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 is in response to Applicant’s case, no. 18/948,013, with an effective filing date of 11/14/2024. Claims 1-7, 9-20 are currently pending. Claim 8 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the Specification and Claims in Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 11-12, and subsequently withdraws the previous objections to the Specification and Claims.
Examiner acknowledges that some of the necessary changes were made regarding the Drawings in Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 10-11, and subsequently withdraws those respective objections to the Drawings. However, the Applicant did not address that in [0059] of the Specification mentions “network 332” in Fig. 5 but item 332 is not included in the figure. Therefore, this objection is maintained. Furthermore, upon further review more objections to the Drawings are hereby made as further detailed below.
Examiner acknowledges that the necessary changes were made regarding the rejection of claim(s) 5-7 and 19 under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention due to containing relative terminology in Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 12, and subsequently withdraws the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection to said claims.
However, based on the amendments made by the Applicant, a new rejection of claims 9 and 20 under 35 USC § 112(d) is hereby made for failing to further limit the parent claim from which claims 9 and 20 respectively depend from as detailed below.
Examiner acknowledges the changes made regarding 35 USC § 101 to claims 1 and 17 found in Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 12-13. The Examiner has considered the amended claim limitation initiating a first/second turn motion and the amendment properly integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the rejection based on 35 USC § 101 is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 rejection of claims 1-7, 10-12, and 15-20 as being anticipated by Alamir et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2026/0021846 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Alamir], the Applicant has elected to amend the aforementioned claims. Therefore, the Examiner’s rejection in the previous Office Action based on 35 USC § 102 is rendered moot. However, due to said amendments, new reference Gali et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0094473 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Gali] has been necessitated which upon closer examination fully replaces Hoetzer et al. (US Pat. No. 9,211,889) [hereinafter referred to as Hoetzer]. As such, Hoetzer is no longer required to address any limitation of the claims. Therefore, a new rejection based on 35 USC § 103 has been made and is discussed in detail below.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Alamir allegedly does not disclose the limitations initiating a first turn motion of the vehicle into a first direction until a first rear edge or a first rear point of the rear section of the trailer is detected within the field-of-view of the at least one sensor and estimating a dimension of the trailer based on one or more signals from the at least one sensor associated with the first rear edge or the first rear point, and the second rear edge or the second rear point. However, Alamir discloses in [0026] s.3 a camera(s) 132 that best captures the front face of the trailer 104 is selected, such as camera (s) 132a and/or 132d for use in determining trailer width and [0036] s.5, the trailer length may instead be derived directly by estimating the distance between the detected hitch point and the rear edge or corner, which is construed as a rear point, of the trailer and a turn that detects the rear edge or point of a trailer (see Fig. 1B above), which is construed as utilizing a turn to better view a rear section of a trailer in order to perform the estimation of the trailer dimension.
Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Furthermore, the Applicant argues that Alamir does not disclose the limitation initiating a second turn motion of the vehicle into a second direction opposite of the first direction until a second rear edge or a second rear point of the rear section of the trailer is detected within the field-of-view of the at least one sensor. However, Gali teaches in [0037] that the system may, when calibrating the system and trailer, request that the driver maneuver the vehicle and trailer along a driving maneuver that allows the system to determine or estimate the trailer dimensions and parameters, whereby the driver must perform the requested driving maneuver. As shown in FIG. 8, see below, where the driving maneuver may comprise driving the vehicle and trailer in a straight line and making one or more turns in forward direction (or in reverse direction).
Therefore, this argument is moot.
Regarding independent claim 17, Applicant argues, while differing in scope, these claim recites similar features to claim 1 and its rejections should likewise be withdrawn.
However, this argument is unpersuasive for the same reasons as given above.
Applicant argues the dependent claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency.
This argument is unpersuasive as each independent claim has been fully rejected for the reasons as given above.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description:
item 332 (recited in the Specification in [0059] as network 332).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5)
because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description:
Fig. 13 item 900.
Drawings 12-13 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show: (a) with respect to Figs. 12 details regarding the identifications (i.e.,Fig.12 item 800), as described in the specification and (b) with regard to Figs. 13, details regarding the blocks contained therein (i.e. Fig. 13 item 900), as described by the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference characters in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the Examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figures, applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the changes to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 9 (lines 2-5) and claim 20 (lines 5-8), the claims recite the limitation continuing the first turn motion of the vehicle until the first rear edge or the first rear point of the trailer is detected within the field-of-view of the at least one sensor, and continuing the second turn motion of the vehicle until the second rear edge or the second rear point of the trailer is detected within the field-of-view of the at least one sensor and it is unclear how this is different from the claim 1 and claim 17 limitations initiating a first turn motion… until a first rear edge or a first rear point of the rear section of the trailer is detected within the field-of-view of the at least one sensor; and initiating a second turn motion… until a second rear edge or a second rear point of the rear section of the trailer is detected within the field-of-view of the at least one sensor (i.e., claim 1 lines 10-18) as with both the “initializing” and “continuing” limitations the turn motion is maintained until the respective edge or point of the rear of the trailer is detected by the sensor(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alamir et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2026/0021846 A1), hereinafter referred to as Alamir, in view of Gali et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0094473 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gali.
Regarding claim 1, Alamir discloses:
A system for trailer dimension estimation, comprising:
one or more sensors associated with a vehicle, the one or more sensors each having a field-of-view ([0018] sentence (s.)1, The vehicle includes a sensor system to provide sensor system data that may be used to determine one or more measurements), and the vehicle configured to couple with a trailer, wherein the trailer includes a front section configured to be disposed proximal to the vehicle and a rear section with a rear edge or a rear point disposed distal to the vehicle (see Fig. 1A and 1B below regarding a vehicle coupled to a trailer and the trailer including a front section and a rear section comprising a rear edge and /or point); and
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
285
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
284
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a processing device in communication with the one or more sensors, wherein the processing device is configured to execute instructions stored in a memory to perform operations ([0022] computing device or data processing hardware (e.g., a central processing unit having one or more computing processors or microprocessors)).
Although Alamir discloses initiating a first turn motion of the vehicle into a first direction until a first rear edge or a first rear point of the rear section of the trailer is detected within the field-of-view of the at least one sensor and estimating a dimension of the trailer based on one or more signals from the at least one sensor associated with the first rear edge or the first rear point, and the second rear edge or the second rear point in [0026] s.3 a camera(s) 132 that best captures the front face of the trailer 104 is selected, such as camera (s) 132a and/or 132d for use in determining trailer width and [0036] s.5, the trailer length may instead be derived directly by estimating the distance between the detected hitch point and the rear edge or corner, which is construed as a rear point, of the trailer and a turn that detects the rear edge or point of a trailer (see Fig. 1B above), the reference does not explicitly disclose:
initiating a second turn motion of the vehicle into a second direction opposite of the first direction until a second rear edge or a second rear point of the rear section of the trailer is detected within the field-of-view of the at least one sensor; and
However, Gali teaches in [0037] that the system may, when calibrating the system and trailer, request that the driver maneuver the vehicle and trailer along a driving maneuver that allows the system to determine or estimate the trailer dimensions and parameters, whereby the driver must perform the requested driving maneuver. As shown in FIG. 8, see below, where the driving maneuver may comprise driving the vehicle and trailer in a straight line and making one or more turns in forward direction (or in reverse direction).
PNG
media_image3.png
190
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of object detection, vehicle controls, and/or engineering before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the rear corner detection and trailer width determination of Alamir, by incorporating the turning teachings of Gali, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of gathering redundant data for either a more robust estimation or in case the first turn is not sufficient to gather the necessary data.
Regarding claim 2, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor include at least one of LiDAR, radar, or a camera (See claim 1 regarding [0026] and [0020] s.1, sensor system may include, but is not limited to, radar, sonar, LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging, which can entail optical remote sensing that measures properties of scattered light to find range and/or other information of a distant target), LADAR (Laser Detection and Ranging), ultrasonic, etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle ([0018] s.2, the vehicle may be autonomous or semi-autonomous, therefore, the sensor system provides sensor data for reliable and robust autonomous or semi-autonomous driving [0020] s.3, the sensor system is especially useful for receiving information of the environment or portion of the environment of the vehicle and for increasing safety in the vehicle-trailer system which may operate by the driver or under semi-autonomous or autonomous conditions).
Regarding claim 4, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the dimension of the trailer includes at least one of a trailer length or a trailer width (see claim 1 regarding [0026] and [0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
The system of claim 4, wherein the at least one sensor include a first sensor disposed on a first side of the vehicle and a second sensor disposed on a second side of the vehicle (see Figs. 1A and 1B item 132c and 132b which is disposed on either side of the vehicle and Fig. 5 below regarding cameras 132a and 132b).
PNG
media_image4.png
384
215
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 recites a computer-implemented method having substantially the same features of claim 5 above, therefore claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
The system of claim 5, wherein the operations further comprise detecting the first rear edge or the first rear point of the rear section with the first sensor and detecting the second rear edge or the second rear point of the rear section with the second sensor (see claim 1 regarding [0026] and [0036] which is construed as determining a width of a trailer based on the front face of the trailer, but one of ordinary skill may simply substitute utilizing the rear edge and corner, necessarily, as they are already detected in the field of view of the sensors and are utilized to determine a dimension (i.e., length) of the trailer).
Regarding claim 7, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
The system of claim 6, wherein estimating the dimension of the trailer includes estimating the trailer width based on the first rear edge or the first point and the second rear edge or the second point (see claim1 and claim 6 regarding a rear edge and a rear corner).
Claim 19 recites a computer-implemented method having substantially the same features of claims 6 and 7 above, therefore claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claims 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant has elected to cancel the claim and the claim is subsequently no longer being considered.
Regarding claim 9, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations comprise continuing the turn motion of the vehicle until the rear edge or the rear point of the trailer is detected within the field-of-view of the one or more sensors (see claim 1 Fig. 8 the detection of the rear edge or corner, claim 6 regarding determining the width of the trailer and claims 15 and 16 regarding the capability of turning the vehicle).
Claim 20 recites a computer-implemented method having substantially the same features of claim 9 above, therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise generating a trailer model representative of the estimated dimension of the trailer ([0034] s.1, 3D model of the trailer).
Regarding claim 11, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
The system of claim 10, comprising a database configured to electronically store
the trailer model and the dimension of the trailer ([0037] s. 2, When such features are detected in the image associated with a database of trailer types).
Regarding claim 12, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
The system of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise transmitting the trailer model to a mission control ([0021] user interface is configured to display information to the driver of the tow vehicle, which is construed as a mission control based on the Applicant’s description within the current disclosure , see [0065] s.2).
Regarding claim 15, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
The system of claim 12, wherein the mission control includes a vehicle control unit configured to generate a limited behavior for the vehicle based on the trailer model ([0015] drive system that includes a steering system to adjust a direction).
Regarding claim 16, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
The system of claim 15 wherein the limited behavior for the vehicle ensures
prevention of collisions of the trailer during turning of the vehicle (see claim 15 regarding [0015] and [0051] collision avoidance).
Regarding claim 17, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
A computer-implemented method for trailer dimension estimation, comprising:
coupling a trailer with a vehicle, the vehicle including at least one sensor associated with the vehicle, the at least one sensor each having a field-of-view, wherein the trailer includes a front section disposed proximal to the vehicle and a rear section disposed distal to the vehicle (see claim 1); and
executing instructions stored in a memory with a processing device in communication with the at least one sensor to perform operations (see claim 1) comprising:
initiating a first turn motion of the vehicle into a first direction until a first rear edge or a first rear point of the rear section of the trailer is detected within the field-of-view of the at least one sensor (see claim 1);
initiating a second turn motion of the vehicle into a second direction opposite of the first direction until a second rear edge or a second rear point of the rear section of the trailer is detected within the field-of-view of the at least one sensor (see claim 1); and
estimating a dimension of the trailer based on one or more signals from the at least one sensor associated with the first rear edge or the first rear point, and the second rear edge or the second rear point (see claim 1).
________________________________________
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alamir et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2026/0021846 A1), hereinafter referred to as Alamir, in view of Gali et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0094473 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gali, and Cha et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0334972 A1), hereinafter referred to as Cha.
Regarding claim 13, Alamir, as modified by Gali, discloses:
The system of claim 12, wherein the mission control includes based on the trailer model (see claim 1 and [0034] s.1, generate models of the trailer),
but Alamir, as modified by Gali, does not explicitly disclose:
a route generation unit configured to generate a mission route for the vehicle.
However, Cha teaches in [0176] s.1 that a global path must be designed by considering the length and width of the trailer, which is construed as route generation .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of navigation and vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the rear corner detection and trailer width determination of Alamir, as already modified by the turning teachings of Gali, by incorporating the route generation consideration teachings of Cha, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of providing a safe route for a vehicle based on its width so to avoid colliding into obstacles.
________________________________________
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alamir et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2026/0021846 A1), hereinafter referred to as Alamir, in view of Gali et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0094473 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gali, Cha et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2025/0334972 A1), hereinafter referred to as Cha, and Liu et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0150101 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu.
Regarding claim 14, Alamir, as modified by Gali and Cha, discloses:
The system of claim 13, wherein the mission route generated by the route generation unit (see claim 13),
but Alamir, as modified by Gali and Cha, does not disclose that the route may:
ensures regulatory compliance along the mission route for the vehicle and the trailer.
However, Liu teaches in [0104] s. 4 that determining whether a route template is feasible is based on rules (e.g., HOS rules promulgated by various agencies, such as the U.S. DOT), which is construed as ensuring the route that is generated meets regulatory compliance stipulations in order to be viable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of navigation and vehicle controls before the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the rear corner detection and trailer width determination of Alamir, as already modified by the turning teachings of Gali and the route generation consideration teachings of Cha, by incorporating the route compliance standard teachings of Liu, such that the combination would provide for the predictable result of providing a safe route for a vehicle based on its width so to avoid colliding into obstacles.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see:
Hoetzer et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,211,889 B1) is directed towards a providing a vehicle blind spot detection system for host vehicles with attached trailers.
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 KEITH ALLEN VON VOLKENBURG whose telephone number is (703)756-5886. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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 D. 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.
/Keith A von Volkenburg/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights