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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed 18 July 2025. Claims 1-8 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 18 July 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS was considered.
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.
Claim 2-3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “…for each camera” which is ambiguous. It is not clear “each camera” is among the “plurality of camera” OR the “selected at least one camera”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The claim is interpreted as “for each camera of the selected at least one camera” for the purpose of examination
Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of the dependency on claim 2.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of controlling a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for visual trailer tracking for vehicle-trailer angle estimation, the method comprising:
receiving, by data processing hardware, image data from a plurality of cameras that are positioned on a tow vehicle and rearwardly facing to capture a rearward environment of the tow vehicle that includes a connected trailer;
detecting, by the data processing hardware, a representation of the trailer in the received image data from each of the cameras;
based upon the trailer representation in the image data from each camera, selecting, by the data processing hardware, at least one camera from the plurality of cameras;
detecting, by the data processing hardware, a feature of the trailer representation and a location of the trailer representation feature in the image data from the selected at least one camera;
estimating, by the data processing hardware, a distance associated with the detected feature of the trailer representation;
determining, by the data processing hardware, a trailer dimension based upon the estimated distance of the detected feature; and
initiating, by the data processing hardware, a trailer assist operation for the tow vehicle based upon the determined trailer dimension.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “detecting…”, “…selecting…”, “detecting…”, “estimating…”, “determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for visual trailer tracking for vehicle-trailer angle estimation, the method comprising:
receiving, by data processing hardware, image data from a plurality of cameras that are positioned on a tow vehicle and rearwardly facing to capture a rearward environment of the tow vehicle that includes a connected trailer;
detecting, by the data processing hardware, a representation of the trailer in the received image data from each of the cameras;
based upon the trailer representation in the image data from each camera, selecting, by the data processing hardware, at least one camera from the plurality of cameras;
detecting, by the data processing hardware, a feature of the trailer representation and a location of the trailer representation feature in the image data from the selected at least one camera;
estimating, by the data processing hardware, a distance associated with the detected feature of the trailer representation;
determining, by the data processing hardware, a trailer dimension based upon the estimated distance of the detected feature; and
initiating, by the data processing hardware, a trailer assist operation for the tow vehicle based upon the determined trailer dimension.
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 “receiving...” and “initiating...” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step from the sensors and/or from the external sources are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering vehicle and/or road condition data for use in the detecting… selecting… estimating… determining… steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The initiating step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. the initiating …a trailer assist operation could be interpreted as either transmitting an instruction or displaying a message…), and amounts to mere post solution data transmission/displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “data processing hardware” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The data processing hardware is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the detecting… selecting… estimating… determining… steps.
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 (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 2019 PEG, 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 data processing hardware to perform the steps... amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving...”, “initiating...” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, 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, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving...” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the data processing hardware is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “initiating…” is broadly recited and could be interpreted as data transmission or displaying..., which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 8.
Claim 8, an apparatus claim (a controller), includes limitations analogous to claim 1 a process claim (a method to), but adds a memory hardware and instructs. These generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gali (US20210094473).
As to claims 1 and 8, Gali teaches a method for visual trailer tracking for vehicle-trailer angle estimation and a system for determining a dimension of a trailer that is connected to a tow vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving, by data processing hardware, image data from a plurality of cameras that are positioned on a tow vehicle and rearwardly facing to capture a rearward environment of the tow vehicle that includes a connected trailer (see at least Gali para 0025: a plurality of exterior viewing vehicle-based imaging sensors or cameras, also see Fig. 1);
detecting, by the data processing hardware, a representation of the trailer in the received image data from each of the cameras (see at least Gali para 0025: capture image data representative of the scene exterior of the vehicle 10, which includes the trailer, also see Fig. 1);
based upon the trailer representation in the image data from each camera, selecting, by the data processing hardware, at least one camera from the plurality of cameras (see at least Gali para 0034: …the system may operate in the trailer surround view mode, whereby surround view images are displayed based on the vehicle and trailer cameras, and based on the determined 3D model of the trailer, such that the vehicle and trailer can be shown as avatars of the appropriate size and shape in the surround view images);
detecting, by the data processing hardware, a feature of the trailer representation and a location of the trailer representation feature in the image data from the selected at least one camera (see at least Gali para 0045-0046: …based on the detected/estimated dimensions and other properties of the trailer, the system generates a three dimensional (3D) model of the trailer);
estimating, by the data processing hardware, a distance associated with the detected feature of the trailer representation (see at least Gali para 0045-0046: …based on the detected/estimated dimensions and other properties of the trailer, the system generates a three dimensional (3D) model of the trailer; para 0038: the system detects the trailer and estimates dimensions of the trailer (such as but not limited to length, width, height, tongue length, trailer jack position and shape, wheel radius), and may determine other properties of the trailer);
determining, by the data processing hardware, a trailer dimension based upon the estimated distance of the detected feature (see at least Gali para 0045-0046: …based on the detected/estimated dimensions and other properties of the trailer, the system generates a three dimensional (3D) model of the trailer; para 0038: the system detects the trailer and estimates dimensions of the trailer (such as but not limited to length, width, height, tongue length, trailer jack position and shape, wheel radius), and may determine other properties of the trailer); and
initiating, by the data processing hardware, a trailer assist operation for the tow vehicle based upon the determined trailer dimension (see at least Gali para 0045-0046: …The system determines parking structure height (front camera view while in drive) and trailer height, and may generate an alert or warning to the driver of the vehicle when the trailer is too tall for a structure height that the vehicle and trailer is approaching).
As to claim 5, Gali teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the feature of the trailer representation comprises an uppermost edge or corner of the trailer representation, and the trailer dimension comprises a height of the trailer that is determined based on the upper edge or corner of the trailer representation (see at least Gali para 0045-0046: …based on the detected/estimated dimensions and other properties of the trailer, the system generates a three dimensional (3D) model of the trailer; para 0038: the system detects the trailer and estimates dimensions of the trailer (such as but not limited to length, width, height, tongue length, trailer jack position and shape, wheel radius), and may determine other properties of the trailer).
As to claim 6, Gali teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the feature of the trailer representation comprises a leftmost vertical edge or corner and a rightmost vertical edge or corner of the trailer representation, and the trailer dimension comprises a width of the trailer that is determined based upon the leftmost and rightmost vertical edges or corners of the trailer representation (see at least Gali para 0045-0046: …based on the detected/estimated dimensions and other properties of the trailer, the system generates a three dimensional (3D) model of the trailer; para 0038: the system detects the trailer and estimates dimensions of the trailer (such as but not limited to length, width, height, tongue length, trailer jack position and shape, wheel radius), and may determine other properties of the trailer).
As to claim 7, Gali teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the feature of the trailer representation comprises at least one of a rear axle of the trailer representation, a rear end edge, or corner of the trailer representation, and trailer dimension comprises a trailer length that is determined based upon the at least one of the rear axle of the trailer representation, the rear end edge, or corner of the trailer representation (see at least Gali para 0045-0046: …based on the detected/estimated dimensions and other properties of the trailer, the system generates a three dimensional (3D) model of the trailer; para 0038: the system detects the trailer and estimates dimensions of the trailer (such as but not limited to length, width, height, tongue length, trailer jack position and shape, wheel radius), and may determine other properties of the trailer).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gali in view of Aich (US20140267688).
As to claim 2, Gali teaches the method of claim 1.
Gali does not teach for each camera, determining, by the data processing hardware using the image data from the camera, at least one of a trailer angle or a pixel area occupied by the trailer representation in the image data, the trailer angle comprising an angle formed between a longitudinal axis of the tow vehicle and a longitudinal axis of the trailer, wherein selecting the at least one camera is based upon the at least one of the trailer angle or the pixel area.
Aich is directed to a vehicle and trailer display system. Aich teaches …determining a hitch angle of trailer attached to the vehicle …the vehicle trailer backup assist system may utilize a target placed on the trailer, allowing the trailer backup assist system to employ information acquired via image acquisition and processing of the target… the camera and image processing may detect the target and its location on the trailer to determine trailer related information, such as the hitch angle between the trailer and the towing vehicle (see at least Aich, para 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gali so as to include the above limitations in view of Aich et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the hitch angle detection of Aich can be used in Gali, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Gali and Aich because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to detect the hitch angle so that the vehicle-trailer combination can be properly operated, especially during reversing.
As to claim 3, Gali in view of Aich teaches the method of claim 2.
Aich further teaches wherein selecting the at least one camera is based upon the trailer angle and the pixel area (Aich para 0149-0152).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gali so as to include the above limitations in view of Aich et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Gali and Aich because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to obtain optimal images of the trailer so that the vehicle-trailer combination can be properly operated, especially during reversing.
As to claim 4, Gali teaches the method of claim 1.
Aich further teaches determining, by the data processing hardware, a trailer angle based on the trailer representation in the image data, the trailer angle comprising an angle formed between a longitudinal axis of the tow vehicle and a longitudinal axis of the trailer, wherein selecting the at least one camera is based upon the determined trailer angle (see at least Aich, para 0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gali so as to include the above limitations in view of Aich et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Gali and Aich because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing a method to obtain optimal images of the trailer so that the vehicle-trailer combination can be properly operated, especially during reversing.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights