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 .
Claims 1 – 24 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 6, 8 – 11, 15, 17 – 19, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lavoie et al. (US 2016/0039456).
Regarding Claim 1:
Lavoie et al. teaches a vehicle maneuvering system, comprising: a processor (12); and a memory (14) communicatively coupled to the processor, the memory having stored therein computer-executable instructions, comprising: a steer-by-wire component (paragraph 0253) configured to receive steering wheel input and navigate the vehicle in reverse mode (paragraph 0189, abstract); a hitch angle component (130, 155) that estimates hitch angle of a trailer (110) coupled to the vehicle, and estimate (paragraph 0244) an angular rate of the hitch angle through the data gathered from the hitch angle component (Figs 30 – 35); and a controller (115) that controls speed (via 1318) of the vehicle and steering wheel angle (via 115) input to maintain the hitch angle within a stable range (Fig 37, paragraphs 0141, 0190 – 0195).
Regarding Claim 2:
Lavoie et al. teaches the controller facilitates maintaining a zero-torque relationship with the steering wheel angle and hitch angle (paragraph 0068).
Regarding Claim 6:
Lavoie et al. teaches the controller maintains the hitch angle to below a threshold that can result in jack knifing of the trailer (paragraphs 0110 – 0118).
Regarding Claim 8:
Lavoie et al. teaches a linear transducer that estimates Φ, angle between the vehicle and the trailer (paragraphs 0189 – 0191).
Regarding Claim 9:
Lavoie et al. teaches a set of yaw sensors that facilitate estimating Φ, angle between the vehicle and the trailer, wherein the controller integrates difference between vehicle and trailer yaw angular rate over time (paragraphs 0066, 0168 – 0171).
Regarding Claim 10:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 11:
See rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim15:
See rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding Claim 17:
See rejection of Claim 8 above.
Regarding Claim 18:
See rejection of Claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 19:
See rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 23:
See rejection of Claim 6 above.
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 3 – 4, 12 – 13, 20 – 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie et al. (US 2016/0039456) and in view of Sriram (US 2022/0366186).
Regarding Claim 3:
Lavoie et al. is silent to an artificial intelligence component that has been implicitly trained to facilitate the controller maintaining the hitch angle within the stable range.
However, Sriram. teaches an artificial intelligence component that has been implicitly trained to facilitate the controller maintaining the hitch angle within the stable range (paragraphs 0049 – 0050, Figs 4 – 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the AI component of Sriram in the system of Lavoie et al. in order to train and provide learning to the controller system based on the hitch angle stability ranges.
Regarding Claim 4:
Lavoie et al. is silent to an artificial intelligence component that has been explicitly trained to facilitate the controller maintaining the hitch angle within the stable range.
However, Sriram. teaches an artificial intelligence component that has been explicitly trained to facilitate the controller maintaining the hitch angle within the stable range (paragraphs 0049 – 0050, Figs 4 – 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the AI component of Sriram in the system of Lavoie et al. in order to train and provide learning to the controller system based on the hitch angle stability ranges.
Regarding Claim 12:
See rejection of Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 13:
See rejection of Claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 20:
See rejection of Claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 21:
See rejection of Claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 14, 16, 22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavoie et al. (US 2016/0039456).
Regarding Claim 5:
Lavoie et al. is silent to the controller estimates steering angle of the vehicle using the following equation: δ=ϕ.+vL3.Math.ϕ-vL1.Math.(1+L2L3) wherein: L.sub.1 is wheelbase of the vehicle; L.sub.2 is length from a tow hook to rear axle of the vehicle; L.sub.3 is length from the tow hook to axle on the trailer; V is velocity of the vehicle; and Φ is angle between the vehicle and the trailer.
However, Lavoie et al. teaches the same variable inputted via sensors (Fig 5, paragraphs 0094 – 0108), that are used to determine the steering angle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the equation as claimed since the steering angle determination of Lavoie et al. uses the same inputted variables in order to calculate a relationship between a curvature of a path of travel of a trailer and the steering angle of a vehicle towing the trailer.
Regarding Claim 7:
Lavoie et al. is silent to a length estimation component that estimates length of the trailer (L.sub.3) using the following equation: L3=-v.Math.(sin(ϕ).Math.L1+L2.Math.cos(ϕ).Math.tan(δ))ϕ..Math.L1+v.Math.tan(δ).
However, Lavoie et al. teaches the same variable inputted via sensors (paragraphs 0200 – 0205) that are used to determine the length of the trailer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the equation as claimed since the length determination of Lavoie et al. uses the same inputted variables in order to estimate the length of the trailer.
Regarding Claim 14:
See rejection of Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 16:
See rejection of Claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 22:
See rejection of Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 24:
See rejection of Claim 7 above.
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 LONG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1899. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/LONG T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747