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 .
Status of Claims
This action is reply to the Application Number 18/937,634 filed on 04/13/2026
Claims 1 – 15 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1 – 13 have been amended. Claims 14 and 15 are new.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 states: “wherein determining whether the overloading condition exists further comprises determining whether the overloading condition exists based on the second normal pattern when the autonomous vehicle and the trailer are determined as not being connected based on the signal”, however it is unclear how to determine how an “overloading condition” exists based on the “second normal pattern” when the trailer is not connected to the vehicle. For example, if there is an acceleration pattern when the trailer is not connected to the vehicle (“second normal pattern”), how is an “overloading condition”; which is based off when the trailer is attached (Specification: Paragraph 0018 – teaches the overloading is comparing the learned acceleration pattern of the vehicle with a trailer being attached), further determined from an acceleration pattern with no trailer attached? To one of ordinary skill in the art, the trailer already adds additional weight to the vehicle, thus it would obviously determine an overloading condition when compared to the “second normal pattern”. It is not fully clear on how an “overloading condition” cannot be determined based off this “second normal pattern”. What conditions specify an overloading condition not being present based off an acceleration pattern when the trailer is not attached? Claim 12 states similar claim limitations and therefore objected under the same pretenses.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 11667307 B2) further in view of Baur et al. (DE102022132185B3).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches, a method of controlling an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising: (Kang: Abstract: “A method for controlling autonomous driving for an autonomous driving vehicle,”)
acquiring, by a processor, a signal indicative of connection between the autonomous vehicle and a trailer; (Kang: Col. 2, lines 24 – 30: “According to an embodiment, the determining of the trailer correcting parameter based on whether the trailer is attached to the autonomous driving vehicle may include determining whether the trailer is attached, by analyzing the sensing information on the autonomous driving, calculating a specification of the trailer based on the sensing information on the autonomous driving, when the trailer is attached”: Col. 7, lines 24 – 32: “The cognition part 222 may recognize a lane based on sensing information from the Radar or Lidar 212 and image information captured by the external camera 213, and may identify a vehicle travelling around a host vehicle, or an obstacle or pedestrian around the host vehicle. In addition, the cognition part 222 may determine whether the trailer is mounted, based on the sensing information from the Radar or Lidar 212 and image information photographed by the external camera 213.”)
activating, by the processor, an autonomous driving function configured to perform autonomous driving based on the acquired signal; (Wang: Col. 4, lines 23 – 31: “the present disclosure provides a method and an apparatus for controlling autonomous driving, capable of improving longitudinal control tracking performance by generating a longitudinal control requirement value, the error of which is corrected based on surrounding environment information and vehicle body information which are obtained through various sensors provided in an autonomous driving vehicle to transmit the longitudinal control requirement value to a lower controller.”,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle is able to operate autonomously with a trailer attached by adjusting its various control parameters)
obtaining, by the processor, acceleration response data of the autonomous vehicle during autonomous driving and
generating an acceleration response pattern based on the acceleration response data; (Kang: Col. 10, lines 34 – 49 : “When the trailer is attached as the determination result, the first parameter correcting part 332 may calculate the specification of the trailer based on the sensing information on the autonomous driving (S630). In this case, the specification of the trailer may include information on the length, the volume, and the weight of the trailer, but is not limited thereto. For example, the specification of the trailer may include the shape and the type of the trailer. The first parameter correcting part 332 may determine a trailer correcting parameter P.sub.trail which is calculated by making reference to a preset mapping table of the trailer and corresponds to the specification of the trailer (S640). The trailer mapping table may have the trailer correcting parameter P.sub.trail corresponding to the specification of the trailer and previously defined.”: Col. 11, lines 31 – 57: “According to the present disclosure, the autonomous driving control apparatus 300 may perform a control operation to track the behavior corresponding to a required input value “a_req” required to the real vehicle by applying, to the initial input value “a_raw”, three parameters, which is the controller correcting parameter P.sub.hw, the trailer correcting parameter P.sub.trail, and the driving context correcting parameter P.sub.env, calculated by the control parameter application part 330 and correcting the initial input value “a_raw” as in following equation 1.
