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 .
Priority
The current application claims foreign priority from the German application (DE102023131347.9). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024, 04/04/2025, and 10/20/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 8, 11-12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1 line 14, “generating of at least” should read “generating at least”
in claim 5 lines 3-4, “the weighting of the feature points” should read “weighting of the feature points”
in claim 5 line 4, “the weighting of the path elements” should read “weighting of the path elements”
in claim 8 line 5, “or a calculated quantity” should read “or that is a calculated quantity”
in claim 8 line 11, “at least one feature points” should read “at least one further feature point”
in claim 11 line 2, “the distributions of feature points” should read “the distribution of feature points”
in claim 12 line 5, “the monitor image” should read “a monitor image”
in claim 14 line 6, “the monitor image” should read “a monitor image”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that are 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) are:
“image capturing means” and “processing means” in claim 13
“display means” in claim 14
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure in the disclosure for “image capturing means” is at least one camera; the corresponding structure in the disclosure for “processing means” is at least one processor; and the corresponding structure in the disclosure for “display means” is a monitor (paragraph 0022).
If applicant does not intend to have 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 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 them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinlich (EP3321130A1) in view of Lang et al. (US 2017/0272664 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weinlich discloses a method for determining the position of a trailer end in a camera image (Weinlich paragraphs 0004-0005: “the position of a vertical edge of the pendant is first determined from at least two successive camera images…The vertical edge is a significant edge for the rear end of the trailer”) of a trailer extending rearward from a towing unit of a vehicle and being pivotable to the towing unit (Weinlich FIGs. 1 and 3, paragraph 0001: “a vehicle combination consisting of a vehicle and a trailer”), by processing camera images captured successively in time, comprising the steps of: capturing the camera images being successive in time (Weinlich paragraph 0004: “Evaluating at least two consecutive camera images”) by at least one image sensor of at least one image capturing means (Weinlich paragraph 0028: “The camera can be either a rear-facing camera to create a rear-view mirror replacement image or another suitable camera, such as a reversing camera”); determining a plurality of feature points in each camera image used for the method (Weinlich paragraph 0026: “the feature points of interest are detected”), based on at least one image parameter (Weinlich paragraph 0046: “an image function G(x) along the line Li is evaluated…i.e. the grey values along the line Li”), wherein a feature point corresponds to at least one pixel in the camera image (Weinlich FIG. 3, paragraph 0033: “The lower part shows movements of individual pixels as well as a corresponding image function G(x) and its derivative G'(x)”); determining at least one path element by using the plurality of feature points along a predetermined direction (Weinlich paragraph 0013: “the movement is primarily sought in the horizontal direction”) in relevant coordinates x and/or y and/or dx and/or dy (Weinlich paragraph 0020: “x/y position”) based on a determined positional shift in corresponding coordinates x and/or y and/or dx and/or dy between the plurality of feature points in at least one camera image and a corresponding plurality of feature points in at least one camera image successive in time (Weinlich paragraph 0027: “For each specific point of interest, a motion vector is now determined using an adapted procedure, which indicates from which position in the previous image a point has moved to the current point of interest, or to which position in the next image the current point of interest moves”); generating at least one path along the predetermined direction based on the path elements, the path describing the position of the trailer (Weinlich FIGs. 4-5: the motion vector BV is a function of the motion vectors BVi). Weinlich additionally discloses the motion vectors are used to locate the trailer edge (Weinlich paragraph 0006). However, Weinlich fails to explicitly disclose determining a position on the path as the trailer end. In the related art of visual system for commercial vehicles, Lang discloses determining a position on the path as the trailer end (Lang paragraphs 0066-0069: “A trajectory 10' of the kind shown in FIG. 5 may indicate an actual track/driving path of the trailer 12…the left lower corner 15 is a predefined point on the trailer 12…[that] runs along the trajectory 10' ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Weinlich to incorporate the teachings of Lang to assist a driver by superimposing a trajectory of the vehicle without unnecessarily confusing the driver (Lang paragraphs 0010, 0015).
Regarding claim 3, Weinlich, modified by Lang, discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising the steps: weighting the feature points (Weinlich paragraphs 0046-0047: “a derivative G'(x) is determined…local extrema G(KP1), G(KP1-1) are determined from G'(Li(x))”); and determining the path elements from the weighted feature points (Weinlich paragraph 0047: “These correspond to the edge points KPi”).
Regarding claim 4, Weinlich, modified by Lang, discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising the steps: weighting the path elements (Weinlich paragraph 0006: “The reliability measure is used to weight the vector more or less heavily”); and generating the at least one path based on the weighted path elements (Weinlich FIG. 5: the motion vector BV is a function of the reliability measures BWi and the motion vectors BVi).
Regarding claim 5, Weinlich, modified by Lang, discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of acquiring information about the relative positional relationship between the trailer and the towing unit of the vehicle (Weinlich paragraph 0043: “a line Li adapted, for example, to a new configuration of vehicle and trailer, is stored in memory 202 to be available in the future”), wherein the determining of the path elements, weighting of the feature points and/or weighting of the path elements is based on the acquired information about the relative positional relationship between the trailer and the towing unit of the vehicle (Weinlich paragraph 0033: “a curved line L2…Its curvature is adapted to the properties of the camera 111 and/or the geometry/nature of the trailer 105”).
Regarding claim 6, Weinlich, modified by Lang, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one path is generated as a mathematical function specified by the path elements or weighted path elements (Weinlich paragraph 0052: “the initialization is carried out with a vector estimate instead of with a zero vector in the first iteration, which is given by previous motion vectors or by a vehicle model…a 2x2 system of equations is solved to update the calculated motion vector”).
Regarding claim 7, Weinlich, modified by Lang, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one image parameter is at least one of brightness value, color value (Weinlich paragraph 0009: “the color difference of neighboring pixels, or other suitable evaluations of image functions are used as derivatives”), grey tone (Weinlich paragraph 0009: “The image function refers to the grayscale values of an image”), contrast value and/or a calculated quantity from one of these values and/or their gradients of a pixel and/or pixel cluster in a camera image.
Regarding claim 8, Weinlich, modified by Lang, discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising setting, as a starting point, an initialization point (IP), that is located on the generated path (Weinlich FIG. 11: KP1, KP2, KP3 on L1(t)), or that is at least one path element of the at least one path, or that is at least a further feature point that does not exceed a predetermined distance from the at least one path, or that is a calculated quantity of the path elements or the further feature points; and searching for at least a further feature point starting from the starting point and along the path, that does not exceed a predetermined distance from the at least one path (Weinlich FIG. 11, paragraph 0055: “the detection of edge points KP1, KP2, KP3 in the second image, which takes place here in addition to that in the current image, is further restricted to the horizontal line L1(t+1) shifted by the vector estimate and optionally its neighborhood”); and setting a coordinate of the at least one further identified feature point and/or a calculated quantity of the at least one further feature point (Weinlich FIG. 11: KP1, KP2, KP3 on L1(t+1)) as the position (EP) of the trailer end (Lang paragraphs 0066-0069: “the left lower corner 15 is a predefined point on the trailer 12…[that] runs along the trajectory 10' ”).
Regarding claim 9, Weinlich, modified by Lang, discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising the steps of acquiring at least one vehicle feature; and correcting the determined position of the trailer end based on the acquired at least one vehicle feature (Weinlich paragraph 0043: “different predefined lines are provided for different trailer lengths, for different vehicle lengths, for combinations with multiple trailers, for trailers with high or low superstructures, and similar situations”).
Regarding claim 12, Weinlich, modified by Lang, discloses the method according to claim 1, comprising tracking the determined position of the trailer end in camera images which are successive in time (Weinlich paragraph 0020: “For tracking, automatic detection of the current x/y position of the vertical trailing edge of the trailer in the image is proposed”), depending on the position of the trailer with respect to the image sensor acquiring the camera images (Weinlich paragraph 0006: “a curved line is also a sensible option, for example to adapt to the vehicle-trailer configuration, camera properties, distortion or mounting angle of the camera, or similar factors”) such that the trailer end appears at a preferred position in a monitor image of at least one display means of a camera-based system (Weinlich FIG. 4, paragraph 0004: “the image section is adjusted according to the position of the vertical edge…so that the edge is depicted approximately in the third of the monitor facing the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 13, it is the corresponding system configured to execute the method claimed in claim 1. Therefore, Weinlich, modified by Lang, discloses the limitations of claim 13 as it does the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, it is the corresponding system configured to execute the method claimed in claim 12. Therefore, Weinlich, modified by Lang, discloses the limitations of claim 14 as it does the limitations of claim 12.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinlich and Lang in view of Engedal et al. (US 2014/0107971 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Weinlich, modified by Lang, discloses the method according to claim 1. However, Weinlich fails to disclose the predetermined direction is determined by density and position of the feature points. In the related art of camera-based system for commercial vehicles, Engedal discloses the predetermined direction is determined by density and position of the feature points (Engedal paragraph 0153: “By clustering the feature motion into two clusters, the motion of the cargo can be determined”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Weinlich to incorporate the teachings of Engedal to determine the motion of the object of interest and not the motion of a different object (Engedal paragraph 0153).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinlich and Lang in view of NPL "Regulation No 46 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UNECE)", hereinafter referred to as Regulation No 46.
Regarding claim 15, Weinlich, modified by Lang, discloses the camera-based system according to claim 13. However, Weinlich fails to explicitly disclose the camera-based system is approved according to UN ECE R46. In the related art of visual devices for vehicles, Regulation No 46 discloses the camera-based system is approved according to UN ECE R46. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Weinlich to incorporate the teachings of Regulation No 46 to ensure compliance with relevant vehicle regulations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The cited prior art either alone or in combination fails to disclose, teach, or suggest: “comparing the distribution of feature points in the generated block grid with distributions of feature points of a plurality of stored corresponding block grids, wherein the stored block grids each define different distributions of feature points together with an actual trailer end; selecting one of the stored block grids based on a correlation between the distribution of feature points in the generated block grid and the distribution of feature points in the stored block grids; verifying the determined position of the trailer end by comparing the actual position of the trailer end defined by the selected block grid with the determined position of the trailer end, and/or further comprising a correcting of the determined position of the trailer end based on the verification, and/or wherein the distributions of feature points and the corresponding trailer ends in the stored block grids are stored in advance or generated and stored in real time in fixed defined or dynamically adjustable time intervals”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
De Saxe et al. (NPL “Estimation of trailer off-tracking using visual odometry”) discloses detecting ‘corner-like’ features in each image; comparing features between left and right images (normal stereo matching) as well as between current and previous image pairs; and dividing the images into a rectangular grid, where each ‘bucket’ may only store a maximum number of features to ensure a good distribution of features around the image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-5986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571)270-5183. 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.
/C.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights