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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) were/was submitted on 09/03/2025. The information disclosure statement(s) have/has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
No claims are amended.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
No claims are cancelled.
No claims are added.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 will be examined.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Claims” dated 05/28/2025.
Objection to Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, and 11, have typographical errors that need to be corrected. The claim limitation “detect objets based on the environmental data,” has a misspelled word. The word “objets” is interpreted by the Examiner as “objects.”
Office suggests review of all claims to determine if there are similar errors as listed above. The list above is exemplary in nature and by no means exhaustive. Appropriate action 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 1-9, and 11-19, are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claims 1, and 11, are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea in the form of computing a trajectory for collision avoidance of a road train and assessing a risk of the trajectory.
Regarding eligibility step 1, the claimed invention of claim 1 falls into at least one of the statutory categories; namely, an apparatus (i.e. collision avoidance system), and method.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2, prong I, the limitations of computing the trajectory for collision avoidance of the road train, and assessing a risk of the trajectory, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor configured to…” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or falls under mathematical concepts. For example, but for the “at least one processor configured to…” language, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually steps of making a decision about “computing the trajectory for collision avoidance of a road train,” “and assessing a risk of the trajectory.” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. at least one processor), then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Proceeding to eligibility step 2A, prong II, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a computing device to perform computing the trajectory for collision avoidance of the road train and assessing a risk of the trajectory, steps. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor) performing a generic computer function of computing the trajectory for collision avoidance of the road train and assessing a risk of the trajectory, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims disclose “acquiring environmental data, detecting objects, and acquiring tractor direction data and/or tractor speed data,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Proceeding to eligibility step 2B, claims 1 and 11, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform computing the trajectory for collision avoidance of the road train, and assessing a risk of the trajectory, steps amounts to no 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.
The limitations of “alerting an operator via an audible alert and/or a visual warning of a collision risk,” amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer which do not render an abstract idea eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.
Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, and 12-19, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claims 1, and 11.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle, (e.g. actuating brakes), with the computing of the trajectory for collision avoidance of the road train. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 10-11, 15-17, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KHAN et al., US 12,221,036, herein further known as Khan, in view of KING et al., US 20260112273, herein further known as King.
Regarding claim 1, Khan discloses a collision avoidance system (column 1, lines 19-27, column 2, lines 35-36, line 42, column 3, lines 39-41, column 6, line 14-35, claims 1-20, trailer sideswipe avoidance system) for a road train comprising a tractor and at least one dolly (column 1, lines 18-19, column 2, lines 35-36, column 3, lines 40-45, column 6, line 15, claims 1, and 10-11, vehicle (i.e. tractor) towing a trailer), the system comprising: at least one exteroceptive sensor (column 1, lines 20-22, claims 1, and 11, sensor system configured to detect an object) mounted to the tractor and configured to acquire environmental data (column 6, lines 14-20, column 7, lines 14-20, see also FIG. 3); at least one proprioceptive sensor mounted to the tractor and configured to acquire a tractor direction, a tractor speed and/or a tractor velocity (column 9, lines 1-40, speed sensor , sensing yaw rate); and at least one processor (column 1, line 5, column 2, line 38, claims 1, and 11, controller that processes information) configured to: detect objects based on the environmental data (column 1, line 21, column 6, lines 17-18, claims 1, and 11, detect an object in an operating environment of the vehicle), compute a trajectory of each of the at least one dolly (column 1, lines 23-54, column 2, line 41, 64-65, column 6, lines 23-24 forward travel path of the towed trailer, see also claims 1 and 11) based on dimensions of the tractor (column 12, lines 24-35, parameters associated with the vehicle 14, W: wheel base of the vehicle 14; L: length between hitch point and rear axle of the vehicle 14), dimensions of the at least one dolly (column 12, lines 24-35, parameters associated with the trailer 12, D: trailer wheel base, rt: dynamic turning radius of the trailer 12, Tw: width of the trailer 12, column 15, lines 34-55, inner trailer boundary, a distance equal to the length of trailer wheel base D in the trailer forward direction…), a number of the at least one dolly (column 14, lines 13-14, number of trailer wheel base estimates), the tractor direction (column 6, lines 15-16, vehicle 14 towing a trailer 12 in a forward direction, column 15, line 48, turning direction of the vehicle 14, column 19, lines 49-50, column 22, lines 28-29, vehicle 14 tows the trailer 12 in a forward direction), the tractor speed (column 9, lines 34-36, column 10, line 59, vehicle speed v1,) and/or the tractor velocity, and determine whether the trajectory intersects one of the objects (column 1, 43-63, column 3, lines 1-6, inner trailer boundary line intersects object line, see also FIG. 6).
However, Khan does not explicitly state a boundary of one of the objects.
King teaches a boundary of one of the objects (¶ [0076], determining if a bounding box for the object overlaps with a bounding box for the autonomous vehicle).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Khan the a boundary of one of the objects as taught by King.
One would be motivated to modify Khan in view of King for the reasons stated in King paragraphs [0002], more robust method and system for accurate detection of a potential collision and timely deployment of a safety measure, and [0032], more robust method and system to avoid obstacles, and generally increase an amount of safety for the occupants.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Khan, and King, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khan discloses further at least one exteroceptive sensor is mounted at the front of the tractor, and wherein detecting the objects corresponds to detecting objects in an area in front of the tractor (column 6, lines 52-63, vehicle 14 may include a sensor system 16 having a plurality of sensors configured to detect objects 15 and the vehicle 14 may include ultrasonic sensors, surround view cameras, radar sensors disposed on the corners and front of the vehicle 14, and a camera on the front of the vehicle 14).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Khan, and King, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khan discloses further processor is configured to perform the intersection determination by identifying a detection envelope divided into: a first zone corresponding to an area in front of a trajectory of the tractor; a second zone corresponding to an area outside the first zone and inside a left horizontal clearance of the road train; and a third zone corresponding to an area outside the first zone and inside a right horizontal clearance of the road train (columns 15-24, boundary line 90 discloses clearance zones of the road train, see also FIG. 5-6).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Khan, and King, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khan discloses further perform the intersection determination by determining whether the road train will intersect the boundary within a time threshold based at least in part on the tractor speed (column 21, line 65 through column 22, line 21).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Khan, and King, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khan discloses further road train implements autonomous driving (column 10, lines 29-34, autonomously steering), and wherein road train is configured, in response to the processor determining that the trajectory intersects the boundary of the one of the objects, to actuate brakes (column 17, lines 40-42) and/or to plan a new trajectory.
Regarding claim 11, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus (system) in claim 1. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 11 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus (system) in claim 5. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 15 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 16, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus (system) in claim 6. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 16 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 17, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus (system) in claim 7. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 17 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus (system) in claim 10. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 20 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10 above.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Khan, and King, further in view of KEENE et al., US 20220032927, herein further known as Keene.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Khan, and King, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khan discloses the road train vehicle (column 1, lines 18-19, column 2, lines 35-36, column 3, lines 40-45, column 6, line 15, claims 1, and 10-11, vehicle (i.e. tractor) towing a trailer).
However, Khan does not explicitly state an airside vehicle.
Keene teaches an airside vehicle (¶¶ [0004], [0012], [0015], see also claim 14).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Khan the airside vehicle as taught by Keene.
One would be motivated to modify Khan in view of Keene for the reasons stated in Keene paragraph [0004], more robust methods and system to reduce human error, risk of damage occurring to baggage, cargo, airside vehicles or even the planes and terminal and most importantly reduce risk of injury of personnel or risk to human life.
Regarding claim 12, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus (system) in claim 2. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 12 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 3-4, and 13-14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Khan, and King, further in view of LI, CN 114590333, herein further known as Li.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Khan, and King, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khan discloses a coupling of the tractor with a first dolly.
However, Khan does not explicitly state a coupling of the tractor with a first dolly defines a first angle and a coupling of the first dolly with a second dolly defines a second angle, and wherein the first angle and the second angle can be distinct angles.
Li teaches a coupling of the tractor with a first dolly defines a first angle and a coupling of the first dolly with a second dolly defines a second angle, and wherein the first angle and the second angle can be distinct angles (page 6, trailer position calculation process, as shown in FIG. 3, see also claims 5 and 10).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Khan the coupling of the tractor with a first dolly defines a first angle and a coupling of the first dolly with a second dolly defines a second angle, and wherein the first angle and the second angle can be distinct angles as taught by Li.
One would be motivated to modify Khan in view of Li for the reasons stated in Li, more robust methods and system to reduce costs by calculating the pose information of the tractor and trailer using non-GPS methods. In addition, more robust methods and system to simplify the tractor and trailer using only mechanical connection without electrical connections.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Khan, and King, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Khan does not explicitly state each of the at least one dolly is sensorless.
Li teaches each of the at least one dolly is sensorless (page 5, paragraph 1, each trailer is not provided with a sensor, see also FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Khan each of the at least one dolly is sensorless as taught by Li.
One would be motivated to modify Khan in view of Li for the reasons stated in Li, more robust methods and system to reduce costs by calculating the pose information of the tractor and trailer using non-GPS methods. In addition, more robust methods and system to simplify the tractor and trailer using only mechanical connection without electrical connections.
Regarding claim 13, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus (system) in claim 3. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 13 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus (system) in claim 4. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 14 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Khan, and King, further in view of DILVER, US 20160171898, herein further known as Silver.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Khan, and King, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
Khan discloses interface mounted on the tractor (column 11, lines 20-40), the processor determining that the trajectory intersects one of the objects (column 1, 43-63, column 3, lines 1-6, inner trailer boundary line intersects object line, see also FIG. 6).
However, Khan does not explicitly state boundary of one of the objects.
King teaches boundary of one of the objects (¶ [0076], determining if a bounding box for the object overlaps with a bounding box for the autonomous vehicle).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Khan the a boundary of one of the objects as taught by King.
One would be motivated to modify Khan in view of King for the reasons stated in King paragraphs [0002], more robust method and system for accurate detection of a potential collision and timely deployment of a safety measure, and [0032], more robust method and system to avoid obstacles, and generally increase an amount of safety for the occupants.
However, Khan does not explicitly state alert an operator via an audible alert configured to provide an indication of a collision risk level by varying a beeping frequency and/or a volume and/or a visual warning configured to provide an indication of a collision risk level by varying a flashing frequency and/or a color.
Silver teaches alert an operator via an audible alert configured to provide an indication of a collision risk level by varying a beeping frequency and/or a volume and/or a visual warning configured to provide an indication of a collision risk level by varying a flashing frequency and/or a color (¶ [0024], Visual and audio alerts may vary in frequency (tone) or in repetition rate, and generate three levels of information (i.e. three levels of situational awareness for the pilot and/or crew).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Khan alert an operator via an audible alert configured to provide an indication of a collision risk level by varying a beeping frequency and/or a volume and/or a visual warning configured to provide an indication of a collision risk level by varying a flashing frequency and/or a color as taught by Silver.
One would be motivated to modify Khan in view of Silver for the reasons stated in Silver paragraph [0002], more robust methods and system to reduce collisions which can cause significant damage and can be expensive, not only in terms of the required repairs, but in terms of the extra time that the vehicle must be out of service while under repair.
Regarding claim 18, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus (system) in claim 8. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 18 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Khan, and King, further in view of SCHWARZ et al., US 6508325, herein further known as Schwarz.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Khan, and King, disclose all elements of claim 1 above.
However, Khan does not explicitly state a dolly presence detection sensor mounted to the tractor, the dolly presence detection sensor being configured to detect whether the at least one dolly is coupled to the tractor, wherein the processor is configured to activate rearside collision detection in response to the at least one dolly being coupled to the tractor.
Schwarz teaches a dolly presence detection sensor mounted to the tractor, the dolly presence detection sensor being configured to detect whether the at least one dolly is coupled to the tractor, wherein the processor is configured to activate rearside collision detection in response to the at least one dolly being coupled to the tractor (column 6, lines 21-42).
It would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to incorporate in to Khan the dolly presence detection sensor mounted to the tractor, the dolly presence detection sensor being configured to detect whether the at least one dolly is coupled to the tractor, wherein the processor is configured to activate rearside collision detection in response to the at least one dolly being coupled to the tractor as taught by Schwarz.
One would be motivated to modify Khan in view of Schwarz for the reasons stated in Schwarz, more robust methods and collision avoidance systems that inform drivers of objects in possible collision zones, such as the rear, sides, and the front of a vehicle which are particularly applicable for enhancing the driver's view of rearward and sideward portions of the vehicle, particularly when moving in a reverse direction.
Regarding claim 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the apparatus (system) in claim 9. The method/steps taught/disclosed in claim 19 can clearly perform on the apparatus of claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record attached PTO 892 form, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as described. Prior art TARIQ et al., US 20250340219, discloses path planning including classifying an object within an operating environment, generating a boundary associated with the object, and generating a local path planning trajectory for a vehicle based on the classification of the object, the boundary associated with the object, and transforming a kinematic model from a space-time domain to a space-only domain.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Terry Buse whose telephone number is (313)446-6647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 PM EST.
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 Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/TERRY C BUSE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights