DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
YThe present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action for application Serial No. 18/867,884 filed on 11/21/2024. Claims 1-11 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: "A reverse control device for a combination vehicle that is mounted on a towing vehicle of the combination vehicle in which a towed vehicle is connected to the towing vehicle including a steering device, and that controls the towing vehicle during autonomous reverse driving for reversing the combination vehicle by autonomous driving, wherein the reverse control device starts the autonomous reverse driving when all of start conditions are satisfied, the start conditions including that a speed of the towing vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined value and that steering torque of the towing vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined value."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Unclear delimitation/scope of claim limitations: The formatting and punctuation delimiting the language of the claims are inconsistent and confusing such that the scope and functions of the claim limitations and their relationships to each other and the claim as a whole are not clearly defined, rendering the language of the claims vague and indefinite, such that persons of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of each individual limitation and the corresponding claim. Namely, it is unclear what portion of the claim language is intended to serve as preamble (and potentially intended use), and what portion of the claim language is intended to function as the body of the claim. Moreover, it is unclear whether the claim is intended to have one or a plurality of limitations, and if so, it is further unclear how to distinguish between limitations.
Generally Unclear: The expression “and that controls the towing vehicle during autonomous reverse driving for reversing” as used in the claim is vague and indefinite and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical features to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition and scope of the subject-matter of said claim unclear. Namely, it is unclear it is unclear what claim element “controls the towing vehicle” (e.g. the steering device? Combination vehicle? Towing vehicle? the invention as a whole?)
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“A reverse control device for a combination vehicle …”
“that controls the towing vehicle during autonomous reverse driving for reversing the combination vehicle by autonomous driving”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A reverse control device [for a combination vehicle that is mounted on a towing vehicle of the combination vehicle in which a towed vehicle is connected to the towing vehicle including a steering device, wherein the towing vehicle is controlled during autonomous reverse driving [for reversing the combination vehicle by autonomous driving]], wherein:
the reverse control device starts the autonomous reverse driving when all of start conditions are satisfied, the start conditions including that a speed of the towing vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined value and that steering torque of the towing vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined value."
Claims 2-11 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 2 recites: "The reverse control device for the combination vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the start conditions include that an operator has performed an instruction operation to instruct to start the autonomous reverse driving while the speed of the towing vehicle is equal to or less than the predetermined value and the steering torque of the towing vehicle is equal to or less than the predetermined value."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The reverse control device for the combination vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the start conditions include that an operator has performed an instruction operation [intended to instruct [intended to start the autonomous reverse driving while the speed of the towing vehicle is equal to or less than the predetermined value and the steering torque of the towing vehicle is equal to or less than the predetermined value]]."
Claims 3-5 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 3 recites: "The reverse control device for the combination vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the instruction operation is operating a start button for the autonomous reverse driving."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The reverse control device for the combination vehicle according to claim 2, wherein the instruction operation is operating a start button [intended for the autonomous reverse driving]."
Claim 5 recites: "The reverse control device for the combination vehicle according to claim 2, wherein in a case where the towed vehicle is not connected to the towing vehicle when the instruction operation is performed, the reverse control device reverses only the towing vehicle by the autonomous driving.”
This language is rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Negative Limitation Conflict: Claim 1 recites that “the towed vehicle is connected to the towing vehicle” (see cl. 1). However, the current claim (which depends from claim 1), is directed to a condition incompatible with claim 1, namely “wherein in a case where the towed vehicle is not connected to the towing vehicle”
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The reverse control device for the combination vehicle according to claim 2, wherein
Claim 10 recites: "The reverse control device for the combination vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the reverse control device is able to adjust a traveling speed according to an amount of depression of a brake pedal during the autonomous reverse driving for moving the combination vehicle toward a target position, and has a function to stop the autonomous reverse driving when the amount of depression of the brake pedal becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The reverse control device for the combination vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the reverse control device is able to adjust a traveling speed according to an amount of depression of a brake pedal during the autonomous reverse driving [intended for moving the combination vehicle toward a target position], and has a function [intended to stop the autonomous reverse driving when the amount of depression of the brake pedal becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value].”
Claim 11 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lavoie (US 2016/0280267 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lavoie discloses a reverse control device [for a combination vehicle that is mounted on a towing vehicle of the combination vehicle in which a towed vehicle is connected to the towing vehicle including a steering device, wherein the towing vehicle is controlled during autonomous reverse driving [for reversing the combination vehicle by autonomous driving]] (e.g. at least trailer backup assist system 10, controller 28, see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 3-5, 29, Fig. 1-3, and related text, controlling automatic steering of a combination trailer 12 and vehicle 14 when guiding the trailer 12 and vehicle 14 along a backing path), wherein:
the reverse control device starts the autonomous reverse driving when all of start conditions are satisfied (see e.g. at least ¶ 98, Fig. 14, and related text), the start conditions including that a speed of the towing vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined value and that steering torque of the towing vehicle is equal to or less than a predetermined value (id., wherein to start the autonomous reverse driving, “the vehicle speed must be below a threshold speed” and “the steering column torque must be below a threshold torque”).
Regarding claim 2, Lavoie discloses that the start conditions include that an operator has performed an instruction operation [intended to instruct [intended to start the autonomous reverse driving while the speed of the towing vehicle is equal to or less than the predetermined value and the steering torque of the towing vehicle is equal to or less than the predetermined value]] (see e.g. at least ¶ 85, 98, Fig. 10, 14, and related text, wherein to start the autonomous reverse driving, the vehicle speed must be below a threshold speed, and the driver makes a selection on the display 82 of the vehicle HMI 80, to activate the reverse control device)
Regarding claim 3, Lavoie discloses that the instruction operation is operating a start button [intended for the autonomous reverse driving] (see e.g. at least ¶ 41, 81, 85, Fig. 2, 8, 10, and related text).
Regarding claim 4, Lavoie discloses that the instruction operation is operating an accelerator pedal of the towing vehicle (see e.g. at least ¶ 29, 76, Fig. 1-3, 6, and related text).
Regarding claim 5, Lavoie discloses that the reverse control device reverses the towing vehicle by the autonomous driving (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 3-5, 29, Fig. 1-3, and related text).
Regarding claim 6, Lavoie discloses that the start conditions include that no obstacle that hinders reversing of the combination vehicle is found in an image from a camera that captures surroundings of the combination vehicle (see e.g. at least ¶ 32, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 7, Lavoie discloses that the start conditions include that a hitch angle between the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle is being correctly detected by a hitch angle sensor (e.g. at least hitch angle sensor 44, see e.g. at least ¶ 29, 85, 88-91, Fig. 4, 10-12, and related text).
Regarding claim 8, Lavoie discloses that the reverse control device determines whether the hitch angle is being correctly detected by the hitch angle sensor, based on an image from a camera that captures surroundings of the combination vehicle (e.g. at least camera 46, see e.g. at least ¶ 29, 32, 85, 88-91, Fig. 4, 10-12, and related text).
Regarding claim 9, Lavoie discloses that the reverse control device stops the autonomous reverse driving when a hitch angle between the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value (see e.g. at least ¶ 29, 85, 88-91, Fig. 4, 10-12, and related text).
Regarding claim 10, Lavoie discloses that the reverse control device is able to adjust a traveling speed according to an amount of depression of a brake pedal during the autonomous reverse driving [intended for moving the combination vehicle toward a target position], and has a function [intended to stop the autonomous reverse driving when the amount of depression of the brake pedal becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value] (see e.g. at least ¶ 29, Fig. 1-3, and related text).
Regarding claim 11, Lavoie discloses that when the combination vehicle has reached near the target position, the reverse control device sets the predetermined value of the amount of depression to a value greater than before the combination vehicle reached near the target position (see e.g. at least ¶ 29, 38, Fig. 1-3, and related text).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights