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 Amendments
The amendment and response filed on July 09, 2026, to the Non-Final Office Action dated April 09, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 8-9, 12-13, and 20 are amended; Claims 6-7 and 18-19 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 8-17, and 20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pages 7-12, filed July 09, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections as follows: Claims 1-5, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLizo et al (US-20230162509-A1, "DeLizo") and Martin G Jones (US-20040041942-A1, "Jones");Claims 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLizo and Jones as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ward et al (US-20180186290-A1, "Ward"); and Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLizo and Jones as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ward, have been considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 8-17, and 20 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of further limiting amendments made, changing the scope of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an electronic device for determining a length of a trailer (i.e., a machine); Claim 13 is directed to a method for determining a length of a trailer (i.e., a process ); and Claim 20 is directed to a storage medium for causing an electronic device to determine a length of a trailer(i.e., an article ). Therefore, claims 1, 13, and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) An electronic device of a vehicle including a tractorcoupled with a trailer, comprising:
a camera disposed at a rear portion of the tractor;
a communication interface; and
a processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain, through the communication interface, an image using the camera viewing toward the rear direction of the tractor from underneath the trailer, wherein the image includes another vehicle located in the rear direction of the tractor and a lane on which the another vehicle is located;
identify, within the image, a first portion covered by the trailer and a second portion not covered by the trailer [mental process/step];
based on identifying the second portion [mental process/step]:
determine a length of the trailer using a size of the second portion [mental process/step];
determine a first distance between the tractor and the another vehicle within the second portion, using a front width of the another vehicle calculated based on a width of the lane [mental process/step]; and
obtain a second distance between the trailer and the another vehicle based on the length of the trailer and the first distance [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “using a camera” and distances between set objects in the context of this claim encompasses a person (driver) looking at data collected and forming a calculation of the trailer from the various determined distances. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
1. (Currently Amended) An electronic device of a vehicle including a tractorcoupled with a trailer, comprising:
a camera disposed at a rear portion of the tractor;
a communication interface; and
a processor, wherein the processor is configured [pre-solution activity using generic sensors] to:
obtain, through the communication interface, an image using the camera viewing toward the rear direction of the tractor from underneath the trailer, wherein the image includes another vehicle located in the rear direction of the tractor and a lane on which the another vehicle is located (data gathering) using generic sensors];
identify, within the image, a first portion covered by the trailer and a second portion not covered by the trailer ;
based on identifying the second portion:
determine a length of the trailer using a size of the second portion;
determine a first distance between the tractor and the another vehicle within the second portion, using a front width of the another vehicle calculated based on a width of the lane; and
obtain a second distance between the trailer and the another vehicle based on the length of the trailer and the first distance .
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of ”a camera”, “communication interface”, and using a “processor configured to”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (electronic device or processor) to perform the process. In particular, the collecting and inputting steps from the camera and from an input source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “communication interface” and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the determination… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of using a camera to create images distance to various locations under the trailer and using the images to calculate a trailer length the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites an electronic device including at least one step for defining the abstract idea using a mathematical expression for determining the length of a trailer.
Claim 3 recites a method including at least one step for identifying a certain portion which is an initial value that can then be used for determining the length of a trailer.
Claim 4 recites a method including at least one step for defining a partition of the trailer that can be combined with other measurements for determining the length of a trailer .
Claim 5 recites a method including at least one step for determining a size and length of a trailer using generic and conventional tools .
Claim 8 recites a method including at least one step for applying well known mathematical operations such subtraction and the like.
Claim 9 recites a method including at least one step for defining a partition of the trailer that can be combined with other measurements for determining the length of a trailer .
Claim 10 recites a method including at least one step for identifying and determining certain parameters through the use of generic sensors.
Claim 11 recites a method including at least one step for obtaining coordinate information and obtaining certain parameters through the use of generic sensors.
Claim 12 recites a method including at least one step for determining the class of certain vehicles that through mathematical inference can be used for determining the length of a trailer
Claim 13 recites the same limitations as claim 1, these claims are likewise rejected as being directed to an abstract idea. While each of these limitations, as drafted, are a simple process/acts that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of by “an electronic control unit” and by information collecting units such as cameras and the like. That is, other than reciting “by an electronic device” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor/controller or the like does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claims 14-17 recite the same limitations as claims 2-5 and 8-12, these claims are likewise rejected as being directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites the same limitations as claim 1, these claims are likewise rejected as being directed to an abstract idea. While each of these limitations, as drafted, are a simple process/acts that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of by “a processor” and by “storage medium”. That is, other than reciting “by a unit” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor/controller or the like does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Thus, since independent claims 1, 13, and 20 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that the independent claims are directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, the invention of claims 1-5, 8-17, and 20 as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, are not patent eligible under 35 USC §101.
CONCLUSION
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 ELLIS B. RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8920. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 5:00pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 571-270-5744. 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.
/ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
