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
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 10-11 and 19 are presented as currently amended claims.
Claims 2-8, 12-18 and 20 are presented as original claims.
Claim 21 is newly presented.
Claim 9 is newly cancelled.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 16, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahama (US 20210339588 A1) in view of Fujii (US 20180345960 A1) in view of Berkemeier (US 20170191244 A1) (the combination of which will be referred to as 'combination Takahama' hereinafter). As regards the individual claims:
Regarding claim 11, Takahama teaches a vehicle mechanically coupled to a trailer, the vehicle comprising:
a hitch for mechanically coupling the vehicle to the trailer; a processing system comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions; and a processing device for executing the computer readable instructions, (Takahama: ¶ 050; electronic control apparatus including a microcomputer equipped with a CPU, a ROM, a RAM,) the computer readable instructions controlling the processing system to perform operations comprising: a camera; and receiving an image from the camera; (Takahama: ¶ 163; hitch coupler detection portion 41 perceives the hitch coupler 30B based on a comparison between the pre-learned image pattern of the hitch coupler 30B and the image of the rear camera 60 to identify the position and the angle of the hitch coupler 30B, and outputs information about the identified position and angle of the hitch coupler 30B to the target trajectory generation portion) . . . determining a relative center of gravity location of the vehicle and trailer based at least in part on the relative position (Takahama: ¶ 191; the target trajectory generation portion 42 identifies the position of the center of gravity (Xg, Yg) of the vehicle 10 in the coordinate system with the origin thereof placed at the position of the hitch coupler 30B) (Takahama: ¶ 192; vehicle 10 has the yaw angle θ (rad) of θ=Φ, the target trajectory generation portion 42 calculates the position of the center of gravity (Xg, Yg) according to the following equations . . . Xg=X+Lb.Math.cos θ Yg= Y+Lb.Math.sin θ) and pose of the vehicle and trailer; (Takahama: ¶ 246; calculates the center of gravity (Xg_t, Yg_t) and the yaw angle θt (refer to FIG. 24) of the vehicle 10 at time tin the coordinate system with the origin thereof placed at the position of the hitch coupler 30B according to an equation 7.) and controlling the vehicle using an advanced driver assistance system based on a model of the vehicle and trailer, (Takahama: ¶ 323; in a case where the vehicle 10 includes a four-wheel steering system, the hitching assist control unit 40 can output a steering instruction directed to the front wheels and/or a steering instruction directed to the rear wheels) wherein the model utilizes the relative center of gravity location of the vehicle and trailer. (Takahama: ¶¶ 194-196; target trajectory generation portion 42 sets the following first to fifth control points (the starting point to the end point) as the control points of the B-spline curve. the first control point (the starting point): the position of the center of gravity of the vehicle 10 the second control point (the starting point+1): a position shifted backward from the position of the center of gravity of the vehicle 10 by a predetermined distance)
To the extent Takahama is silent about or does not explicitly teach: determining, using the image, a relative position and pose of the vehicle and trailer relative to a lane marking of a lane of a road occupied by the vehicle and trailer and in which the vehicle and trailer are traveling; Fujii does teach:
A system that calculates a center of gravity with a camera generated image relative to a center line of a roadway. (Fujii: ¶ 092; camera sensor 12 calculates a distance Dy (m) in a lane width direction between a center of gravity point P of an own vehicle C and the lane center line CL, namely, the distance Dy by which the own vehicle C is shifted from the lane center line CL in the lane width direction.). Therefore before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested:
determining, using the image, a relative position and pose of the vehicle and trailer relative to a lane marking of a lane of a road occupied by the vehicle and trailer and in which the vehicle and trailer are traveling; because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a centerline of a lane is a parallel equivalent to a lane edge and that before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fujii with the teachings of Takahama because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of creating an effective relative coordinate system to control the vehicle. (Fujii: ¶ 012).
To the extent Takahama is silent about or does not explicitly teach: wherein determining the relative center of gravity location comprises adjusting an initial center of gravity location value set for the vehicle based on a change in a load or configuration of the vehicle; Fujii does teach:
wherein determining the relative center of gravity location (Berkemeier: ¶ 055; determine the center of gravity of such vehicles and to regulate at least some operations (e.g., steering) based on the center of gravity.) comprises adjusting an initial center of gravity location value set for the vehicle (Berkemeier: ¶ 038; account for a new center of gravity (e.g., a deviation from the control point) (block 108) based on a new estimate including factors affecting the trajectory of the right and the left wheels, and of the vehicle in general.) based on a change in a load or configuration of the vehicle; (Berkemeier: ¶ 015; method for automatically controlling the steering of a work vehicle and accounting for changes when the center of gravity of the work vehicle changes (e.g., as product is loaded and/or unloaded from the work vehicle) . . . using equations to predict the effects of several variables . . . automatically controls the vehicle by determining a load, by identifying a center of gravity based in part on the load and the received data, and the control point.)
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Berkemeier with the teachings of Takahama because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving the steering and control of the vehicle (Berkemeier: ¶ 004).
Regarding claim 16, as detailed above, combination Takahama teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Takahama further teaches:
wherein controlling the vehicle comprises performing a perception task using at least the image and the model of the vehicle that utilizes the relative center of gravity location of the vehicle. (Takahama: ¶ 163; image of the rear camera 60 to identify the position and the angle of the hitch coupler 30B, and outputs information about the identified position and angle of the hitch coupler 30B to the target trajectory generation portion 43) (Takahama: ¶ 219; controller 43B calculates the lateral acceleration for causing the vehicle 10 to follow the target trajectory)
Regarding claim 19, Takahama teaches:
a set of one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions, collectively stored in the set of one or more storage media, for causing a processor set to perform computer operations comprising: (Takahama: ¶ 050; electronic control apparatus including a microcomputer equipped with a CPU, a ROM, a RAM,) receiving an image from a camera of a vehicle; determining, using the image, a relative position (Takahama: ¶ 163; hitch coupler detection portion 41 perceives the hitch coupler 30B based on a comparison between the pre-learned image pattern of the hitch coupler 30B and the image of the rear camera 60 to identify the position and the angle of the hitch coupler 30B, and outputs information about the identified position and angle of the hitch coupler 30B to the target trajectory generation portion) . . . determining a relative center of gravity location of the vehicle based at least in part on the relative position (Takahama: ¶ 191; the target trajectory generation portion 42 identifies the position of the center of gravity (Xg, Yg) of the vehicle 10 in the coordinate system with the origin thereof placed at the position of the hitch coupler 30B) (Takahama: ¶ 192; vehicle 10 has the yaw angle θ (rad) of θ=Φ, the target trajectory generation portion 42 calculates the position of the center of gravity (Xg, Yg) according to the following equations . . . Xg=X+Lb.Math.cos θ Yg=Y+Lb.Math.sin θ) and pose of the vehicle; and (Takahama: ¶ 246; calculates the center of gravity (Xg_t, Yg_t) and the yaw angle θt (refer to FIG. 24) of the vehicle 10 at time tin the coordinate system with the origin thereof placed at the position of the hitch coupler 30B according to an equation 7.) controlling the vehicle using an advanced driver assistance system based on a model of the vehicle, (Takahama: ¶ 323; in a case where the vehicle 10 includes a four-wheel steering system, the hitching assist control unit 40 can output a steering instruction directed to the front wheels and/or a steering instruction directed to the rear wheels) wherein the model utilizes the relative center of gravity location of the vehicle. (Takahama: ¶¶ 194-196; target trajectory generation portion 42 sets the following first to fifth control points (the starting point to the end point) as the control points of the B-spline curve. the first control point (the starting point): the position of the center of gravity of the vehicle 10 the second control point (the starting point+1): a position shifted backward from the position of the center of gravity of the vehicle 10 by a predetermined distance)
To the extent Takahama is silent about or does not explicitly teach: . . . and pose of the vehicle relative to a lane marking of a lane of a road occupied by the vehicle and in which the vehicle is traveling . . . wherein determining the relative center of gravity location comprises updating a previously determined center of gravity location . . . ; Fujii does teach:
A system that calculates a center of gravity with a camera generated image relative to a center line of a roadway. (Fujii: ¶ 092; camera sensor 12 calculates a distance Dy (m) in a lane width direction between a center of gravity point P of an own vehicle C and the lane center line CL, namely, the distance Dy by which the own vehicle C is shifted from the lane center line CL in the lane width direction.); therefore before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught or suggested: and pose of the vehicle relative to a lane marking of a lane of a road occupied by the vehicle and in which the vehicle is traveling; because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a centerline of a lane is a parallel equivalent to a lane edge and that before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fujii with the teachings of Takahama because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of creating an effective relative coordinate system to control the vehicle. (Fujii: ¶ 012).
And Fujii also teaches: . . . wherein determining the relative center of gravity location comprises updating a previously determined center of gravity location . . .(Fujii: ¶ 092; repeats the processing of Steps S14 to S16 at a predetermined calculation cycle. In this way, the LCA is continued.)
To the extent Takahama is silent or does not explicitly teach: . . . using an adaptive gain filter based on a difference between a lane-based center of gravity estimate and the previously determined center of gravity location; Berkemeier teaches:
using an adaptive gain filter (Berkemeier: ¶ 039; In a presently contemplated embodiment, the controller calculates proportional gains and derivative gains and automatically adjusts the trajectory of the work vehicle to keep the error values within an acceptable threshold range. In practice, such gains may include one or more of proportional gains, derivative gains, integral gains, and other gains that aid in smooth and accurate control of the trajectory despite changing dynamics caused by the presence and movement of the load.)based on a difference between a lane-based center of gravity estimate and the previously determined center of gravity location; (Berkemeier: ¶ 038; account for a new center of gravity (e.g., a deviation from the control point) (block 108) based on a new estimate including factors
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Berkemeier with the teachings of Takahama because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving the steering and control of the vehicle (Berkemeier: ¶ 004).
Regarding claim 21, as detailed above, combination Takahama teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 19. To the extent Takahama is silent or does not explicitly teach:
wherein determining the relative center of gravity location comprises updating a previously determined center of gravity location using an adaptive gain filter based on a difference between a lane-based center of gravity estimate and the previously determined center of gravity location; Berkemeier teaches:
wherein determining the relative center of gravity location comprises adjusting an initial center of gravity location value set for the vehicle based on a change in a load or configuration of the vehicle.
wherein determining the relative center of gravity location (Berkemeier: ¶ 005; determine the center of gravity of such vehicles and to regulate at least some operations (e.g., steering) based on the center of gravity.) comprises adjusting an initial center of gravity location value set for the vehicle(Berkemeier: ¶ 038; account for a new center of gravity (e.g., a deviation from the control point) (block 108) based on a new estimate including factors affecting the trajectory of the right and the left wheels, and of the vehicle in general. The method 100 includes determining whether a new measurement has been received (block 110). If a new measurement has been received, the previous step (block 108) is repeated. If a new measurement has not been received, the parameters affecting the right and the left wheels are maintained) based on a change in a load or configuration of the vehicle. (Berkemeier: ¶ 038; account for a new center of gravity (e.g., a deviation from the control point) (block 108) based on a new estimate including factors affecting the trajectory of the right and the left wheels, and of the vehicle in general. The method 100 includes determining whether a new measurement has been received (block 110). If a new measurement has been received, the previous step (block 108) is repeated. If a new measurement has not been received, the parameters affecting the right and the left wheels are maintained)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Takahama as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Shahriari et al. (US 20230091406 A1).
Regarding claim 12, as detailed above, combination Takahama teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. Takahama is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the advanced driver assistance system is an automated lane change system to cause the vehicle to perform a lane change. However, Shahriari does teach:
wherein the advanced driver assistance system is an automated lane change system to cause the vehicle to perform a lane change. (Shahriari: ¶ 039; distance l.sub.r from the center of gravity 58 of the vehicle 10 to the rear axle 25 along the vehicle longitudinal axis 56 may be predetermined based on the characteristics of the vehicle 10. The distance D from the center of gravity 54 of the trailer 50 to the trailer hitch 52 along the trailer longitudinal axis 53 may be a predetermined design parameter which can be adjusted based on estimated mass or rearview perception (including camera,).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Shahriari with the teachings of Takahama because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of allowing driver-assistance systems to operate when a vehicle is towing a trailer. (Shahriari: ¶ 002).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Takahama as applied to claims 11 above, and further in view of Ghasemalizadeh et al. (US 20200039523 A1).
Regarding claim 13, as detailed above, combination Takahama teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. combination Takahama does not explicitly teach:
wherein the advanced driver assistance system is a front collision alert system to generate an alert to an operator of the vehicle warning of a potential front collision.; however, Ghasemalizadeh does teach:
wherein the advanced driver assistance system is a front collision alert system to generate an alert to an operator of the vehicle warning of a potential front collision. (Ghasemalizadeh: ¶ 080; obstacle warning information to warn of a potential collision).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Ghasemalizadeh with the teachings of Takahama because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of improving driver awareness of road dangers.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination Takahama as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lee (US 9229453 B1).
Regarding claim 14, as detailed above, combination Takahama teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. To the extent Takahama is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the advanced driver assistance system is a collision imminent braking system to apply brakes of the vehicle to reduce a velocity of the vehicle; however, Lee does teach:
wherein the advanced driver assistance system is a collision imminent braking system to apply brakes of the vehicle to reduce a velocity of the vehicle. (Lee: ¶ 099; Cols. 15, Lns. 65-68; If the collision can be avoided by braking alone at the decision diamond 136, then the algorithm performs the braking maneuver).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Takahama because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of reducing the likelihood of vehicle accidents by improving path prediction and warning drivers of possible collision.
Regarding claim 15, as detailed above, combination Takahama teaches the invention as detailed with respect to claim 11. To the extent Takahama is silent about or does not explicitly teach:
wherein the advanced driver assistance system is an automated evasive steering system to adjust a trajectory of the vehicle; however, Lee does teach:
wherein the advanced driver assistance system is an automated evasive steering system to adjust a trajectory of the vehicle. (Lee: ¶ 098; Cols. 15, Lns. 40-43; determine the collision boundary 76, the waypoints 78 and 80, the collision avoidance path 82, the cruise path 104 and the return path 86 in the same manner as discussed above, where the vehicle controller will take over steering of the vehicle).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Takahama because doing so would result in the predicable benefit of reducing the likelihood of vehicle accidents by improving path prediction and warning drivers of possible collision.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 10 are allowed.
Claims 17-18 and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied drawing objection is effective and the objection is overcome.
Applicant’s argument and amendments with respect to the previous applied 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 19 is persuasive and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-16, 19, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues that
the art of record fails to disclose, teach, or suggest at least "wherein determining the relative center of gravity location comprises adjusting an initial center of gravity location value set for the vehicle based on a change in a load or configuration of the vehicle" as now claimed. Takahama uses a center of gravity position for hitching-assist trajectory generation based on known geometric relationships, and Fujii uses a center-of-gravity point for lane-relative deviation, but neither reference teaches adjusting an initial calibrated center of gravity value based on changed vehicle load or configuration (Applicant’s Arguments filed June 17, 2026, pg. PP).
Newly applied prior art Berkemeier (US 20170191244 A1) teaches a system of adjusting the control of a vehicle (Berkemeier: ¶ 055) by continuously (Id at ¶ 038) calculating the center of gravity (“Cg”) of a vehicle (Id at ¶ 055) the loading of a cargo and the location of the cargo in relationship to the Cg of the vehicle. Berkemeier further teaches adaptive filtering of control to more effectively control error created by changes in input or shifting loads (Id at ¶ 039). Consonantly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to claims 11-16, 19, and 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Weston et al. (US 20240132054 A1) which discloses a method to predict, based on sensor data from one or more sensors of the vehicle, whether a trailer sway condition associated with the vehicle is likely to occur.
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 CHARLES PALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5280. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30 - 18:30.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/C.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights