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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 6/26/2026, with respect to objections and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior objection/rejection of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-11, filed 6/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art.
In re to arguments on pages 8-11, the prior art of JALES COSTA, as applied and based on BRI of the claims, shows the functions of providing feedback using either a device on a vehicle (FIG.2 – indicator devices 78 and/or device 80 in communication with hitch assist system 10 which controls various vehicle operations). Nowhere in claim 1, is there a clear definition of “operator control”, such that the limitation term could read on any element capable of some operation of control or device. JALES COSTA (c.7, l.5-23) further shows that an human-machine interface (“HMI”) 66 could also operate to provide feedback in various forms, including display 72 or touch screen 74.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claims as written, do not limit how the feedback itself is generated or which specific elements generate feedback.
JALES COSTA further teaches determining in some manner a potential collision, although the specific details as in the amended limitations are different.
Claim 2 is modified to meet the amended limitations.
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 3-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JALES COSTA et al. (US 10744943 B1) in view of CSERNA et al. (US 20230415764 A1) further in view of DEAN et al. (US 11154442 B1).
Re claim 1. JALES COSTA discloses (abstract) a vehicle (FIG.1), comprising:
an operator control configured to provide (hitch assist system 10 communicates with portable device 80 to provide tactile alerts) a force (claim does not further define how it provides force or where) as haptic feedback; (FIG.2 – c.7, l.1-4)
a coupling 16 configured for hitching a towable implement 18;
a sensor arrangement (FIG.2 – i.e. 38/40/42/58) configured to determine at least one sensor value (c.5, l.14-17); and
a control unit 14 comprising:
at least one processor 82; and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 84 storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the control unit to:
anticipate a potential collision between the vehicle and the towable implement (i.e. to issue an alert signal for anticipated collision the sensors must determine a potential collision before alerting).
(c.6, l.35-43)
… the hitch assist system 10, in some embodiments, may regulate speed of the vehicle 12 during alignment of the vehicle 12 with the coupler 16 of trailer 18, which can reduce the potential for a collision with trailer 18, and can bring vehicle 12 to a complete stop at a determined endpoint 70 of the path 20… the hitch assist system 10 can additionally or alternatively issue an alert signal corresponding to a notification of an actual, impending, and/or anticipated collision with a portion of trailer 18.
(c.7, l.1-4)
portable device 80 may display one or more images of the trailer 18 on the display 72 and may be further configured to receive remote user inputs via touchscreen circuitry 76. In addition, the portable device 80 may provide feedback information, such as visual, audible, and tactile alerts.
However, JALES COSTA (emphasis added on explicit limitations missing) fails to explicitly disclose:
receive sensor data from the sensor arrangement, the sensor data comprising at least one sensor value;
based at least partially on the received sensor value, anticipate a potential collision.
CSERNA teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention, selecting to perform functions based on receiving sensor data 512 from (FIG.2) sensor arrangement comprising at least one sensor value(s), for the purpose of anticipating a potential collision (i.e. trigger controlling operation based on collision parameter) based at least partially on received/processed sensor value (data).
[0099] In one or more embodiments or examples, the system 500 determines the assistance parameter 507 by determining, using the at least one processor, based on the sensor data 512, a collision parameter indicative of a potential collision in a vicinity of the autonomous vehicle at the completion of the ride. In one or more embodiments or examples, the system 500 determines the assistance parameter 507 by determining, using the at least one processor, based on the collision parameter, the assistance parameter 507. The assistance parameter 507 can trigger a controlling operation of the autonomous vehicle based on the collision parameter. For example, the assistance parameter 507 is determined based on the collision parameter. The collision parameter can be indicative of a potential collision. In one or more embodiments or examples, the system 500 is configured to determine the collision parameter using a prediction system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the concept of using sensor data received from sensor(s) of vehicle to determine a potential collision in order to more effectively alert a user or control vehicle if a potential collision is anticipated.
However, JALES COSTA and CSERNA fails to explicitly disclose:
increase the force if a potential collision is anticipated.
Clearly one of ordinary skill in the art understands that JALES COSTA suggests determining a potential collision to activate an alert.
DEAN teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention of vehicle control, the concept of increasing a ‘force’, i.e. increase in vibration energy (c.69, l.63 – c.70, l.3) in response to an impending unsafe condition is approached.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the function of increasing a force of a haptic feedback element in order to more effectively alert a user if a potential collision is anticipated.
Re claim 3. JALES COSTA discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor value comprises a value indicative of a distance between the vehicle and a hitched towable implement. (c.5, l.22-25)
Re claim 4. JALES COSTA discloses the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the instructions further cause the control unit to: determine a distance threshold value; and
anticipate a potential collision if the value indicative of the distance violates the distance threshold value. (c.14, l.33-44)
Re claim 5. JALES COSTA discloses the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the value indicative of the distance between the vehicle and the hitched towable implement is a hitching angle between the vehicle and the hitched towable implement. (c.5, l.10-43)
Re claim 6. JALES COSTA discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor value comprises a value indicative of a steering angle. (c.5, l.10-43)
Re claim 7. JALES COSTA discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the control unit to: determine a pivoting direction of the vehicle in respect of the towable implement;
determine a steering direction of the steering angle. (c.5, l.10-59)
Re claim 8. JALES COSTA discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor value comprises a value indicative of a driving direction of the vehicle. (c.15, l.29-65)
Re claim 9. JALES COSTA discloses (FIG.8) the vehicle of claim 7, wherein the instructions further cause the control unit to: determine a distance threshold value; (c.14, l.33-44)
determine a steering threshold angle in relation to the distance threshold value; (c.5, l.10-59)
determine whether the value indicative of the steering angle violates the steering threshold angle; and (c.9, l.32-60)
anticipate a potential collision if the steering angle violates the steering threshold angle; (c.12, l.65 – c.13, l.6)
the pivoting direction and the steering direction have the same direction; and (c.12, l.34 – c.15, l.45)
driving direction is forward. (c.10, l.1-16)
Re claim 10. JALES COSTA discloses (as for claim 9) the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the control unit to: anticipate no potential collision if: the pivoting direction and the steering direction have different directions; and the driving direction is forward. (an opposite finding would indicate not potential collision)
Re claim 11. JALES COSTA discloses (as for claim 9) the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the control unit to: anticipate no potential collision if: the pivoting direction and the steering direction have the same direction; and driving direction is rearward. (an opposite finding would indicate not potential collision)
Re claim 12. JALES COSTA discloses (as for claim 9) the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the control unit to: anticipate a potential collision if the steering angle violates the steering threshold angle; the pivoting direction and the steering direction have different directions; and the driving direction is rearward. (an opposite finding would indicate not potential collision)
Re claim 13. JALES COSTA discloses (as for claim 9) the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the control unit to: increase the force if a potential collision is anticipated and if the operator control is operated in a direction controversially to reduce the steering angle below the steering threshold angle. (an opposite finding would indicate not potential collision)
Re claim 14. JALES COSTA discloses (as for claim 9) The vehicle of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the control unit to: decrease the force if a potential collision is anticipated and if the operator control is operated in a direction to reduce the steering angle below the steering threshold angle. (an opposite finding would indicate not potential collision)
For claims 10-14, since JALES COSTA uses the same parameters obtained from sensors to determine if a potential collision between vehicle and towable implement is possible, such calculation/analysis would also suggest a decrease in force for the haptic feedback, if a potential collision is not determined possible.
Re claim 15. As for claim 1, a method of providing a force as haptic feedback for an operator control of a vehicle connectable with a towable implement, comprising providing, by a control unit comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon;
receiving, by the control unit, sensor data from a sensor arrangement, the sensor data comprising at least one sensor value; and
based at least partially on the received sensor value, anticipating, by the control unit, a potential collision between the vehicle and the towable implement; and
increasing, by the control unit, the force if a potential collision is anticipated.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JALES COSTA et al. (US 10744943 B1) in view of CSERNA et al. (US 20230415764 A1) further in view of DEAN et al. (US 11154442 B1) further in view of SEFATI et al. (US 20200338723 A1).
Re claim 2. However, JALES COSTA and CSERNA and DEAN fails to explicitly disclose:
The vehicle of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the control unit to: decrease the force if no potential collision is anticipated.
SEFATI teaches (abstract) in similar field of invention [0037] the concept of changing i.e. increasing or decreasing, haptic feedback output (i.e. sonication) depending on a likelihood of a collision between machine devices.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that SEFATI clearly suggests at minimum, increasing or decreasing a force used to cause haptic feedback for the purpose of properly alerting a person whether the likelihood of a collision increases or decreases.
[0037] The sensor interface 104 may be configured, in some example embodiments, to perform an optical to electrical conversion of received optical or other signals. In this regard, the sensor interface 104 may be configured to input light onto, for example, the fiber 127 and receive backscatter light from the fiber 127 that may be converted into electrical signals for delivery to the processing circuitry 106 for analysis. In this regard, as further described below, the processing circuitry 106 may be configured to analyze the sensor data represented by the electrical signal during a training process (e.g., preoperative) or during a collision detection process (e.g., intraoperative). Additionally, according to some example embodiments, during a collision detection process, the processing circuitry 106 may be configured to control the sensory output device 108 to provide a feedback to the user (e.g., surgeon) regarding collision detection. In this regard, for example, the sensory output device 108 may be a video device (e.g., a display), an audio device (e.g., a speaker), or a haptic feedback device (e.g., a controlled vibration device). According to some example embodiments where the sensory output device 108 is an audio device or a haptic feedback device, the processing circuitry 106 may be configured to control the sensory output device 108 to perform sonication based on a likelihood of a collision (e.g., a frequency or pitch of a tone output by the sensory output device 108 may be increased or decreased as a likelihood of a collision increases).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try changing a force of a haptic feedback in order to alert a user that a vehicle collision is no longer or less likely to occur, as needed during operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 7/10/2026
Prosecution Insights