a_req=a_raw(P.sub.hw+P.sub.trail+P.sub.env) Equation 1
In addition, according to the present disclosure, the autonomous driving accident may be previously prevented through the strategy to optimize the longitudinal control tracking performance. In addition, the present disclosure may provide a method and an apparatus for controlling autonomous driving, capable of improving the autonomous driving performance in level 3. In addition, according to the present disclosure, the longitudinal control correcting parameter is adaptively applied through the parameter mapping table based on various vehicle specifications and various driving contexts, thereby improving the longitudinal control tracking performance and minimizing maintenance cost.”,
Supplemental Note: the autonomous driving can identify trailer properties to be used to optimize the vehicle’s performance in regards to acceleration. This is interpreted as the acceleration response data)
… determining, by the processor, whether to maintain activation of the autonomous driving function (Kang: Col. 7, lines 24 – 32: “The cognition part 222 may recognize a lane based on sensing information from the Radar or Lidar 212 and image information captured by the external camera 213, and may identify a vehicle travelling around a host vehicle, or an obstacle or pedestrian around the host vehicle. In addition, the cognition part 222 may determine whether the trailer is mounted, based on the sensing information from the Radar or Lidar 212 and image information photographed by the external camera 213.”; Col. 7, lines 63 – 67: “The controller 223 may determine whether control needs to be transferred from the system to the driver, based on internal and external states of the vehicle depending on the cognition result of the cognition part 222, and whether the driver inputs a button to release autonomous driving.”).
In sum, Kang teaches a method of controlling an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising: acquiring, by a processor, a signal indicative of connection between the autonomous vehicle and a trailer; activating, by the processor, an autonomous driving function configured to perform autonomous driving based on the acquired signal; obtaining, by the processor, acceleration response data of the autonomous vehicle during autonomous driving and generating an acceleration response pattern based on the acceleration response data; determining, by the processor, whether to maintain activation of the autonomous driving function. Kang however does not teach determining, by the processor, whether an overloading condition exists by comparing the acceleration response pattern with a preset normal response pattern, wherein the preset normal response pattern comprises the acceleration response pattern corresponding to a normal loading condition.
Baur teaches determining, by the processor, whether an overloading condition exists by comparing the acceleration response pattern with a preset normal response pattern, wherein the preset normal response pattern comprises the acceleration response pattern corresponding to a normal loading condition; and (Baur: lines 222 – 236: “The purpose of the sensor device 48 and the control unit 54 is that, when the transport device 20 is attached to the motor vehicle 12, several state variables of the transport device 20, i.e. the accelerations and the load, are permanently recorded and the recorded state variables are recorded by the control unit 54 with regard to a fastening-critical and/or or loading-critical state of the transport device 20 can be monitored. The accelerations, in particular the vibrations, of the transport device 20 are detected by the acceleration sensor 50, which is preferably designed to be multi-axis. The loading of the transport device 20 is detected by the loading sensor 52, the loading sensor 52 being, for example, a load cell. A deformation of a predefined component or the displacement of two components relative to one another can be detected, whereby there is a direct connection between the deformation or displacement and the loading, i.e. the force acting on the transport device 20 by the loading, so that by detecting the Deformation of the displacement and/or the oscillation frequency can be inferred from the load. The sensor signals from the sensor device 48 are evaluated by the control unit 54 and compared with predefined threshold values. If one of the threshold values is exceeded, the information about a critical condition, for example overloading, is transmitted to the motor vehicle control unit 30, with a warning message being transmitted via the motor vehicle control unit 30 to a display 32 visible to the driver.”)
… based on a result of the determination on the overloading condition (Baur: lines 222 – 236).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Baur with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the ability to being able to determine if there is an overloading condition on the vehicle per the trailer attachment exceed predefined threshold values as taught by Baur with the vehicle system of Kang. An overloading condition is known by one of ordinary skill in the art to require the vehicle to pull a higher weight than it is able to, leading to increased damage to the vehicle. The ability to detect an overloading situation and then able to alert the driver about this condition as taught by Baur mitigates any accidental prolonged exposure of the vehicle to this overloading condition. This further increases the awareness of the driver as well about an overloading condition in which they may, for example, decide to lower the load of the trailer so it is no longer in a overloading condition, thus increasing the life of the vehicle itself.
Regarding claim 4, Kang, as modified, teaches a second normal pattern, and (Kang: Col. 3, lines 62 – 67: “According to an embodiment, the corrected control value may be calculated by applying at least one of the controller correcting parameter, the trailer correcting parameter, or the driving context correcting parameter to the initial longitudinal control value.”: Col. 7, lines 29 – 32: “In addition, the cognition part 222 may determine whether the trailer is mounted, based on the sensing information from the Radar or Lidar 212 and image information photographed by the external camera 213.”: Col. 8, lines 47 – 63: “The sensing part 310 may include various sensors for autonomous driving and may generate sensing information on the autonomous driving, based on sensing information collected from the sensors. The sensing information on the autonomous driving may include positioning information, precision map information, camera capturing information, the sensing information by the Radar or Lidar, weather information, driving speed information, information on the recognized driver gaze, sensing information on vehicle internal failure, information on a button input to release the autonomous driving, sensing information on the operation of the steering wheel, or the sensing information on the operation of the acceleration or deceleration pedal, but is not limited thereto. The longitudinal control value generator 320 may generate an initial longitudinal control value “a_raw” based on the sensing information on the autonomous driving.”,
Supplemental Note: the preset normal patterns are interpreted as the initial acceleration patterns detected by the sensing part. This can include a vehicle with or without a trailer which both have an “a_raw” value, thus two normal patterns which are set per the initial conditions acquired by the sensing part).
In sum, Kang teaches a second normal pattern. Kang however does not teach wherein the preset normal response pattern comprises a first normal pattern wherein determining whether the overloading condition exists comprises determining whether the overloading condition exists based on the first normal pattern when the autonomous vehicle and the trailer are determined as being connected based on the signal.
Baur teaches wherein the preset normal response pattern comprises a first normal pattern and (Baur: lines 222 – 236: “The purpose of the sensor device 48 and the control unit 54 is that, when the transport device 20 is attached to the motor vehicle 12, several state variables of the transport device 20, i.e. the accelerations and the load, are permanently recorded and the recorded state variables are recorded by the control unit 54 with regard to a fastening-critical and/or or loading-critical state of the transport device 20 can be monitored. The accelerations, in particular the vibrations, of the transport device 20 are detected by the acceleration sensor 50, which is preferably designed to be multi-axis. The loading of the transport device 20 is detected by the loading sensor 52, the loading sensor 52 being, for example, a load cell. A deformation of a predefined component or the displacement of two components relative to one another can be detected, whereby there is a direct connection between the deformation or displacement and the loading, i.e. the force acting on the transport device 20 by the loading, so that by detecting the Deformation of the displacement and/or the oscillation frequency can be inferred from the load. The sensor signals from the sensor device 48 are evaluated by the control unit 54 and compared with predefined threshold values. If one of the threshold values is exceeded, the information about a critical condition, for example overloading, is transmitted to the motor vehicle control unit 30, with a warning message being transmitted via the motor vehicle control unit 30 to a display 32 visible to the driver.”,
Supplemental Note: the first normal pattern is interpreted as the predefined threshold values)
… wherein determining whether the overloading condition exists comprises determining whether the overloading condition exists based on the first normal pattern when the autonomous vehicle and the trailer are determined as being connected based on the signal (Baur: lines 222 – 236: “The purpose of the sensor device 48 and the control unit 54 is that, when the transport device 20 is attached to the motor vehicle 12, several state variables of the transport device 20, i.e. the accelerations and the load, are permanently recorded and the recorded state variables are recorded by the control unit 54 with regard to a fastening-critical and/or or loading-critical state of the transport device 20 can be monitored. The accelerations, in particular the vibrations, of the transport device 20 are detected by the acceleration sensor 50, which is preferably designed to be multi-axis. The loading of the transport device 20 is detected by the loading sensor 52, the loading sensor 52 being, for example, a load cell. A deformation of a predefined component or the displacement of two components relative to one another can be detected, whereby there is a direct connection between the deformation or displacement and the loading, i.e. the force acting on the transport device 20 by the loading, so that by detecting the Deformation of the displacement and/or the oscillation frequency can be inferred from the load. The sensor signals from the sensor device 48 are evaluated by the control unit 54 and compared with predefined threshold values. If one of the threshold values is exceeded, the information about a critical condition, for example overloading, is transmitted to the motor vehicle control unit 30, with a warning message being transmitted via the motor vehicle control unit 30 to a display 32 visible to the driver.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Baur with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 5, Kang, as modified, teaches wherein determining whether the overloading condition exists further comprises determining whether the overloading condition exists based on the second normal pattern when the autonomous vehicle and the trailer are determined as not being connected based on the signal (Kang: Col. 10, lines 34 – 49 : “When the trailer is attached as the determination result, the first parameter correcting part 332 may calculate the specification of the trailer based on the sensing information on the autonomous driving (S630). In this case, the specification of the trailer may include information on the length, the volume, and the weight of the trailer, but is not limited thereto. For example, the specification of the trailer may include the shape and the type of the trailer. The first parameter correcting part 332 may determine a trailer correcting parameter P.sub.trail which is calculated by making reference to a preset mapping table of the trailer and corresponds to the specification of the trailer (S640). The trailer mapping table may have the trailer correcting parameter P.sub.trail corresponding to the specification of the trailer and previously defined.”; Col. 11, lines 31 – 57: “According to the present disclosure, the autonomous driving control apparatus 300 may perform a control operation to track the behavior corresponding to a required input value “a_req” required to the real vehicle by applying, to the initial input value “a_raw”, three parameters, which is the controller correcting parameter P.sub.hw, the trailer correcting parameter P.sub.trail, and the driving context correcting parameter P.sub.env, calculated by the control parameter application part 330 and correcting the initial input value “a_raw” as in following equation 1.
a_req=a_raw(P.sub.hw+P.sub.trail+P.sub.env) Equation 1
In addition, according to the present disclosure, the autonomous driving accident may be previously prevented through the strategy to optimize the longitudinal control tracking performance. In addition, the present disclosure may provide a method and an apparatus for controlling autonomous driving, capable of improving the autonomous driving performance in level 3. In addition, according to the present disclosure, the longitudinal control correcting parameter is adaptively applied through the parameter mapping table based on various vehicle specifications and various driving contexts, thereby improving the longitudinal control tracking performance and minimizing maintenance cost.”,
Supplemental Note: the autonomous driving can identify trailer properties to be used to optimize the vehicle’s performance. The autonomous driving in the cited system is able to perform in conditions interpreted as overloading and conditions operating normally. For example, a_req=a_raw if there are no other correction parameters detected such as the trailer not being attached and no need for a P.sub.trail correction parameter).
Regarding claim 7, Kang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having a program recorded thereon, the program to direct a processor to perform acts of: (Kang: Col. 11, lines 58 – 62: “The operations of the methods or algorithms described in connection with the processor embodiments disclosed in the present disclosure may be directly implemented with a hardware module, a software module, or the combinations thereof, executed by the processor.”; Col. 12, lines 1 – 9 :“The exemplary storage medium may be coupled to the processor. The processor may read out information from the storage medium and may write information in the storage medium. Alternatively, the storage medium may be integrated with the processor. The processor and storage medium may reside in an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC). The ASIC may reside in a user terminal. Alternatively, the processor and the storage medium may reside as separate components of the terminal of the user.”)
acquiring a signal indicative of connection between an autonomous vehicle and a trailer; (Kang: Col. 2, lines 24 – 30; Col. 7, lines 24 – 32)
activating an autonomous driving function configured to perform autonomous driving based on the acquired signal; (Wang: Col. 4, lines 23 – 31:,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle is able to operate autonomously with a trailer attached by adjusting its various control parameters)
obtaining, by the processor, acceleration response data of the autonomous vehicle during autonomous driving and generating an acceleration response pattern based on the acceleration response data (Kang: Col. 10, lines 34 – 49; Col. 11, lines 31 – 57,
Supplemental Note: the autonomous driving can identify trailer properties to be used to optimize the vehicle’s performance in regards to acceleration. This is interpreted as the acceleration response data)
… determining whether to maintain activation of the autonomous driving function (Kang: Col. 7, lines 24 – 32; Col. 7, lines 63 – 67).
In sum, Kang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having a program recorded thereon, the program to direct a processor to perform acts of: acquiring a signal indicative of connection between an autonomous vehicle and a trailer; activating an autonomous driving function configured to perform autonomous driving based on the acquired signal; obtaining, by the processor, acceleration response data of the autonomous vehicle during autonomous driving and generating an acceleration response pattern based on the acceleration response data determining whether to maintain activation of the autonomous driving function. Kang however does not teach determining whether an overloading condition exists by comparing the acceleration response pattern with a preset normal response pattern, wherein the preset normal response pattern comprises the acceleration response pattern corresponding to a normal loading condition.
Baur teaches determining whether an overloading condition exists by comparing the acceleration response pattern with a preset normal response pattern, wherein the preset normal response pattern comprises the acceleration response pattern corresponding to a normal loading condition; and (Baur: lines 222 – 236)
… based on a result of the determination on the overloading condition (Baur: lines 222 – 236).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Baur with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 8, Kang, teaches an autonomous vehicle comprising a processor, wherein
the processor is configured to: (Kang: Abstract; Col. 11, lines 58 – 62: “The operations of the methods or algorithms described in connection with the processor embodiments disclosed in the present disclosure may be directly implemented with a hardware module, a software module, or the combinations thereof, executed by the processor.”)
acquire a signal indicative of connection between the autonomous vehicle and a trailer; (Kang: Col. 2, lines 24 – 30; Col. 7, lines 24 – 32)
activate an autonomous driving function configured to perform autonomous driving based on the acquired signal; (Wang: Col. 4, lines 23 – 31,
Supplemental Note: the vehicle is able to operate autonomously with a trailer attached by adjusting its various control parameters)
obtain acceleration response data of the autonomous vehicle during the autonomous driving and generate an acceleration response pattern based on the acceleration response data; (Kang: Col. 10, lines 34 – 49; Col. 11, lines 31 – 57,
Supplemental Note: the autonomous driving can identify trailer properties to be used to optimize the vehicle’s performance in regards to acceleration. This is interpreted as the acceleration response data)
… determine whether to maintain activation of the autonomous driving function (Kang: Col. 7, lines 24 – 32; Col. 7, lines 63 – 67)
In sum, Kang teaches an autonomous vehicle comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a signal indicative of connection between the autonomous vehicle and a trailer; activate an autonomous driving function configured to perform autonomous driving based on the acquired signal; obtain acceleration response data of the autonomous vehicle during the autonomous driving and generate an acceleration response pattern based on the acceleration response data; determine whether to maintain activation of the autonomous driving function. Kang however does not teach determine whether an overloading condition exists by comparing the acceleration response pattern and a preset normal response pattern, wherein the preset normal response pattern comprises the acceleration response pattern corresponding to a normal loading condition.
Baur teaches determine whether an overloading condition exists by comparing the acceleration response pattern and a preset normal response pattern, wherein the preset normal response pattern comprises the acceleration response pattern corresponding to a normal loading condition; and (Baur: lines 222 – 236:)
… based on a result of the determination on the overloading condition (Baur: lines 222 – 236).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Baur with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 11, Kang, as modified, teaches a second normal pattern, and (Kang: Col. 3, lines 62 – 67; Col. 8, lines 47 – 63,
Supplemental Note: the preset normal patterns are interpreted as the initial acceleration patterns detected by the sensing part. This can include a vehicle with or without a trailer which both have an “a_raw” value, thus two normal patterns which are set per the initial conditions acquired by the sensing part).
In sum, Kang teaches a second normal pattern. Kang however does not teach wherein the preset normal pattern comprises a first normal response pattern and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the overloading condition exists based on the first normal pattern when the autonomous vehicle and the trailer are connected based on the signal.
Baur teaches wherein the preset normal pattern comprises a first normal response pattern and (Baur: lines 222 – 236,
Supplemental Note: the first normal pattern is interpreted as the predefined threshold values)
wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the overloading condition exists based on the first normal pattern when the autonomous vehicle and the trailer are connected based on the signal (Baur: lines 222 – 236).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Baur with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 12, Kang, as modified, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether the overloading condition exists based on the second normal pattern when the autonomous vehicle and the trailer are not connected based on the signal (Kang: Col. 10, lines 34 – 49 ; Col. 11, lines 31 – 57,
Supplemental Note: the autonomous driving can identify trailer properties to be used to optimize the vehicle’s performance. The autonomous driving in the cited system is able to perform in conditions interpreted as overloading and conditions operating normally. For example, a_req=a_raw if there are no other correction parameters detected such as the trailer not being attached and no need for a P.sub.trail correction parameter).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 11667307 B2) and Baur et al. (DE102022132185B3) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smalley et al. (US 20250074440 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kang, as modified, teaches providing information related to the deactivated autonomous driving function through a display (Kang: Col. 8, lines 1 – 5: “The controller 223 may perform a control operation to output a specific warning notification for requesting for transferring the control to the driver, when the control needs to be transferred to the driver.”).
In sum, Kang teaches providing information related to the deactivated autonomous driving function through a display. Kang however does not teach further comprising: when the overloading condition exists.
Baur teaches further comprising:
when the overloading condition exists, (Baur: lines 222 – 236: “The purpose of the sensor device 48 and the control unit 54 is that, when the transport device 20 is attached to the motor vehicle 12, several state variables of the transport device 20, i.e. the accelerations and the load, are permanently recorded and the recorded state variables are recorded by the control unit 54 with regard to a fastening-critical and/or or loading-critical state of the transport device 20 can be monitored. The accelerations, in particular the vibrations, of the transport device 20 are detected by the acceleration sensor 50, which is preferably designed to be multi-axis. The loading of the transport device 20 is detected by the loading sensor 52, the loading sensor 52 being, for example, a load cell. A deformation of a predefined component or the displacement of two components relative to one another can be detected, whereby there is a direct connection between the deformation or displacement and the loading, i.e. the force acting on the transport device 20 by the loading, so that by detecting the Deformation of the displacement and/or the oscillation frequency can be inferred from the load. The sensor signals from the sensor device 48 are evaluated by the control unit 54 and compared with predefined threshold values. If one of the threshold values is exceeded, the information about a critical condition, for example overloading, is transmitted to the motor vehicle control unit 30, with a warning message being transmitted via the motor vehicle control unit 30 to a display 32 visible to the driver.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Baur with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Kang in view of Baur however still do not teach deactivating, by the processor, the autonomous driving function.
Smalley teaches deactivating, by the processor, the autonomous driving function, and (Smalley: Paragraph 0066: “The stability evaluation module 213 may be configured as described herein to evaluate the results of these computations to determine if an instability condition exists in the vehicle-trailer system. The stability evaluation module 213 may also be configured as described herein to, responsive to a determination that an instability condition exists, autonomously control certain operations of the vehicle 100 to generate instability alerts to users of the vehicle and/or to deactivate certain vehicle systems to facilitate full manual control of the vehicle. These steps may help the user stabilize the motion of the vehicle-trailer system as soon as possible.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Smalley with a reasonable expectation of success. Smalley teaches the ability to cancel the autonomous driving function if the instability condition is persistent so the driver is able to manually control a vehicle (Smalley: Paragraph 0066). Detecting instability and returning manual control to the driver mitigates conditions where the instability can cause damage the vehicle or the user. Kang already teaches the ability to gather trailer specification data and adjusting the required acceleration needed to power the vehicle with an attached trailer, thus combining the instability mitigation functions of Smalley increases the functionality of the vehicle to detect a instability while also increasing the safety of the road users. Therefore this function of Smalley would be obvious to try to combine with the vehicle of Kang.
Regarding claim 3, Kang, as modified, teaches maintaining, by the processor, the activation of the autonomous driving (Kang: Col. 10, lines 34 – 49 : “When the trailer is attached as the determination result, the first parameter correcting part 332 may calculate the specification of the trailer based on the sensing information on the autonomous driving (S630). In this case, the specification of the trailer may include information on the length, the volume, and the weight of the trailer, but is not limited thereto. For example, the specification of the trailer may include the shape and the type of the trailer. The first parameter correcting part 332 may determine a trailer correcting parameter P.sub.trail which is calculated by making reference to a preset mapping table of the trailer and corresponds to the specification of the trailer (S640). The trailer mapping table may have the trailer correcting parameter P.sub.trail corresponding to the specification of the trailer and previously defined.”; Col. 11, lines 31 – 57: “According to the present disclosure, the autonomous driving control apparatus 300 may perform a control operation to track the behavior corresponding to a required input value “a_req” required to the real vehicle by applying, to the initial input value “a_raw”, three parameters, which is the controller correcting parameter P.sub.hw, the trailer correcting parameter P.sub.trail, and the driving context correcting parameter P.sub.env, calculated by the control parameter application part 330 and correcting the initial input value “a_raw” as in following equation 1.
a_req=a_raw(P.sub.hw+P.sub.trail+P.sub.env) Equation 1
In addition, according to the present disclosure, the autonomous driving accident may be previously prevented through the strategy to optimize the longitudinal control tracking performance. In addition, the present disclosure may provide a method and an apparatus for controlling autonomous driving, capable of improving the autonomous driving performance in level 3. In addition, according to the present disclosure, the longitudinal control correcting parameter is adaptively applied through the parameter mapping table based on various vehicle specifications and various driving contexts, thereby improving the longitudinal control tracking performance and minimizing maintenance cost.”,
Supplemental Note: the autonomous driving can identify trailer properties to be used to optimize the vehicle’s performance. The autonomous driving in the cited system is able to perform in conditions interpreted as overloading and conditions operating normally. For example, a_req=a_raw if there are no other correction parameters detected).
In sum, Kang teaches maintaining, by the processor, the activation of the autonomous driving. Kang however does not teach further comprising: when the overloading condition does not exist.
Baur teaches further comprising:
when the overloading condition does not exist, (Baur: lines 222 – 236: “The purpose of the sensor device 48 and the control unit 54 is that, when the transport device 20 is attached to the motor vehicle 12, several state variables of the transport device 20, i.e. the accelerations and the load, are permanently recorded and the recorded state variables are recorded by the control unit 54 with regard to a fastening-critical and/or or loading-critical state of the transport device 20 can be monitored. The accelerations, in particular the vibrations, of the transport device 20 are detected by the acceleration sensor 50, which is preferably designed to be multi-axis. The loading of the transport device 20 is detected by the loading sensor 52, the loading sensor 52 being, for example, a load cell. A deformation of a predefined component or the displacement of two components relative to one another can be detected, whereby there is a direct connection between the deformation or displacement and the loading, i.e. the force acting on the transport device 20 by the loading, so that by detecting the Deformation of the displacement and/or the oscillation frequency can be inferred from the load. The sensor signals from the sensor device 48 are evaluated by the control unit 54 and compared with predefined threshold values. If one of the threshold values is exceeded, the information about a critical condition, for example overloading, is transmitted to the motor vehicle control unit 30, with a warning message being transmitted via the motor vehicle control unit 30 to a display 32 visible to the driver.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Baur with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 11667307 B2) and Baur et al. (DE102022132185B3) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Smalley et al. (US 20250074440 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kang, as modified, teaches provide information about the deactivated the autonomous driving function through a display (Kang: Col. 8, lines 1 – 5).
In sum, Kang teaches provide information about the deactivated the autonomous driving function through a display. Kang however does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to: when the overloading condition exists.
Baur teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
when the overloading condition exists, (Baur: lines 222 – 236).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Baur with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Kang in view of Baur however still do not teach deactivating, by the processor, the autonomous driving function.
Smalley teaches deactivate the autonomous driving function, and (Smalley: Paragraph 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Smalley with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 2 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 10, Kang, as modified, teaches maintain activation of the autonomous driving function (Kang: Col. 10, lines 34 – 49 ,
Supplemental Note: the autonomous driving can identify trailer properties to be used to optimize the vehicle’s performance. The autonomous driving in the cited system is able to perform in conditions interpreted as overloading and conditions operating normally. For example, a_req=a_raw if there are no other correction parameters detected).
In sum, Kang teaches maintain activation of the autonomous driving function. Kang however does not teach wherein the processor is configured to: when the overloading condition does not exist.
Baur teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
when the overloading condition does not exist, (Baur: lines 222 – 236).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Baur with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 11667307 B2) in view of Baur et al. (DE102022132185B3) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 20230398983 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kang, as modified, does not teach wherein the autonomous driving function comprises a smart cruise control (SCC).
Jang teaches wherein the autonomous driving function comprises a smart cruise control (SCC) (Jang: Paragraph 0053: “The autonomous driving system 100 may provide various functions to the driver. For example, the autonomous driving system 100 may provide functions such as lane departure warning (LDW), lane keeping assist (LKA), high beam assist (HBA), automatic emergency braking (AEB), traffic sign recognition (TSR), smart cruise control (SCC), and/or blind spot detection (BSD).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. Autonomous driving is taught by Kang to be between automation levels 0 to 5 per the American Society of Automotive Engineers (Kang: Col. 5, lines 57 – 67), which the vehicle system is able to be configured to. SCC as taught by Jang is also an autonomous driving function, therefore the SCC would be a simple substitution with the autonomous driving function of Kang’s vehicle by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 11667307 B2) in view of Baur et al. (DE102022132185B3) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 20230398983 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kang, as modified, does not teach wherein the autonomous driving function comprises a smart cruise control (SCC).
Jang teaches wherein the autonomous driving function comprises a smart cruise control (SCC) (Jang: Paragraph 0053: “The autonomous driving system 100 may provide various functions to the driver. For example, the autonomous driving system 100 may provide functions such as lane departure warning (LDW), lane keeping assist (LKA), high beam assist (HBA), automatic emergency braking (AEB), traffic sign recognition (TSR), smart cruise control (SCC), and/or blind spot detection (BSD).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 6 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 11667307 B2) in view of Baur et al. (DE102022132185B3) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Chakraborty et al. (CA 2170658 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kang, as modified, does not teach wherein the preset normal response pattern comprises a preset reference line in a time-speed graph
Chakraborty teaches wherein the preset normal response pattern comprises a preset reference line in a time-speed graph (Chakraborty: lines 1128 – 1141: “Referring now to Figure 5, a graph is shown illustrating typical deceleration values for a tractor semi-trailer vehicle with various loads. Line 280 represents a "bobtail" tractor, i.e. no semi-trailer attached to the tractor with a gross combined weight of about 20,000 pounds. A linear approximation of the deceleration for this loading condition is about -0.82 mph/s. Line 282 represents a tractor with an empty semi-trailer attached having an approximate deceleration of about -0.51 mph/s and line 284 represents a tractor with a fully loaded semi-trailer having a gross combined weight of about 72,400 pounds and an approximate deceleration of -0.36 mph/s. This information is utilized in developing the deceleration levels”,
Supplemental Note: refer to Figure A below)
PNG
media_image1.png
324
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Chakraborty: Fig. 5
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Chakraborty with a reasonable expectation of success. Kang teaches the ability of determining an acceleration amount to compensate for traveling with an additional trailer in the back. Kang teaches the ability to set different variables to calculate the required acceleration or deceleration for autonomously controlling the vehicle with the trailer attached (Kang: Col. 9, line 61 – Col. 10, line 19). Chakraborty further teaches the ability to create a deceleration graph between speed and time showing the various trailer load amount and how they deaccelerate. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this combination of Chakraborty’s graph with the required acceleration calculation of Kang as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. For example, Kang utilizes a formula for determining the deceleration of the vehicle with the trailer attached, thus the ability to determine the deceleration with different trailer loads is also applicable by the vehicle of Kang. The ability to make a graph of the deceleration amount per various different trailer loads as taught by Chakraborty gathers the same data as Kang. Therefore both Chakraborty and Kang are able to yield the same results in what deceleration amount to apply according to the trailer load.
Regarding claim 15, Kang, as modified, does not teach wherein the processor is configured to determine that the overloading condition exists.
Baur teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine that the overloading condition exists (Baur: lines 222 – 236).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Baur with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Kang in view of Baur however still do not teach when the acceleration response pattern lies below the preset normal response pattern in the time-speed graph.
Chakraborty teaches when the acceleration response pattern lies below the preset normal response pattern in the time-speed graph (Chakraborty: lines 1128 – 1141m
Supplemental Note: refer to Figure A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Kang with the teachings of Chakraborty with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 14 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section Drawing Objections of the REMARKS, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the drawing objection of Fig. 3 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection of Fig. 3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section Claim Objections of the REMARKS, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the claim objections of claims 1 – 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 1 – 13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103 of the REMARKS, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 claim rejections of claims 1 – 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 claim rejections of claims 1 – 13 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103 of the REMARKS, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art claim rejections of claims 1 – 13 have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive. Applicant states regarding claim 1, the “acceleration response data” and “acceleration response pattern” represent data indicating how the vehicle responds when accelerating during the autonomous driving whereas Kang teaches a required acceleration required with a trailer attachment. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed “acceleration response data” is stated within the specification to be determined by the vehicle driving with the trailer (Specification: Paragraphs 0089 - 0090: “For example, as shown in (a) to (c) of FIG. 3, the autonomous vehicle 100 may learn a speed-specific acceleration pattern by acquiring learning data based on an SCC acceleration/deceleration pattern during driving and performing learning based on the acquired learning data, under the control of the processor 110. For example, as shown in (a) of FIG. 3, the autonomous vehicle 100 may accelerate the autonomous vehicle 100 from a reference speed to a first speed while the autonomous driving is in an activated state to learn an acceleration pattern of the first speed, under the control of the processor 110.”). The “acceleration response pattern” and “acceleration response data” are specified to be found by the processer as the vehicle travels with the trailer attachment. It should also be noted that “acceleration response data” is not found within the specification, therefore it is being broadly interpreted as any data regarding acceleration with the trailer attached. Furthermore, the notion of the overloading determination being made prior to the autonomous driving control is not stated within the claim. In fact, claim 1 states “obtaining, by the processor, acceleration response data of the autonomous vehicle during autonomous driving”, therefore the autonomous driving function has to have started to determine the “acceleration response data”. Kang still is able to teach acquiring the “acceleration response data” from the autonomous driving function it is doing with the trailer attached. For example, based on the acquired parameters of the trailer, the vehicle of Kang is able to adjust its normal condition parameters to incorporate the trailer as well. The various correcting parameters correspond to the “acceleration response data” as they are determined by the trailer specifications. These parameters are then used by an algorithm (Kang: Equation 1) to adjust the acceleration of the vehicle, thus interpreted as the “acceleration response pattern”. Examiner does agree Kang does not teach whether an overloading condition exists, however, the normal condition parameters of Kang are interpreted as the claimed “normal response pattern” as they both teach output acceleration for the vehicle prior to the trailer attachment. Applicant further states that Kang does not teach to determine whether or not to maintain activation of an autonomous driving function based on the overloading condition. Examiner agrees that Kang does not teach to determine an overloading condition, however it can determine whether or not to turn off the autonomous driving control based off the “cognition part” based off parameters regarding the trailer. Baur (DE 102022132185 B3) was found through further search and consideration to teach the amended claim limitation of “determining, by the processor, whether an overloading condition exists by comparing the acceleration response pattern with a preset normal response pattern, wherein the preset normal response pattern comprises the acceleration response pattern corresponding to a normal loading condition;”. Independent claims 7 and 8 are amended to be consistent with claim 1 and accordingly are rejected under the same pretenses.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights