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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-12, 14-16 and 18-19 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,528,492.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,528,492. The claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,528,492 are directed to a control device, control method, and storage medium for controlling display of predictive guides for a moving object towing a trailer based on a movement state of the moving object and a relative position between the moving object and the trailer.
Regarding independent claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,528,492 recites a control device including a movement state acquisition unit configured to acquire a movement state of a moving object towing a trailer, a relative position acquisition unit configured to acquire a relative position between the moving object and the trailer, and a display control unit configured to display a first predictive guide indicating a predicted passing area of the moving object and a second predictive guide indicating a predicted passing area of the trailer. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,528,492 further recites changing display of predictive guide information based on the movement state and the relative position. The presently claimed limitation of changing display of each of the first predictive guide and the second predictive guide and performing display in color of an area indicated by a guide to be displayed is an obvious display-mode variation of the predictive-guide display control already claimed in U.S. Patent No. 12,528,492.
Regarding independent claim 22, claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,528,492 recites a corresponding control method using a control device, including steps executed by a processor of acquiring a movement state of a moving object towing a trailer, acquiring a relative position between the moving object and the trailer, displaying a first predictive guide indicating a predicted passing area of the moving object and a second predictive guide indicating a predicted passing area of the trailer, and changing display of predictive guide information based on the movement state and the relative position. The presently claimed method merely recites the same predictive-guide display-control concept in method form, with the additional display-color feature being an obvious visual display-mode variation.
Regarding independent claim 23, claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,528,492 recites a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a control program for causing a processor of a control device to execute processes including acquiring a movement state of a moving object towing a trailer, acquiring a relative position between the moving object and the trailer, displaying a first predictive guide indicating a predicted passing area of the moving object and a second predictive guide indicating a predicted passing area of the trailer, and changing display of predictive guide information based on the movement state and the relative position. The presently claimed storage medium is not patentably distinct because it recites the same control-program implementation of the same predictive-guide display-control concept, with the additional display-color feature being an obvious visual display-mode variation.
Therefore, claims 1, 22, and 23 are not patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,528,492. Claims 2-21 depend from claim 1 and further recite details of the same predictive-guide display control, including guide lines, transparency/color, surrounding images, turning direction, relative direction, hiding/displaying guide lines, and display on a vehicle display or information terminal. These dependent limitations are also not patentably distinct from the predictive-guide display-control features recited in claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,528,492.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 23 recites “A storage medium storing a control program for a control device that causes a processor of the control device to execute processes of…” The claim does not recite that the storage medium is non-transitory, and does not otherwise exclude transitory propagating signals, carrier waves, or other signal-based media.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “storage medium” encompasses transitory signal media. Transitory propagating signals are not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Accordingly, claim 23 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 13, 20 and 22-23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2014/0085472 A1) in view of Rathi et al. (US 2022/0089088 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lu teaches a control device comprising a movement state acquisition unit configured to acquire a movement state of a moving object towing a trailer, because Lu teaches a vehicle towing a trailer and a vision system/processor that uses vehicle movement information, including “steering wheel angle” or “steering angle of the vehicle,” to determine projected vehicle/trailer paths (paras 0080, 0083). Lu teaches a relative position acquisition unit configured to acquire a relative position between the moving object and the trailer, because Lu teaches determining how the trailer is angled relative to the vehicle and that the dynamic overlay is adjusted based on “a trailer angle relative to the vehicle” (paras 0083, 0084).
Lu further teaches a display control unit configured to display a first predictive guide indicating a predicted passing area of the moving object and a second predictive guide indicating a predicted passing area of the trailer, because Lu teaches a “dynamic vehicle and trailer icon overlay” and that the dynamic icon includes “projected paths or trajectories for the vehicle and for the trailer” so the driver can determine where the trailer will travel (paras 0082, 0083). Lu also teaches the display control unit is configured to change display of each of the first predictive guide and the second predictive guide based on the movement state and the relative position, because Lu teaches that the trailer and projected paths of the vehicle and trailer are “adjusted or varied responsive, at least in part, to the steering wheel angle” and based on vehicle/trailer characteristics, including trailer angle (para 0083).
Lu does not expressly teach the display control unit is configured to perform display in color of an area indicated by a guide to be displayed among the first predictive guide and the second predictive guide. However, Rathi teaches displaying vehicle vision overlays in color and transparency. Specifically, Rathi teaches that overlays may be “fully or partially transparent,” that the overlays may have “different colors,” and that the overlays may “change color” or “alter in transparency” based on vehicle display conditions (paras 0046, 0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s predictive vehicle/trailer path overlay to display the guide-indicated area in color, as taught by Rathi, in order to improve driver visibility and understanding of the displayed predictive path/guide information while maintaining visibility of the underlying camera image. Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Lu in view of Rathi.
Regarding claim 3, Lu further teaches “the display control unit is configured to acquire a surrounding image around the moving object,” because Lu teaches that the vision system includes sidewardly/rearwardly facing cameras and is operable to provide displayed images at a display device for viewing by the driver (para 0066). Lu also teaches that the side view cameras provide “additional scene information of the trailer to assist the driver” and that the system may display a “live top-down 360 degree view” including the vehicle, trailer, and surrounding area (paras 0068, 0084).
Lu further teaches displaying guide information on the surrounding image because Lu teaches that “the calculated graphical trailer path can be overlaid to the side camera image” and that the dynamic overlay may show “the projected path or trajectory of the trailer based on the steering wheel angle” (paras 0068, 0084).
Lu does not expressly teach “perform the display in color by overlaying a color on a target area of the surrounding image.” However, Rathi teaches vehicle vision overlays on displayed camera images, including that overlays may be “fully or partially transparent,” may have “different colors,” may “change color,” and may “alter in transparency” (paras 0046-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s graphical trailer path overlay on the surrounding camera image to overlay a colored guide area, as taught by Rathi, in order to improve driver visibility and comprehension of the displayed predicted path/guide information while preserving visibility of the underlying camera image.
Regarding claim 4, Lu teaches acquiring a surrounding image and overlaying graphical trailer path information on the surrounding image, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3. Lu teaches that “the calculated graphical trailer path can be overlaid to the side camera image” and that the dynamic overlay may show the projected path or trajectory of the trailer based on steering wheel angle (paras 0068, 0084).
Rathi further teaches “wherein the color overlayed on the surrounding image is a transparent color,” because Rathi teaches that vehicle vision overlays may be “fully or partially transparent” and may “alter in transparency” (paras 0046, 0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s graphical trailer path overlay on the surrounding camera image to use a transparent colored overlay, as taught by Rathi, in order to improve visibility and driver comprehension of the displayed guide information while allowing the driver to continue viewing the underlying surrounding camera image.
Regarding claim 7, Lu further teaches “the display control unit is configured to display a first guide line presenting a side edge of the predicted passing area of the moving object indicated by the first predictive guide, when displaying the first predictive guide, and display a second guide line presenting a side edge of the predicted passing area of the trailer indicated by the second predictive guide, when displaying the second predictive guide,” because Lu teaches that a display may provide “dynamic trailer and vehicle tire trajectory overlays” and that “an overlay may be provided showing the path of the vehicle and of the trailer during a reversing maneuver of the vehicle” (para 0081). Lu also teaches that the dynamic icon includes “projected paths or trajectories for the vehicle and for the trailer” and that the projected paths of the wheels of the vehicle and trailer move or track according to steering wheel position (para 0083).
Regarding claim 8, Lu further teaches “the movement state acquisition unit acquires a turning direction of the moving object as the movement state,” because Lu teaches that the dynamic overlay and projected paths are adjusted based on the “steering wheel angle” or “steering angle of the vehicle,” and that when the driver turns the steering wheel in one direction, the projected paths of the wheels of the vehicle and trailer move or track accordingly (para 0083).
Lu further teaches “the relative position acquisition unit acquires a relative direction of the trailer with respect to the moving object as the relative position,” because Lu teaches determining “the angle of the trailer relative to the vehicle” and further teaches that the dynamic overlay may be adjusted based on “a trailer angle relative to the vehicle” (paras 0065, 0083).
Regarding claim 13, Lu further teaches “the display control unit is configured to acquire a surrounding image around the moving object,” because Lu teaches using side view cameras having fields of view directed rearwardly and sidewardly to provide additional scene information to assist the driver during a reversing/backing maneuver, and also teaches a real-time display of the vehicle, trailer, and ground area surrounding the vehicle based on image data captured by vehicle and trailer cameras (paras 0079, 0084).
Lu further teaches “display at least one of the first guide line and the second guide line superimposed on the surrounding image,” because Lu teaches that “the calculated graphical trailer path can be overlaid to the side camera image,” and that the dynamic icon may be overlaid over a displayed image derived from image data captured by the side view camera (paras 0079, 0082). Lu also teaches that the dynamic overlay may show the projected path or trajectory of the trailer based on steering wheel angle (para 0084).
Regarding claim 20, Lu further teaches “the display control unit is configured to cause a display device in the moving object to display the first predictive guide and the second predictive guide,” because Lu teaches that the trailer angle detection system may display information for viewing by the driver to assist the driver in driving the vehicle with the trailer, including displaying the predicted path that the trailer and vehicle are traveling along (para 0006). Lu also teaches a top-down or bird’s-eye display system that displays a top-down view of the vehicle and trailer to the driver of the vehicle (para 0007). Lu further teaches that the side view image/dynamic icon may be displayed at “a display screen at the interior rearview mirror assembly of the vehicle or elsewhere in the cabin of the vehicle,” and that the dynamic icon includes projected paths or trajectories for the vehicle and trailer (paras 0082-0083).
Regarding claim 22 and 23, see rejection of claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2014/0085472 A1) in view of Rathi et al. (US 2022/0089088 A1), and further in view of White (US 2022/0381579 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lu in view of Rathi teaches the control device of claim 1.
Lu teaches displaying both a first predictive guide indicating a predicted passing area of the moving object and a second predictive guide indicating a predicted passing area of the trailer, because Lu teaches a dynamic icon including “projected paths or trajectories for the vehicle and for the trailer” and teaches that the trailer and projected paths of the vehicle and trailer are adjusted based on steering wheel angle and trailer angle (para 0083).
Lu and Rathi do not expressly teach “the display control unit is further configured to perform display in color of an area between the predicted passing area of the moving object indicated by the first predictive guide and the predicted passing area of the trailer indicated by the second predictive guide, when the first predictive guide and the second predictive guide are to be displayed.”
However, White teaches a turning path guidance system for vehicles, including articulated vehicles such as “a semi-truck, tractor trailer, an articulated bus, or any vehicle towing a trailer” (para 0015). White teaches that, as a vehicle turns, “the innermost and outermost points of the vehicle define a swept path which is the area of ground swept by all parts of the vehicle as it moves through the turn” (para 0002). White further teaches determining and displaying a turning path for the vehicle based on parameters including the length and width of the vehicle, the distance between the front wheels and rear wheels, the location of the pivot point between the front wheels and rear wheels in the case of an articulated vehicle, the speed and direction of the vehicle, the angle of the turn, the width of the lanes, the swept width of the vehicle, and offtrack of the rear wheels with respect to the front wheels (paras 0035, 0047). White further teaches displaying left and right boundary lines of the turning path on a map/display and that the boundary lines may be displayed by selecting bright colors and/or thicker lines (paras 0039-0041).
Rathi further teaches using colored/transparent vehicle vision overlays, including overlays that may be “fully or partially transparent,” have “different colors,” “change color,” or “alter in transparency” (paras 0046-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s display of vehicle and trailer projected paths, as modified by Rathi’s colored/transparent overlay display technique, to display in color the area between the predicted passing area of the vehicle and the predicted passing area of the trailer, as taught by White’s swept-path/turning-path display for an articulated vehicle, in order to improve driver recognition of the total swept area occupied by the vehicle/trailer combination during a turn and thereby assist the driver in avoiding objects within or near the predicted swept path.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2014/0085472 A1) in view of Rathi et al. (US 2022/0089088 A1), and further in view of Pourrezaei Khaligh et al. (US 2019/0276078 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Lu further teaches “the display control unit is configured to set the first predictive guide and the second predictive guide to be displayed while the moving object moves forward,” because Lu teaches displaying information to assist the driver in driving the vehicle with the trailer, including displaying “the predicted path that the trailer and vehicle are traveling along,” and further teaches a dynamic icon having “projected paths or trajectories for the vehicle and for the trailer” that are adjusted based on steering wheel angle and trailer angle (paras 0006, 0083).
Lu does not expressly teach “set the first predictive guide to be hidden and the second predictive guide to be displayed while the moving object moves rearward.” However, Pourrezaei Khaligh teaches a trailer reverse guidance system in which the vehicle is backing up with a trailer and the display shows a view behind the trailer with trailer path guidelines. Pourrezaei Khaligh teaches projecting a predicted path of the trailer and an instantaneous path of the trailer onto the display, where the predicted path is affected by the steering angle and hitch angle, and the instantaneous path is affected by the hitch angle (paras 0003, 0005, 0023, 0025-0029). Pourrezaei Khaligh further teaches first and second pairs of guidelines representing the trailer’s instantaneous path and predicted path on the display (para 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s vehicle/trailer predictive guide display, as modified by Rathi, to display the vehicle and trailer predictive guides during forward travel and, during rearward trailer maneuvering, hide the vehicle predictive guide and display the trailer predictive guide, as taught by Pourrezaei Khaligh, in order to provide trailer-focused reverse guidance and reduce unnecessary display clutter while the driver is backing the trailer.
Regarding claim 17, Lu teaches acquiring a turning direction of the vehicle and a relative direction of the trailer with respect to the vehicle, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8. Lu also teaches displaying projected paths or trajectories for the vehicle and trailer based on steering wheel angle and trailer angle.
Lu does not expressly teach “when the moving object moves rearward, the display control unit hides the first predictive guide, and displays the second guide line on a side of the relative direction in the second predictive guide and the second guide line on a side opposite to the relative direction in the second predictive guide.”
However, Pourrezaei Khaligh teaches a trailer reverse guidance system for aiding the driver when the vehicle is backing up with a trailer (paras 0001-0005). Pourrezaei Khaligh teaches that a display shows a view behind the trailer and that a processor projects a predicted path of the trailer and an instantaneous path of the trailer onto the display, where the predicted path is affected by steering angle and hitch angle and the instantaneous path is affected by hitch angle (paras 0003, 0005, 0023-0029). Pourrezaei Khaligh further teaches displaying a first pair of guidelines representing an instantaneous path of the trailer and a second pair of guidelines representing a predicted path of the trailer (para 0029; Fig. 4).
Thus, Pourrezaei Khaligh teaches, during rearward movement, displaying trailer guide lines on both sides of the trailer predicted path/instantaneous path. Because Pourrezaei Khaligh’s reverse guidance display is directed to trailer path guidance rather than vehicle path guidance, it teaches focusing the reverse display on the trailer predictive guide lines.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s vehicle/trailer predictive-guide display, as modified by Rathi, so that during rearward trailer maneuvering the vehicle predictive guide is hidden and the trailer predictive guide lines are displayed, as taught by Pourrezaei Khaligh, in order to provide trailer-focused reverse guidance, reduce display clutter, and help the driver control the trailer path while backing.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 2014/0085472 A1) in view of Rathi et al. (US 2022/0089088 A1), and further in view of Simmons et al. (US 2021/0291832 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Lu in view of Rathi teaches the control device of claim 1.
Lu teaches displaying the first predictive guide and the second predictive guide, including projected paths or trajectories for the vehicle and trailer, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Lu also teaches displaying the vehicle/trailer guide information on a display device in the vehicle.
Lu does not expressly teach “the display control unit is configured to cause a display device in an information terminal capable of communicating with the moving object to display the first predictive guide and the second predictive guide.”
However, Simmons teaches an external wireless device capable of communicating with the vehicle. Simmons teaches that the hitch assist system communicates via wireless communication with a handheld or portable device, including a smartphone, and that the portable device may include a display for displaying images and other information to a user (para 0057). Simmons further teaches that the smartphone includes an application that facilitates communication with the vehicle wireless communication module and that the smartphone can display image data from the vehicle camera “in a way that replicates the display of the same via HMI 40” (para 0071). Simmons also teaches that, after a backing path is derived, “the path 32 can be displayed on the smartphone 96 screen 108” (para 0072).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s vehicle/trailer predictive-guide display, as modified by Rathi, to also display the predictive guide information on a display device of a communicating information terminal, such as Simmons’ smartphone/portable device, in order to allow a user outside the vehicle to view vehicle/trailer assist information and monitor the vehicle/trailer maneuver remotely.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lang et al (US 2017/0272664) Fig. 1 and para 0053-0061
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights