DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action on the merits of the instant application, which was filed November 14, 2024, claiming the benefit of US Provisional Application 63/600,509, filed November 17, 2023. The application contains twenty claims.
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 .
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.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). In this application, it appears that the claims, after original claim 1, have been misnumbered as a group to begin at claim 1, a duplicate, then continuing as 2-19. These 19 claims should be numbered, instead, 2-20. The claim dependencies appear to be correct, as filed, for the correct(ed) claim numbering.
Misnumbered claim 1 (second occurrence) and claims 2-19 been renumbered 2-20. In response to this office action, an amended claim set should be filed reflecting the revised numbering.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 6, “a plurality of distance and angles, each said distance being…” should read --a plurality of distances and angles, each said distance and angle being…--; on line 11, “distance” should read --distances--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-6, 10-13, 15 and 17-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the ultra-wideband responder” in line 2, where previous recitations call for an “ultra-wideband responder sensor”; in line 5, “the ultra-wideband sensors” is recited, but it should be clarified that the “relative trajectory” is between the ultra-wideband initiator sensor and the ultra-wideband responder sensor. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a relative trajectory between the ultra-wideband sensors” in line 4, but the same limitation is found on lines 4-5 of claim 3, from which claim 4 depends. It is unclear whether it is the same “relative trajectory” already cited. Also in line 4, the recitation of “the ultra-wideband sensors” should read the ultra-wideband initiator sensor and the ultra-wideband responder sensor.
Claims 5 and 6, line 4, the recitation of “the ultra-wideband sensors” should read the ultra-wideband initiator sensor and the ultra-wideband responder sensor.
Claims 10-13 conclude with a recitation of the limitation “the ultra-wideband sensors”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 15 concludes with a recitation of the term “normal range”, a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “normal range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what element, i.e. distance or angle or otherwise, is being evaluated, or what determines “normal” or an “abnormality”, as recited, but undefined, in the specification.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the path to be taken by the trailer” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17-20 conclude with a recitation of the limitation “the ultra-wideband sensors”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a change in trajectory of the ultra-wideband sensors” in line 4. This recitation is a duplicate of the recitation on line 3 of claim 17, from which claim 18 depends. It is unclear whether the limitation refers back to claim 17, or is a new limitation that must be differentiated from the limitation in claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 7-9 and 14 are allowed.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-6, 10-13 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach, alone or in combination, an ultra-wideband responder sensor configured to be mounted on a trailer, an ultra-wideband initiator sensor configured to be mounted on the motor vehicle and to sense a distance between the ultra-wideband initiator sensor and the ultra-wideband responder sensor and an angle of arrival between the motor vehicle and the trailer, in order to predict a path to be taken by the trailer, dependent upon the sensed distance between the ultra-wideband initiator sensor and the ultra-wideband responder sensor and the sensed angle of arrival, as required in some form by each of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD J. WALLACE whose telephone number is
(313) 446-4915. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. 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.
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights