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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. (Hereinafter Salter) (US 2015/0345938 A1) in view of Singh et al. (Hereinafter Singh) (US 2016/0052548 A1).
As per claim 1, Salter discloses the limitations of:
a vehicle hitching assistance system , comprising:
a controller (See at least paragraph 64; the light source 82 may be selectively activated using a controller 128 to cause the photoluminescent structure 10 to luminesce in a variety of colors. For example, the controller 128 may activate the light source 82 to exclusively excite the first photoluminescent material, resulting in the viewable portion 124 illuminating in the first color. Alternatively, the controller 128 may activate the light source 82 to exclusively excite the second photoluminescent material, resulting in the viewable portion 124 illuminating in the second color.):
illuminating one or more exterior lights directed toward a rear of the vehicle (See at least paragraph 65; he controller 128 may activate the light source 82 to cause both of the photoluminescent materials to become excited, resulting in the viewable portion 124 illuminating in a third color, which is a color mixture of the first and second color (e.g., pinkish). The intensities of the inputted light 86 emitted from the light source 82 may also be proportionally varied by wavelength to one another such that additional colors may be obtained.) ;
acquiring image data from the vehicle (See at least paragraph 66; The lighting system 22 includes a camera 50 having an image sensor 126 that captures light and converts it into image data. The camera 50 can be mounted to the rear of a tow vehicle 28 and positioned to image a target assembly 26 located on a trailer 32 that is attached to the vehicle 28.);
searching for a trailer within an area illuminated by the one or more exterior lights (See at least paragraph 45 – 46; the trailer backup assist system 30 may employ a vision based target detection system, wherein the hitch angle detection component 24 is an identifiable visual target located on a trailer 32 attached to a towing vehicle 28. The towing vehicle 28 may be equipped with a rear view camera 50, which functions as the hitch angle detecting apparatus, and is configured to image the target assembly 26 and process acquired image data to generate trailer related information used in a variety of applications associated with the trailer backup assist system 30. Nevertheless, there may be some circumstances that hinder target detection accuracy. Accordingly, a light source 82 may be disposed on and/or within a portion of the vehicle 28, such as the tailgate 38. The light source 82 may comprise any form of light source. For example fluorescent lighting, light emitting diodes (LEDs), organic LEDs (OLEDs), polymer LEDs (PLEDs), solid state lighting, or any other form of lighting configured to emit light may be utilized. As illustrated in FIG. 4, the light source 82 is disposed on the tailgate 38 and is oriented to emit inputted light 86 rearwardly towards the target assembly 26. The light source 82 may be an independent light source 82 configured for utilization during the illumination of a target assembly 26).
Salter is silent regarding the limitation of:
executing an automated backing process upon identifying the trailer within the area, including identifying a coupler of the trailer, and outputting a steering signal to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to steer to align a hitch ball of the vehicle with the coupler of the trailer during reversing of the vehicle toward the trailer.
Singh teaches the limitation of:
executing an automated backing process upon identifying the trailer within the area, including identifying a coupler of the trailer, and outputting a steering signal to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to steer to align a hitch ball of the vehicle with the coupler of the trailer during reversing of the vehicle toward the trailer (See at least paragraph 11 – 13; he processor can be configured to determine the position of the trailer coupling relative to the tow hitch exclusively in dependence on the first feature set when the distance between the vehicle and the trailer is greater than said predefined threshold. When the distance between the vehicle and the trailer is less than the predefined threshold, the processor can be configured to determine the position of the trailer coupling relative to the tow hitch in dependence on both said first feature set and said second feature set. The processor can be configured to initiate a search for said second feature set when the distance between the vehicle and the trailer equals said predefined threshold. The processor can be configured to output the steering guidance signal to steer the vehicle into a position in which the tow hitch is aligned with the trailer coupling. The steering guidance signal can be generated to result in a hitch angle, defined between the longitudinal axes of the vehicle and the trailer, which is at least substantially equal to zero or within a predefined angular margin (for example less than 15°, 30° or 45°). The vehicle guidance module can be configured to control the steering guidance signal to provide a particular alignment between the vehicle and the trailer (i.e. hitch angle) when they are coupled. The steering guidance signal can position the vehicle to provide a hitch angle which will facilitate a subsequent towing operation of the trailer. The subsequent towing operation could be defined by the user, for example in a particular direction; or could be determined dynamically, for example to avoid one or more obstructions. The one or more obstructions could be identified by the user or by an image processing system. If the vehicle guidance module determines that said one or more obstructions will limit the turning circle of the trailer, then the approach path of the vehicle can be adjusted to modify (either to reduce or to increase) the hitch angle when the trailer is hitched onto the vehicle to facilitate towing (for example allowing the trailer to be towed out in a single forward motion avoiding said one or more obstructions). Other detections systems, such as sonar and radar systems could also be utilised to identify said obstruction(s).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include executing an automated backing process upon identifying the trailer within the area, including identifying a coupler of the trailer, and outputting a steering signal to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to steer to align a hitch ball of the vehicle with the coupler of the trailer during reversing of the vehicle toward the trailer as taught by Singh in the system of Salter, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 2, the combination of Salter and Singh discloses the limitations of:
while searching for the trailer, determines if a sensing condition and a visibility condition are me (Salter, see at least paragraph 45, and Singh, see at least paragraph 83);
executes the automated backing process, including identifying the coupler of the trailer and outputting the steering signal to the vehicle to cause the vehicle to steer to align the hitch ball of the vehicle with the coupler as a part of a first hitch assist mode when the sensing condition and visibility condition are met (Singh, see at least paragraph 11 – 13 and 85).
As per claim 3, the combination of Salter and Singh discloses the limitations of:
implements a second hitch assistance mode when one of the sensing condition and the visibility condition are not met, the second hitch assistance mode including presenting to the user an image of a best fit path to align the hitch ball with the coupler for guiding user control of the vehicle in reversing the vehicle toward the trailer (Singh, see at least paragraph 37 and 79).
As per claim 4, the combination of Salter and Singh discloses the limitations of:
receives a selection signal from the vehicle corresponding with a user selection of either the first or second hitch assistance mode before executing the automated backing process; and causes the vehicle to present an indication that the first hitch assist mode may not be selected when one of the sensing condition and the visibility condition are not met (Singh, see at least paragraph 68 and 79).
As per claim 5, the combination of Salter and Singh discloses the limitations of:
wherein the area illuminated by the one or more exterior lights directed toward the rear of the vehicle includes a preselected area included in the image data, the preselected area being less than a total field of the image data in directions corresponding with both a longitudinal distance between the vehicle and the trailer, by an amount corresponding with a maximum detection distance, a minimum detection distance corresponding with a proportion of the trailer relative to the total field, and a lateral direction perpendicular to the longitudinal distance by an amount corresponding with a known steering limit of the vehicle (Salter, see at least abstract and Singh, see at least figure 3A – 3B, 5 and paragraph 79).
As per claim 6, the combination of Salter and Singh discloses the limitations of:
wherein the controller illuminates the one or more exterior lights directed toward a rear of the vehicle, acquires image data from the vehicle, and searches for the trailer within the area illuminated by the one or more exterior lights as a part of an initial alignment process (Salter, see at least paragraph 33), including:
searching for the trailer positioned past a minimum distance from the vehicle and within the preselected area within the image data (Singh, see at least paragraph 89 – 92).
As per claim 7, the combination of Salter and Singh discloses the limitations of:
when the trailer is not identified within the preselected area, presenting an indication to a driver of the vehicle to reposition the vehicle such that the trailer is within the preselected area and removing the indication when the trailer is identified within the preselected area, the trailer remaining past the minimum distance from the vehicle (Singh, see at least paragraph 37, 68 and 79); and
after completion of the initial alignment process, executing the automated backing process (Singh, see at least paragraph 37, 68 and 79).
As per claim 8, the combination of Salter and Singh discloses the limitations of:
wherein the controller acquires the image data from an imaging system included with the vehicle, the imaging system having at least one camera, the total field of the image data corresponding with a total field of view of the at least one camera (Singh, see at least paragraph 69 – 71).
As per claim 9, the combination of Salter and Singh discloses the limitations of:
the controller outputs the steering signal to a steering system included with the vehicle (Salter, see at least paragraph 37, and Singh, see at least abstract and paragraph 6); and
the controller derives the steering signal based on at least a maximum steering angle of the steering system (Salter, see at least paragraph 42 and Singh, see at least abstract and paragraph 6) .
As per claim 10, the combination of Salter and Singh discloses the limitations of:
wherein the preselected area within the image data is defined by a designated boundary comprising respective portions based on the maximum detection distance, the minimum detection distance, and the maximum steering angle of the steering system (Salter, see at least paragraph 42 and Singh, see at least paragraph 66 – 71).
Regarding claims 11 – 20:
Claims 11 – 20 are rejected using the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 1 – 10 above, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Windeler (US 2016/0023601 A1) discloses trailer hitch guidance method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IG T AN whose telephone number is (571)270-5110. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/IG T AN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
IG T AN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights