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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1-3 are amended.
No new claim is added.
Claims 1-3 are pending.
Response to arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 06/24/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Applicant arguments:
Amended claims should overcome 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection
Grodde in view of Potnis fails to disclosed amended claims subject matter.
Office responses:
The amended claims do not overcome 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection since the control of the vehicle is extrasolutionary and not connected to the determined hitch angle at all. Examiner explained in the interview (04/16/2026) with the Attorney that the proposed amendment does not overcome 101 rejection, as specification does not mention how the signal related to the determined hitch angle or how the operation of the vehicle related to the determined hitch angle (please see PTOL-413). So, 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection maintained and repeat below.
Please see the mapping for 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection Grodde in view of Potnis for the arguments.
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 1-3 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.
Claims 1-3 are indefinite because it is unclear what applicant means by “the learning trailer lacking a sensor”. The specification mentioned about the learning camera L11 and GPS of the learning trailer, which does not imply with “the learning trailer lacking a sensor”. Appropriate clarification is required.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1:
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), 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:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Claim 1 is directed toward a device, claim 2 is directed toward a method and claim 3 is directed toward a non-transitory medium. Therefore, claims 1, 2 and 3 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1:
A vehicle comprising: a vehicle control device; a human machine interface that is configured to transmit, to the vehicle control device, a signal indicative of one or more operations of the vehicle; and a
A hitch angle estimation device comprising a processor configured to:
acquire an image of a trailer shot by a camera mounted on a vehicle towing the trailer, and
estimate a hitch angle of the trailer based on the image of the trailer by using a model obtained by performing learning using learning data which is a data set of an image of a learning trailer shot by a learning camera mounted on a learning vehicle which tows the learning trailer, and a label indicating the hitch angle of the learning trailer,
wherein a difference between an orientation of the learning vehicle calculated based on a GPS signal received by a GPS receiver mounted on the learning vehicle and an orientation of the learning trailer calculated based on a GPS signal received by a GPS receiver mounted on the learning trailer is used as the hitch angle of the learning trailer,and
and wherein the vehicle control device is configured to receive the signal from the human machine interface and control a steering actuator, a brake actuator, and a drive actuator in accordance with the signal indicative of one or more vehicle operations.
Claim 2:
A hitch angle estimation method comprising: transmitting, from a human machine interface to a vehicle control device, a signal indicative of one or more operations of a vehicle; acquiring an image of a trailer shot by a camera mounted on a vehicle towing the trailer, and
estimating a hitch angle of the trailer based on the image of the trailer by using a model obtained by performing learning using learning data which is a data set of an image of a learning trailer shot by a learning camera mounted on a learning vehicle which tows the learning trailer, a label indicating the hitch angle of the learning trailer, the learning trailer lacking a sensor
wherein a difference between an orientation of the learning vehicle calculated based on a GPS signal received by a GPS receiver mounted on the learning vehicle and an orientation of the learning trailer calculated based on a GPS signal received by a GPS receiver mounted on the learning trailer is used as the hitch angle of the learning trailer,
and wherein the vehicle control device is configured to receive the signal from the human machine interface and control a steering actuator, a brake actuator, and a drive actuator in accordance with the signal indicative of one or more vehicle operations.
Claim 3:
A non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program for causing a processor to perform a process comprising: transmitting, from a human machine interface to a vehicle control device, a signal indicative of one or more operations of a vehicle; acquiring an image of a trailer shot by a camera mounted on a vehicle towing the trailer; and
estimating a hitch angle of the trailer based on the image of the trailer by using a model obtained by performing learning using learning data which is a data set of an image of a learning trailer shot by a learning camera mounted on a learning vehicle which tows the learning tailer, and a label indicating the hitch angle of the learning trailer,
wherein a difference between an orientation of the learning vehicle calculated based on a GPS signal received by a GPS receiver mounted on the learning vehicle and an orientation of the learning trailer calculated based on a GPS signal received by a GPS receiver mounted on the learning trailer is used as the hitch angle of the learning trailer,
and wherein the vehicle control device is configured to receive the signal from the human machine interface and control a steering actuator, a brake actuator, and a drive actuator in accordance with the signal indicative of one or more vehicle operations.
The method in claims 1,2 and 3 are a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of claims 1, 2 and 3 highlighted above merely consist of estimating a hitch angle using a model (mathematical concept) using learning image set of data shot by the learning camera mounted on the learning vehicle and label indicate by the hitch angle which is calculate by simply difference of the orientations of vehicle and trailer. More specifically, a person can mentally estimate hitch angle from data set of images applied on a model and the difference. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1,2 and 3 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Acquiring an image of a trailer using camera is simple just getting input data to the system. The non-transitory recording medium is merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (see above underlined claims 1,2,3).
Thus, since claims 1, 2 and 3 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 2 and 3 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter. As such, claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 3are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over
US 20200247471 A1 to Grodde (herein after “Grodde”) in view of US 20190016264 A1 to Potnis et al. (herein after “Potnis”).
Regarding claim 1, Grodde teaches A vehicle comprising: a vehicle control device (See Grodde a controller 102) ; a human machine interface (Steering, brake and touchscreen) that is configured to transmit, to the vehicle control device, a signal indicative of one or more operations of the vehicle (See Grodde pr[0008] The system uses a remote client device having a graphical user interface (GUI), a controller, and a processor. Para[0105] the message 480 on the GUI 462 indicates that the driver needs to “turn the steering wheel left” in order to continue along the custom path 474, para[0040] The controller may also comprise various encoders such as a camera signal encoder 110. In various embodiments, the controller 102 can have various modules such as a motion module 112 (e.g., dual-3-D/9-D motion)) ; and a hitch angle estimation device comprising:
a processor configured to:
acquire an image of a trailer shot by a camera mounted on a vehicle towing the trailer(See Grodde para[0041] The first camera sensor 120 can capture and transmit the image data of the first area of interest to the controller 102, wherein when installed, the first camera sensor 120 couples onto a posterior side of the trailer);
a label indicating the hitch angle of the learning trailer, (See Grodde para[0152]-[0154] Modeling the dynamics of a vehicle-trailer system with the Lagrange plus Constraints formalism in a Cartesian coordinate system requires only four independent state variables since the vehicle and trailer is rigidly coupled and the wheels do not allow perpendicular movements (>constraints). Two variables for orientation of the vehicle relative to the x-axis are Θ1(car) and Θ2(trailer), and two variables for the position of the trailer. These can be the coordinates of any reference point on the trailer assembly. For instance, the trailer's wheel axle center (xC, yC) may be used. Mathematically, a hitch angle (δ) may be resolved via: δ=Θ1−Θ2.)
wherein a difference between an orientation of the learning vehicle calculated based on a GPS signal received by a GPS receiver mounted on the learning vehicle and an orientation of the learning trailer calculated based on a GPS signal received by a GPS receiver mounted on the learning trailer is used as the hitch angle of the learning trailer. (See Grodde para [0082] By using the GPS information of the trailer and the 3-D position sensors placed independently on the vehicle and the trailer (i.e., instead of solely using a single 2-D bend angle senor), the absolute positions of the vehicle and the trailer can be assessed and tracked in real-time by calculating orientation differences between the 3-D position sensors.).
and wherein the vehicle control device is configured to receive the signal from the human machine interface (see Grodde para[0040] The controller may also comprise various encoders such as a camera signal encoder 110. In various embodiments, the controller 102 can have various modules such as a motion module 112 (e.g., dual-3-D/9-D motion).) and control a steering actuator (See Grodde at least para [0059]The controller 102 may also be configured to transmit steering instructions to the remote client device 160 based on the vehicle information communicated) , a brake actuator, and a drive actuator in accordance with the signal indicative of one or more vehicle operations (See Grodde para[0075] Once the user turns the steering wheel to the neutral position, the mobile application then prompts the user to slowly move the vehicle 232 forward. Once the user moves the vehicle 232 forward).
However, Grodde does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach a hitch angle estimation device, estimate a hitch angle of the trailer based on the image of the trailer by using a model obtained by performing learning using learning data which is a data set of an image of a learning trailer shot by a learning camera mounted on a learning vehicle which tows the learning trailer. Nevertheless, Potnis same field of endeavor teaches a hitch angle estimation device (see Potnis angle measuring device),
estimate a hitch angle of the trailer based on the image of the trailer by using a model obtained by performing learning using learning data which is a data set of an image of a learning trailer shot by a learning camera mounted on a learning vehicle which tows the learning trailer (See Potnis para[0057] The trained model is deployed at a vehicle and, responsive to a test image data input, will process the test image data input and predict the correct trailer angle.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Grodde’s vehicle park assist systems with Potnis’s trained model with image data input and predict the correct trailer angle(hitch angle) in order to allow to obtain a more robust estimate of the angle (see Potnis para[0057]).
Regarding claim 2, Grodde teaches
a vehicle control device (See Grodde a controller 102) ; a human machine interface that is configured to transmit, to the vehicle control device, a signal indicative of one or more operations of the vehicle (See Grodde pr[0008] The system uses a remote client device having a graphical user interface (GUI), a controller, and a processor. Para[0105] the message 480 on the GUI 462 indicates that the driver needs to “turn the steering wheel left” in order to continue along the custom path 474, para[0040] The controller may also comprise various encoders such as a camera signal encoder 110. In various embodiments, the controller 102 can have various modules such as a motion module 112 (e.g., dual-3-D/9-D motion) ;
A hitch angle estimation method comprising: acquiring an image of a trailer shot by a camera mounted on a vehicle towing the trailer (See Grodde para[0041] The first camera sensor 120 can capture and transmit the image data of the first area of interest to the controller 102, wherein when installed, the first camera sensor 120 couples onto a posterior side of the trailer) ;
a label indicating the hitch angle of the learning trailer, (See Grodde para[0152]-[0154] Modeling the dynamics of a vehicle-trailer system with the Lagrange plus Constraints formalism in a Cartesian coordinate system requires only four independent state variables since the vehicle and trailer is rigidly coupled and the wheels do not allow perpendicular movements (>constraints). Two variables for orientation of the vehicle relative to the x-axis are Θ1(car) and Θ2(trailer), and two variables for the position of the trailer. These can be the coordinates of any reference point on the trailer assembly. For instance, the trailer's wheel axle center (xC, yC) may be used. Mathematically, a hitch angle (δ) may be resolved via: δ=Θ1−Θ2.)
wherein a difference between an orientation of the learning vehicle calculated based on a GPS signal received by a GPS receiver mounted on the learning vehicle and an orientation of the learning trailer calculated based on a GPS signal received by a GPS receiver mounted on the learning trailer is used as the hitch angle of the learning trailer. (See Grodde para [0082] By using the GPS information of the trailer and the 3-D position sensors placed independently on the vehicle and the trailer (i.e., instead of solely using a single 2-D bend angle senor), the absolute positions of the vehicle and the trailer can be assessed and tracked in real-time by calculating orientation differences between the 3-D position sensors.)
and wherein the vehicle control device is configured to receive the signal from the human machine interface (see Grodde para[0040] The controller may also comprise various encoders such as a camera signal encoder 110. In various embodiments, the controller 102 can have various modules such as a motion module 112 (e.g., dual-3-D/9-D motion).) and control a steering actuator (See Grodde at least para [0059]The controller 102 may also be configured to transmit steering instructions to the remote client device 160 based on the vehicle information communicated) , a brake actuator, and a drive actuator in accordance with the signal indicative of one or more vehicle operations (See Grodde para[0075] Once the user turns the steering wheel to the neutral position, the mobile application then prompts the user to slowly move the vehicle 232 forward. Once the user moves the vehicle 232 forward).
However, Grodde does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach estimating a hitch angle of the trailer based on the image of the trailer by using a model obtained by performing learning using learning data which is a data set of an image of a learning trailer shot by a learning camera mounted on a learning vehicle which tows the learning trailer. Nevertheless, Potnis same field of endeavor teaches estimating a hitch angle of the trailer based on the image of the trailer by using a model obtained by performing learning using learning data which is a data set of an image of a learning trailer shot by a learning camera mounted on a learning vehicle which tows the learning trailer(See Potnis para[0057] The trained model is deployed at a vehicle and, responsive to a test image data input, will process the test image data input and predict the correct trailer angle.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Grodde’s vehicle park assist systems with Potnis’s trained model with image data input and predict the correct trailer angle(hitch angle) in order to allow to obtain a more robust estimate of the angle (see Potnis para[0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Grodde teaches A non-transitory recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program (See Grodde para[0178] a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable storage medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon) for causing a processor to perform a process comprising (See Grodde para[0004] The system utilizes a controller that has a processor, a global positioning system that provides a geographic location to the processor,) :
a vehicle control device (See Grodde a controller 102) ; a human machine interface that is configured to transmit, to the vehicle control device, a signal indicative of one or more operations of the vehicle (See Grodde pr[0008] The system uses a remote client device having a graphical user interface (GUI), a controller, and a processor. Para[0105] the message 480 on the GUI 462 indicates that the driver needs to “turn the steering wheel left” in order to continue along the custom path 474, para[0040] The controller may also comprise various encoders such as a camera signal encoder 110. In various embodiments, the controller 102 can have various modules such as a motion module 112 (e.g., dual-3-D/9-D motion);
acquiring an image of a trailer shot by a camera mounted on a vehicle towing the trailer(See Grodde para[0041] The first camera sensor 120 can capture and transmit the image data of the first area of interest to the controller 102, wherein when installed, the first camera sensor 120 couples onto a posterior side of the trailer);
a label indicating the hitch angle of the learning trailer, (See Grodde para[0152]-[0154] Modeling the dynamics of a vehicle-trailer system with the Lagrange plus Constraints formalism in a Cartesian coordinate system requires only four independent state variables since the vehicle and trailer is rigidly coupled and the wheels do not allow perpendicular movements (>constraints). Two variables for orientation of the vehicle relative to the x-axis are Θ1(car) and Θ2(trailer), and two variables for the position of the trailer. These can be the coordinates of any reference point on the trailer assembly. For instance, the trailer's wheel axle center (xC, yC) may be used. Mathematically, a hitch angle (δ) may be resolved via: δ=Θ1−Θ2.)
wherein a difference between an orientation of the learning vehicle calculated based on a GPS signal received by a GPS receiver mounted on the learning vehicle and an orientation of the learning trailer calculated based on a GPS signal received by a GPS receiver mounted on the learning trailer is used as the hitch angle of the learning trailer. (See Grodde para [0082] By using the GPS information of the trailer and the 3-D position sensors placed independently on the vehicle and the trailer (i.e., instead of solely using a single 2-D bend angle senor), the absolute positions of the vehicle and the trailer can be assessed and tracked in real-time by calculating orientation differences between the 3-D position sensors.)
However, Grodde does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach estimating a hitch angle of the trailer based on the image of the trailer by using a model obtained by performing learning using learning data which is a data set of an image of a learning trailer shot by a learning camera mounted on a learning vehicle which tows the learning tailer. Nevertheless, Potnis same field of endeavor teaches estimating a hitch angle of the trailer based on the image of the trailer by using a model obtained by performing learning using learning data which is a data set of an image of a learning trailer shot by a learning camera mounted on a learning vehicle which tows the learning tailer (See Potnis para[0057] The trained model is deployed at a vehicle and, responsive to a test image data input, will process the test image data input and predict the correct trailer angle.)
and wherein the vehicle control device is configured to receive the signal from the human machine interface (see Grodde para[0040] The controller may also comprise various encoders such as a camera signal encoder 110. In various embodiments, the controller 102 can have various modules such as a motion module 112 (e.g., dual-3-D/9-D motion).) and control a steering actuator (See Grodde at least para [0059]The controller 102 may also be configured to transmit steering instructions to the remote client device 160 based on the vehicle information communicated) , a brake actuator, and a drive actuator in accordance with the signal indicative of one or more vehicle operations (See Grodde para[0075] Once the user turns the steering wheel to the neutral position, the mobile application then prompts the user to slowly move the vehicle 232 forward. Once the user moves the vehicle 232 forward).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Grodde’s vehicle park assist systems with Potnis’s trained model with image data input and predict the correct trailer angle(hitch angle) in order to allow to obtain a more robust estimate of the angle (see Potnis para[0057]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NAZIA AFRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-6.
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, Scott A Browne can be reached at 5712700151. 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.
/NAZIA AFRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights