Response to Amendment
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finan et al. (US 20200079164 A1) in view of Haug (EP 1593552 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Finan teaches a method for a camera monitor system (CMS), comprising: utilizing a camera mounted to a tractor to record an image of a trailer that is coupled to the tractor (Finan, Fig. 1, Cameras 104, 106; Para. 15, The vehicle 102 comprises a front facing image capturing device 106 and a rear facing image capturing device 104; Para. 17, The rear facing image capturing device 104 may also be mounted in any desired location on the vehicle for capturing an image looking in a generally backward direction from the vehicle 102); comparing an attribute of the trailer in the image to a reference attribute corresponding to a reference image (Finan, Para. 5, detecting an image of a trailer and comparing the image with predetermined reference images, a respective trailer inclination angle being assigned to the predetermined reference images. An inclination angle between a tractor and the trailer is automatically determined dependent upon the comparison of the detected image with the reference images and the reference image inclination angle; Para. 25, the processor 110 is programmed to process the digital image data representative of the image frames captured by the capturing devices 104, 106 and typically stored in a common memory 120 to determine respective distances of the rear facing image capturing device 104 and the front facing image capturing device 106 from a surface on which the vehicle lies); and based on the attribute and the reference attribute differing by more than a predefined threshold, determining that an area of the trailer is unevenly loaded (Finan, Para. 31, the processor 110 is configured to output a value indicative of the state of the towed trailer 200 responsive to one or both of: the distance of the rear image capturing device 104 being outside a first threshold, and the distance of the front image capturing device 106 being outside a second threshold. Thus, if the “z” coordinates change to outside a predefined threshold then it is determined that the trailer 200 has been overloaded or that the balance of weight from front to back is not proportionally correct and, therefore, the load weight is distributed incorrectly), and providing a notification to an occupant of the commercial vehicle in response thereto (Finan, Para. 32, The camera heights being determined during the monitoring of the rear and front view image capturing device provides a safe solution for the driver to know if the vehicle and trailer are safe to drive. The driver can then be alerted if the load has suddenly moved and perform a controlled manoeuvre to come to a stop and re-access the load being towed); wherein said comparing and providing a notification are performed by an electronic control unit of the CMS (Finan, Fig. 5, CPU 110; Para. 23, a processor 110 which is coupled to the rear 104 and front 106 image capturing devices is arranged to determine a weight distribution of the trailer 200 being towed by the vehicle. The processor 110 can comprise a processor normally tasked with parking assist and/or autonomous or semi-autonomous driving such as active cruise control or indeed any other vehicle function); and wherein said determining that an area of the trailer is unevenly loaded comprises determining whether the trailer is overloaded towards a front end of the trailer or a rear end of the trailer (Finan, Fig. 2-3; Para. 37-40, In FIGS. 2 and 3 the image capturing device distance from the ground will increase largely on the front and decrease largely on the back and vice-versa based on whether the trailer is overloaded at the front or rear).
Finan does not teach wherein the camera has a field of view that includes an area above a fifth wheel coupling of the tractor; and the attribute corresponds to a graphical indicator on a front side of the trailer.
However, the concept of using image patterns of a section as a graphical indicator captured by the camera device for angle information is well known in the art as also taught by Haug. Haug teaches this angle information can be determined particularly well by means of template correlation evaluation of significant points and / or lines and / or significant image patterns of a section captured by the camera device of the opposite wall of a vehicle of the team, in particular the wall opposite the towing vehicle. Thus, a pitch angle for known distance information can be determined simply by a vertical displacement of the line of the front trailer lower edge (Page 6, Para. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use image patterns being detected by a camera for angle determination (as taught by Haug) resulting in predictable result of determining load information based on the angle information.
In regard to claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
Response to Arguments
Response to amended claims is considered above in claim Rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 9-10 and 19-20, Haug (EP 1593552 A1) teaches this angle information can be determined particularly well by means of template correlation evaluation of significant points and / or lines and / or significant image patterns of a section captured by the camera device of the opposite wall of a vehicle of the team, in particular the wall opposite the towing vehicle. Thus, a pitch angle for known distance information can be determined simply by a vertical displacement of the line of the front trailer lower edge (Page 6, Para. 11) but does not teach claim limitations of claims 9-10 and 19-20. Therefore, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claim limitations.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN AKHTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9365. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta W Goins can be reached on (571) 272.2957. 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.
/SHARMIN AKHTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights