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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ 0091 line 1 reads "While acceleration and speed is mentioned above" which appears to be a conjugation error and should read "While acceleration and speed are mentioned above" to improve clarity.
¶ 0140 line 3 and 0143 line 2 read "way rate" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "yaw rate" to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 line 16 reads "eight indication" which appears to be a typographical error and should read "eighth indication" to improve clarity.
Claim 12 line 9 reads “the combination vehicle comprising” which appears to be a continuity error since there is already antecedent basis for the comprising components of the combination vehicle. Therefore, this should read “the combination vehicle further comprising” to improve clarity.
Claim 12 line 16 reads “system .” with a space before the period which appears to be a typographical error and should read “system.” without a space to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner note: claim 1 line 19 and claim 13 line 19 read “second wheelbase length”. While this may be objected to due to lack of antecedent basis for a first wheelbase length, examiner does not object to this with the understanding that “second” is used in this context to match the wheelbase length with the second vehicle unit to improve clarity of the written claim rather than imply a necessary prerequisite of a first wheelbase length.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Examiner recommends removing the “such as a tractor” phrase to overcome this rejection.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the computer system" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim if only the second option for the and/or clause is selected. Examiner recommends amending this to read “the computer system of claim 1.”
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations:
by processing circuitry of a computer system, obtaining a first indication, the first indication being indicative of a first yaw rate of the first vehicle unit and/or indicative of a towing articulation angle between the first vehicle unit and a towing coupling point of a towing vehicle unit arranged to tow the first vehicle unit, wherein the towing vehicle unit is located in front of the first vehicle unit as seen along the first longitudinal axis,
by the processing circuitry obtaining a second indication of a first longitudinal speed along the first longitudinal axis of the first vehicle unit,
by the processing circuitry obtaining a third indication of a second wheelbase length of the second vehicle unit of the plurality of vehicle units, the second wheelbase length being a distance along the second longitudinal axis from the first coupling point to a center position of a second rear axle group of the second vehicle unit,
by the processing circuitry obtaining a fourth indication of a first coupling length along the first longitudinal axis between a center position of a first rear axle group of the first vehicle unit and the first coupling point, and
by the processing circuitry estimating the first articulation angle based on the first indication, the first longitudinal speed, the second wheelbase length and the first coupling length.
The limitation (e) recited above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and using mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting processing circuitry and a computer system, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or using mathematical concepts. For example, a person can, with pen and paper, calculate an articulation angle between two trailers using the specific combination of variables detailed above plugged into a mathematical expression (e). This mathematical expression that is used to solve for the articulation angle (e) is a mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and using mathematical expressions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" and "Mathematical Concepts" groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processing circuitry is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The computer system acts as a mere recitation to apply the abstract idea with a computer. The recitation of an abstract idea applied to a computer does not prohibit the idea from being performed mentally as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and the court cases cited therein. The limitation of obtaining the first through fourth indications (a-d) is an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of mere data gathering. Mere data gathering cannot form an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processing circuity is generically claimed as detailed above. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The limitation of obtaining the first through fourth indications (a-d) is a WURC activity because Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicated that the retrieval of data from memory is a WURC function. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12 and 14-15 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Claims 2-11 recite additional aspects of the abstract idea and/or additional insignificant extra solution activities of mere data gathering (see WURC explanation above).
Claim 12 recites a generic combination vehicle. The combination vehicle is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception with a generic vehicle. Mere instructions to apply an exception with a generic vehicle cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 12 further recites optionally comprising the computer system of claim 1. Since the computer system merely comprises the generically claimed processing circuitry configured to perform the abstract idea, the 101 is maintained for claim 12.
Claim 14 merely further claims the program product comprising program code executed by the processing circuitry of claim 13. The recitation of program code acts as a mere recitation to perform the abstract idea on a computer. The recitation of an abstract idea applied to a computer does not prohibit the idea from being performed mentally as detailed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and the court cases cited therein. Examiner notes that while claim 14 is focused on software per se, since it depends upon claim 13 which claims a processing circuitry and computer system, a 101 rejection as software per se is not warranted.
Claim 15 generically claims a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (hereinafter CRM). The CRM is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim(s) 12 recite(s) further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Claim 12 recites the option of controlling the vehicle based on one or more estimated articulation angles. In light of the specification (see at least ¶ 0055), controlling is understood by the examiner as a maneuvering control, and controlling cannot be reasonably interpreted as a WURC control activity (e.g. mere display or mere data transmission). Therefore, the claim limitation incorporates the abstract idea into a practical application. To overcome the 101 rejection of record, examiner recommends amending the independent claims to include this control limitation. The 101 rejection for claim 12 is maintained despite this limitation as it is merely optional within the limitations of claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) and/or 101 rejections detailed above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record teaches the following limitation required for the independent claims and dependent claims (due to dependency):
estimating the first articulation angle based on the first indication, the first longitudinal speed, the second wheelbase length and the first coupling length.
Here, the first articulation angle is formed between a first (leading) and second (following) vehicle unit (trailer). The variables labeled “first” and “second” correspond to the first and second vehicle unit respectively. The “first indication” is either a yaw rate of the first vehicle or an articulation angle between a towing unit (tractor) and the first vehicle unit (leading trailer).
“State and Parameter Estimation of Vehicle-Trailer Systems” Amin Korayem (hereinafter Korayem) appears to be the closest prior art of record, teaching estimating an articulation angle rate between a tractor and trailer based on the tractor’s longitudinal speed, the trailer’s wheelbase length and the tractor’s coupling length (§ 5.3.1). Korayem further teaches converting the articulation angle rate equation into a discretized form (equation 5.12) that is utilized in a data fusion algorithm to obtain a hitch angle estimate (§ 5.4.2, particularly equation 5.38). Korayem further teaches estimating the articulation angle rate based on the tractor’s yaw rate (§ 5.3.1 and § 5.4.1, particularly equation 5.10); however, the tractor’s yaw rate is quicky converted into an equation of the tractor’s longitudinal speed, articulation angle, and trailer’s wheelbase and does not appear to be directly used in the calculations detailed above (see at least equation 5.11). Notice the underlines above that clearly indicate that all the calculations and variables are for an articulation angle between a tractor and trailer, NOT an articulation angle between two trailers. There is a clear distinction within the claims as written between the estimation performed in Korayem and the claimed estimation. Since Korayem fails to teach estimating an articulation angle between two trailers wherein the estimation is based on the yaw rate of a leading trailer, the claims appear to be novel and non-obvious in light of the prior art of record.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu et al. US-9796228-B2 discloses determining a hitch angle for a tractor-trailer system.
Vilca et al. US-20220227418-A1 discloses using dynamics to estimate an articulation angle in a tractor-trailer system.
Munnix WO-2013127410-A1 discloses determining the relative orientation between two trailers based on IMU data.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights