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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOKA(EP3922528A1) in view of Herman(US 20230230387 A1)
Regarding claim 1, BOKA discloses
A trailer monitoring system comprising: a range sensor (“time-of-flight sensors (e.g. lidar or radar devices), “ [0018] & FIG.1, Part.510) facing a rear direction (FIG.3, part.70);a camera monitor system including a first mirror replacement assembly including a housing supporting a rear facing camera (“camera based detectors like mirror replacement cameras” [0026] & FIG.3, part.70 &”Fused external sensor data may combine data from cameras, lidar and radar devices” [0047]); and one or more controllers in communication with the range sensor (“With data flow directed by the on-board
controller 550, the control module 130 also receives fused sensor data 502 from sensors of the towing vehicle (via the data collection module 110 and the extraction” [0047]), the one or more controllers identifying an existence of a trailer surface based on a reading from the range sensor (“Based on data from such sensors, placed on an autonomous truck (with trailer interface), the extraction module may then easily determine the presence and other geometrical data (height, length, width, articulation angle) of the trailer.” [0017]),
BOKA does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the camera monitor system for trailer monitoring is activated in response to identifying an existence of a trailer. Herman discloses wherein, in accordance with a detection of the trailer surface, the one or more controllers activate the camera monitor system for trailer monitoring (FIG.8A, Steps.136 & 144).
Herman teaches in the same field of trailer monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOKA with the teachings of Herman to incorporate the features of activating a camera monitor system for trailer monitoring in response to identifying an existence of a trailer so as to gain the advantage of reducing power consumption. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 1. BOKA discloses wherein, the range sensor comprises a time of flight sensor (“time-of-flight sensors (e.g. lidar or radar devices), “ [0018]).
Regarding claim 3, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 2. BOKA discloses wherein, the time of flight sensor includes a radar sensor (“time-of-flight sensors (e.g. lidar or radar devices), “ [0018]).
Regarding claim 4, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 2. BOKA discloses wherein, the time of flight sensor includes a lidar range sensor (“time-of-flight sensors (e.g. lidar or radar devices), “ [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 1. BOKA discloses wherein, the range sensor is supported within the housing of the camera monitor system (“mirror replacement cameras, cameras sensitive to the near infrared spectrum, sensors with direct distance information / time of-flight sensors (e.g. lidar or radar devices),” [0018] & FIG.3, Part.512), and wherein the range sensor covers a field of view for at least class IV (FIG.3, Part.70).
Regarding claim 6, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 1. BOKA discloses wherein, the camera monitor system includes a second mirror replacement assembly including a second housing supporting a second rear facing camera and supporting a second range sensor (Fig.5, Parts. 512 &515)
Regarding claim 7, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 6. BOKA discloses wherein, the first mirror replacement assembly is disposed in a first camera wing of a commercial vehicle, wherein a trailer is attached to the commercial vehicle (Fig.5, Parts. 512 & 55)
Regarding claim 8, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 7. BOKA discloses wherein, the second mirror replacement assembly is disposed in a second camera wing of the commercial vehicle (Fig.5, Part.515).
Regarding claim 9, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 8. BOKA discloses wherein, the first mirror replacement assembly is disposed on a driver side of the commercial vehicle(Fig.5, Part. 512 ), and wherein the second mirror replacement assembly is disposed on a passenger side of the commercial vehicle (Fig.5, Part. 515).
Regarding claim 10, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 8. BOKA discloses wherein, the one or more controllers comprise a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions (“read only memory (ROM) for storing software “ [0054]) for identifying the trailer surface via the range sensor, the processor processing the instructions to identify a presence of a trailer associated with the commercial vehicle based on readings from the range sensor (“Based on data from such sensors, placed on an autonomous truck (with trailer interface), the extraction module may then easily determine the presence and other geometrical data (height, length, width, articulation angle) of the trailer.” [0017]),
BOKA does not explicitly disclose nor limit an information display. Herman discloses wherein, wherein the one or more controllers communicate trailer detection information to a display or other output device (“The HMI 66 may include a vehicle display 72, such as a center-stack mounted navigation or entertainment display (FIG. 1)” [0059])
Herman teaches in the same field of trailer monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOKA with the teachings of Herman to incorporate the features of an information display so as to gain the advantage of improving user accessibility. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 11, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 8. BOKA does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the camera monitor system for trailer monitoring is activated in response to identifying an existence of a trailer. Herman discloses wherein, the camera monitor system has a deactivated state and an activated state for trailer monitoring (“ the controller 14 may activate one or more of the cameras (e.g., the rear camera 60a” [0086]), and wherein in accordance with an identification of a trailer based on readings from the range sensor, the one or more controllers automatically place the camera monitor system in the activated state (FIG.8A, Steps.136 & 144).
Herman teaches in the same field of trailer monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOKA with the teachings of Herman to incorporate the features of activating a camera monitor system for trailer monitoring in response to identifying an existence of a trailer so as to gain the advantage of reducing power consumption. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 11. BOKA does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the camera monitor system for trailer monitoring is activated in response to identifying an existence of a trailer. Herman discloses wherein, the camera monitor system is in the activated state only while the range sensor detects a presence of the trailer (FIG.8A, Steps.136 & 144).
Herman teaches in the same field of trailer monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOKA with the teachings of Herman to incorporate the features of only activating a camera monitor system for trailer monitoring in response to identifying an existence of a trailer so as to gain the advantage of reducing power consumption. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 14, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 7. BOKA discloses wherein, the range sensor is configured to sense an entire length of the trailer (“Based on data from such sensors, placed on an autonomous truck (with trailer interface), the extraction module may then easily determine the presence and other geometrical data (height, length, width, articulation angle) of the trailer.” [0017]),
Regarding claim 15, BOKA discloses
A method for monitoring a presence of a trailer attached to a commercial vehicle for activation of a camera monitor system including at least a first mirror replacement assembly having a housing supporting a rear facing camera(“camera based detectors like mirror replacement cameras” [0026] & FIG.3, part.70), the method comprising: communicating readings from a rear facing range sensor (FIG.3, part.70) to one or more controllers (“time-of-flight sensors (e.g. lidar or radar devices), “ [0018]); the one or more controllers identifying a presence of a trailer surface based on the readings from the rear facing range sensor(“Based on data from such sensors, placed on an autonomous truck (with trailer interface), the extraction module may then easily determine the presence and other geometrical data (height, length, width, articulation angle) of the trailer.” [0017]);
BOKA does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the camera monitor system for trailer monitoring is activated in response to identifying an existence of a trailer. Herman discloses wherein, in accordance with a detection of the trailer surface, activating the camera monitor system for trailer monitoring (FIG.8A, Steps.136 & 144).
Herman teaches in the same field of trailer monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOKA with the teachings of Herman to incorporate the features of activating a camera monitor system for trailer monitoring in response to identifying an existence of a trailer so as to gain the advantage of reducing power consumption. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 16, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 15. BOKA discloses wherein, the rear facing range sensor is one of a radar sensor and a lidar sensor (“time-of-flight sensors (e.g. lidar or radar devices), “ [0018]), and wherein the rear facing range sensor is configured to sense an entire length of the trailer (FIG.3, Part.70).
Regarding claim 17, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 15. BOKA discloses wherein, supporting the rear facing range sensor within the housing of the first mirror replacement assembly (“mirror replacement cameras, cameras sensitive to the near infrared spectrum, sensors with direct distance information / time of-flight sensors (e.g. lidar or radar devices),” [0018] & FIG.3, Part.512), and wherein the rear facing range sensor covers a field of view for at least class IV (FIG.3, Part.70).
Regarding claim 18, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 15. BOKA discloses wherein, the camera monitor system includes a second mirror replacement assembly including a second housing supporting a second rear facing camera and supporting a second rear facing range sensor (Fig.5, Parts. 512 &515), the method including: disposing the first mirror replacement assembly in a first camera wing of a commercial vehicle (Fig.5, Parts. 512 & 55); and disposing the second mirror replacement assembly is disposed in a second camera wing of the commercial vehicle (Fig.5, Part.515).
Regarding claim 19, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 18. BOKA does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the camera monitor system for trailer monitoring is activated in response to identifying an existence of a trailer. Herman discloses wherein, the camera monitor system has a deactivated state and an activated state for trailer monitoring(“ the controller 14 may activate one or more of the cameras (e.g., the rear camera 60a” [0086]), and wherein in accordance with an identification of a trailer associated with the commercial vehicle based on identification of a trailer surface from the rear facing range sensor, the one or more controllers automatically place the camera monitor system in the activated state (FIG.8A, Steps.136 & 144).
Herman teaches in the same field of trailer monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOKA with the teachings of Herman to incorporate the features of activating a camera monitor system for trailer monitoring in response to identifying an existence of a trailer so as to gain the advantage of reducing power consumption. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOKA(EP3922528A1) as modified by Herman(US 20230230387 A1) as applied to claims 1, and 15 above, and further in view of Himmatramka (US 20240217321 A1)
Regarding claim 13, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Although BOKA as modified by Herman disclose automatically activating a camera when the presence of a trailer is detected, they do not appear to explicitly disclose steps directed to deactivating the camera. Himmatramka discloses, the one or more controllers automatically returns the camera monitor system to the deactivated state when the range sensor no longer detects the presence of the trailer (“the actuation controller 120 can instruct a camera of the vehicle 103 to activate or deactivate in response to an indication of presence of an obstacle in the path of traversal of the tonneau cover 160, in response to receiving that indication from the obstacle detection engine 400.” [0033])
Himmatramka teaches in the same field of vehicle monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOKA as modified by Herman with the teachings of Himmatramka to incorporate the features of deactivating a camera monitoring system when the presence of the trailer is no longer detected so as to gain the advantage of reducing power consumption. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 20, BOKA as modified by Herman discloses all the limitations of claim 19. BOKA does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the camera monitor system for trailer monitoring is activated in response to identifying an existence of a trailer. Herman discloses wherein, wherein the camera monitor system is in the activated state for trailer monitoring only while the rear facing range sensor detects the presence of the trailer (FIG.8A, Steps.136 & 144).
Herman teaches in the same field of trailer monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOKA with the teachings of Herman to incorporate the features of only activating a camera monitor system for trailer monitoring in response to identifying an existence of a trailer so as to gain the advantage of reducing power consumption. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Although BOKA as modified by Herman disclose automatically activating a camera when the presence of a trailer is detected, they do not appear to explicitly disclose steps directed to deactivating the camera. Himmatramka discloses, wherein the one or more controllers automatically returns the camera monitor system to the deactivated state for trailer monitoring when the rear facing range sensor no longer detects the presence of the trailer (“the actuation controller 120 can instruct a camera of the vehicle 103 to activate or deactivate in response to an indication of presence of an obstacle in the path of traversal of the tonneau cover 160, in response to receiving that indication from the obstacle detection engine 400.” [0033])
Himmatramka teaches in the same field of vehicle monitoring systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BOKA as modified by Herman with the teachings of Himmatramka to incorporate the features of deactivating a camera monitoring system when the presence of the trailer is no longer detected so as to gain the advantage of reducing power consumption. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Hayes(US 20250100446 A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0010] “Also, the vehicle 100 can have other devices, including, but not limited to, forward-facing cameras, radars, lidars, and environmental sensors.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights