 102 can be calculated in comparison…controller 108 averages the tilt sensor output and the accelerometer output and determines a difference between the output averages, and reports when the differences change more than a predetermined amount); and
issuing a warning signal when a difference between said actual value and said initial value exceeds a predetermined threshold value (see at least [0028]: controller 108 could be configured to generate audible or visual warnings, or alarms upon such radar deviations or deactivations, [0033]: radar beam 122 deviating beyond the upper beam limit 118 and the lower beam limit 120, respectively, are deemed insecure and inappropriate for effective vehicular operation during an adaptive cruise control mode. Such conditions upon being sensed through the accelerometer 104, signals the controller 108 through the output 105 to report the radar tilt, [0037]: By continuously monitoring the internal accelerometer 104, and comparing results to the low-g 3-axis data available on a data bus from a tilt sensor 117 on the vehicle floor, inclination alignment of the radar 102 can be deduced. The floor mounted tilt sensor provides a reference for the tilt of the vehicle, so that the tilt of the radar 102 can be calculated in comparison…controller 108 averages the tilt sensor output and the accelerometer output and determines a difference between the output averages, and reports when the differences change more than a predetermined amount).
Mills does not explicitly disclose rear portion of a trailer.
However, Greenwood teaches rear portion of a trailer (see at least [0070]: imaging device 16 may be mounted to the rear of the trailer 14 (as shown in FIG. 1), [0071]: control unit 11, configured to receive an input from an accelerometer 24 associated with the imaging device 16, herein referred to as an “imaging accelerometer”, determines the difference in alignment between the imaging device 16 and the vehicle 10, based on accelerometer data from the imaging accelerometer 24, [0075]: a tow vehicle 12 and trailer 14, [0114]: tow vehicle…a car, SUV, MPV, truck or tractor and the trailer 114…a caravan, horse box, boat trailer, semi-trailer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mills by incorporating the teachings of Greenwood with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide improved maneuvering for a trailer and mitigate variation in guidance during a maneuver (see at least Greenwood [0002]-[0004]).
As per claim(s) 14, Mills discloses wherein said actual value is determined periodically to provide periodic values that are stored in an electronic memory (see at least [0026]: built-in memory device 106, [0027]: alignment information can be continuously fed, [0037]: continuously monitoring…computation would be performed many times through the controller 108 on a continuous basis, and a long-term average would be kept).
As per claim(s) 15, Mills discloses wherein said initial value and said actual value are determined by means of a surveillance sensor moving in conjunction with said maneuvering assistant sensor (see at least [0022]: radar module 101 includes a radar 102, a accelerometer 104 attached to the radar module 101, an output from the accelerometer 104, configured as an accelerometer output 105, a memory device 106, and a controller 108, [0037]: By continuously monitoring the internal accelerometer 104, and comparing results to the low-g 3-axis data available on a data bus from a tilt sensor 117 on the vehicle floor, inclination alignment of the radar 102 can be deduced).
As per claim(s) 16, Mills discloses wherein said surveillance sensor is elected from a group, comprising an accelerometer, a magnetometer and a gyroscope (see at least [0037]: By continuously monitoring the internal accelerometer 104, and comparing results to the low-g 3-axis data available on a data bus from a tilt sensor 117 on the vehicle floor, inclination alignment of the radar 102 can be deduced), and inthat and
wherein a pitch and/or roll of the maneuvering assistant sensor is determined by determining a pitch angle and/or roll angle respectively of said surveillance sensor with respect to gravity (see at least [0019] pitch--a measure of the degree to which something is angularly displaced up or down relative to a horizontal plane, [0020] yaw--a measure of the degree to which something is angularly displaced to the left or right relative to a vertical plane, [0027]: controller 108 connected to the accelerometer output 105, is configured to determine the position of the radar 102 relative to a gravity vector, [0037]: By continuously monitoring the internal accelerometer 104, and comparing results to the low-g 3-axis data available on a data bus from a tilt sensor 117 on the vehicle floor, inclination alignment of the radar 102 can be deduced. The floor mounted tilt sensor provides a reference for the tilt of the vehicle, so that the tilt of the radar 102 can be calculated in comparison).
As per claim(s) 17, Mills discloses wherein a yaw angle of the maneuvering assistant sensor is determined by determining a yaw angle of said surveillance sensor with regards to an acceleration vector or a deceleration vector of said vehicle (see at least [0020]: yaw--a measure of the degree to which something is angularly displaced to the left or right relative to a vertical plane, [0036]: acceleration yaw…acceleration/deceleration, [0037]: By continuously monitoring the internal accelerometer 104, and comparing results to the low-g 3-axis data available on a data bus from a tilt sensor 117 on the vehicle floor, inclination alignment of the radar 102 can be deduced. The floor mounted tilt sensor provides a reference for the tilt of the vehicle, so that the tilt of the radar 102 can be calculated in comparison…on-going monitoring of the internal multi-axis sensor would also decode azimuth (accelerometer yaw) misalignment versus the thrust axis of the vehicle…controller 108 averages the tilt sensor output and the accelerometer output and determines a difference between the output averages, and reports when the differences change more than a predetermined amount).
Mills does not explicitly disclose said trailer.
However, Greenwood teaches said trailer (see at least [0070]: imaging device 16 may be mounted to the rear of the trailer 14 (as shown in FIG. 1), [0071]: control unit 11, configured to receive an input from an accelerometer 24 associated with the imaging device 16, herein referred to as an “imaging accelerometer”, determines the difference in alignment between the imaging device 16 and the vehicle 10, based on accelerometer data from the imaging accelerometer 24, [0075]: a tow vehicle 12 and trailer 14, [0114]: tow vehicle…a car, SUV, MPV, truck or tractor and the trailer 114…a caravan, horse box, boat trailer, semi-trailer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mills by incorporating the teachings of Greenwood with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide improved maneuvering for a trailer and mitigate variation in guidance during a maneuver (see at last Greenwood [0002]-[0004]).
As per claim(s) 19, Mills discloses wherein a reference sensor is provide, the reference sensor being similar to said surveillance sensor and spatially separated from said surveillance sensor (see at least [0009]: radar module includes a radar, an accelerometer; and an output from the accelerometer, and a controller that averages the tilt sensor output and the accelerometer output and determines a difference between the output averages, the controller reporting when the differences changes more than a predetermined amount, [0037]: By continuously monitoring the internal accelerometer 104, and comparing results to the low-g 3-axis data available on a data bus from a tilt sensor 117 on the vehicle floor, inclination alignment of the radar 102 can be deduced), and
wherein an output signal by said surveillance sensor is compared to an output signal by said reference sensor (see at least [0009]: radar module includes a radar, an accelerometer; and an output from the accelerometer, and a controller that averages the tilt sensor output and the accelerometer output and determines a difference between the output averages, the controller reporting when the differences changes more than a predetermined amount, [0037]: By continuously monitoring the internal accelerometer 104, and comparing results to the low-g 3-axis data available on a data bus from a tilt sensor 117 on the vehicle floor, inclination alignment of the radar 102 can be deduced), and
wherein said warning signal is issued when said output signals deviate from one another more than a predetermined threshold value (see at least [0009]: radar module includes a radar, an accelerometer; and an output from the accelerometer, and a controller that averages the tilt sensor output and the accelerometer output and determines a difference between the output averages, the controller reporting when the differences changes more than a predetermined amount, [0037]: By continuously monitoring the internal accelerometer 104, and comparing results to the low-g 3-axis data available on a data bus from a tilt sensor 117 on the vehicle floor, inclination alignment of the radar 102 can be deduced).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills in view of Greenwood, and further in view of US 20190235504 (“Carter”).
As per claim(s) 18, wherein said maneuvering guidance system comprises at least maneuvering assistant sensor mounted to said vehicle (see at least [0009]: radar module includes a radar),
said maneuvering assistant sensor having a further surveillance sensor moving in conjunction therewith (see at least [0009]: radar module includes a radar, an accelerometer; and an output from the accelerometer, and a controller that averages the tilt sensor output and the accelerometer output and determines a difference between the output averages, the controller reporting when the differences changes more than a predetermined amount, [0037]),
wherein output signals of said first and further surveillance sensors are compared (see at least [0009]: radar module includes a radar, an accelerometer; and an output from the accelerometer, and a controller that averages the tilt sensor output and the accelerometer output and determines a difference between the output averages, the controller reporting when the differences changes more than a predetermined amount, [0037]),
wherein said warning signal is issued when said output signals deviate from one another more than a predetermined threshold value (see at least [0009]: radar module includes a radar, an accelerometer; and an output from the accelerometer, and a controller that averages the tilt sensor output and the accelerometer output and determines a difference between the output averages, the controller reporting when the differences changes more than a predetermined amount, [0037]).
Mills does not explicitly disclose a further maneuvering assistant sensor, wherein said maneuvering guidance system comprises at least two maneuvering assistant sensors mounted to said rear end portion of the trailer.
However, Carter teaches further maneuvering assistant sensor, wherein said maneuvering guidance system comprises at least one further maneuvering assistant sensor mounted to said exposed rear portion of said trailer (see at least [0036]: intermediate mounting component 246 includes a pair of radar sensors 252, 254 mounted to opposing ends of the intermediate mounting component 246 to provide radar data coverage over the entire region 118 shown in FIG. 1…one or more cameras 256 and/or one or more LIDAR sensors 258 (e.g., an LD LIDAR sensor) to provide redundant or supplementary sensor data corresponding to region 118 (e.g., for object classification and tracking)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Mills by incorporating the teachings of Carter with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide data coverage over an entire region and to enable safer vehicle control (see at least Carter [0026]). Further, the two maneuvering assistant sensors appear to be a duplication of parts and do not appear to produce a new and unexpected results. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s arguments, pages 11-13, have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding claims 1-12, 20. The prior art taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to disclose, suggest, teach, or render obvious the invention as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12222439 (see at least abstract: axial misalignment acquisition section acquires an axial misalignment amount of an actual mounting direction representing the actual orientation of the radar device with respect to a reference mounting direction of the radar device, claim 2: notification process);
US 11650321 (see at least claim 6: detecting unit notifies an occupant of the vehicle using a notification apparatus that is mounted to the vehicle in response to the determined tilt of the LiDAR apparatus exceeding a first threshold range that is prescribed in advance);
US 20210183179 (see at least abstract: installation pose of the IMU is indicative of an installation pose of the at least one sensor. The IMU is configured to obtain, in accordance with a schedule, one or more measurements associated with its state, which can be used to enable detecting tampering of the rigid integral structure).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
Angelina Shudy
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights