DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to application filed on 9/16/2025. Claim(s) 1-13, 15-17 is/are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “to thereby momentarily removing the trailer”. While the scope of the claim(s) is/are reasonably ascertainable, the examiner suggests amending “removing” to “remove” for proper grammar.
Claim 15 recites “to thereby momentarily removing the trailer”. While the scope of the claim(s) is/are reasonably ascertainable, the examiner suggests amending “removing” to “remove” for proper grammar.
Claim 16 recites “to thereby momentarily increasing the field of view”. While the scope of the claim(s) is/are reasonably ascertainable, the examiner suggests amending “increasing” to “increase” for proper grammar.
Claim 17 recites “to thereby momentarily removing the trailer”. While the scope of the claim(s) is/are reasonably ascertainable, the examiner suggests amending “removing” to “remove” for proper grammar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
- The disclosure contains similar typographic errors as those discussed above with regards to the claim objections.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 7, 12 is/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(s) 7 recite(s) the limitation "the increased field of view of the one or more sensors ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s), and thus, the claim(s) is/are indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
Claim(s) 12 recite(s) the limitation "properties defining the occluded region such as distance and/or velocity". This limitation is unclear and thus, the claim(s) is/are indefinite. Firstly, is it unclear what the parameters are of, i.e., “distance” and “velocity” of what? Further, it is unclear how such properties would define a “region”, as claimed. Secondly, the intended scope of the claim is unclear because of the language “such as distance and/or velocity” is providing examples which lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim. The specification does not provide further description on what the “properties defining occluded region” could be outside of repeating the claim language (pg. 18, lines 13-15). Thus, it is unclear how the “distance and/or velocity" limits the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no prior art alone or in combination that discloses or teaches all the limitations of the applicant's claimed invention, including, and in combination with other recited limitations,
controlling the articulated vehicle in its present driving lane in a view phase in which the pulling vehicle is steered towards the neighbouring lane to thereby momentarily removing the trailer from the field of view in the neighbouring lane of the one or more sensors (claim(s) 1, 15),
control the articulated vehicle in its present driving lane in a view phase in which the pulling vehicle is steered towards the neighbouring lane to thereby momentarily increasing the field of view of the one or more sensors in the neighbouring lane (claim(s) 16),
control the articulated vehicle in its present driving lane in a view phase in which the pulling vehicle is steered towards the neighbouring lane to thereby momentarily removing the trailer from the field of view in the neighbouring lane of the one or more sensors (claim(s) 17).
The closest prior art of record includes the following:
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 15-17, Foster (US-20220379924-A1) teaches A method for operating an articulated vehicle comprising a pulling vehicle and a trailer (“FIG. 1 shows a system 100 that includes an autonomous vehicle 105. The autonomous vehicle 105 may include a tractor of a semi-trailer truck. The autonomous vehicle 105 includes a plurality of vehicle subsystems 140 and an in-vehicle control computer 150.”, [0022], “For autonomous vehicles (AVs), particularly autonomous tractor trailers, the ability to recognize a malfunction in its systems and stop safely can allow for a lawful and safe operation of the vehicle. Described below in detail are systems and methods for the safe and lawful operation of an autonomous vehicle on a roadway, including the execution of maneuvers that bring the autonomous vehicle in compliance with the law while signaling surrounding vehicles of its condition.”, [0019], “the above-described methods and the methods described in this patent document are embodied in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium includes code that when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the above-described methods and the methods described in this patent document.”, [0007]) wherein the pulling vehicle comprises one or more sensors arranged to monitor an environment of the articulated vehicle (“The plurality of vehicle subsystems 140 includes…vehicle sensor subsystems 144”, [0019], “As shown in FIG. 2, the vehicle sensor subsystem 144 receives visual, auditory, or both visual and auditory signals indicating the at the environmental condition of the autonomous vehicle”, [0031]), the method comprising:
detecting, in the monitored environment, an occluded region in a neighbouring driving lane, wherein the occluded region is occluded (“When the necessary perception view is blocked in unprotected turning, the system may creep forward to adjust the position to get the necessary perception view, then make the turning decision. An example turning decision may be made in accordance with Section V.(h) (Unprotected Turning TTC).”, [0111]); and
controlling the articulated vehicle in its present driving lane in a view phase in which the pulling vehicle is steered (see “the system may creep forward to adjust the position to get the necessary perception view, then make the turning decision. An example turning decision may be made in accordance with Section V.(h) (Unprotected Turning TTC).”, [0111]).
Foster teaches controlling the articulated vehicle in its present driving lane in a view phase in which the pulling vehicle is steered “forward to adjust the position to get the necessary perception view” [0111], but does not explicitly teach
wherein the occluded region is occluded by the trailer,
and
a view phase in which the pulling vehicle is steered towards the neighbouring lane to thereby momentarily removing the trailer from the field of view in the neighbouring lane of the one or more sensors.
Similarly, regarding claim 16,
Foster teaches controlling the articulated vehicle in its present driving lane in a view phase in which the pulling vehicle is steered (“the system may creep forward to adjust the position to get the necessary perception view, then make the turning decision.”, [0111], but does not explicitly teach
wherein the occluded region is occluded by the trailer,
and
a view phase in which the pulling vehicle is steered towards the neighbouring lane.
Schwalb (DE-102024115372-A1) teaches
detecting, in the monitored environment, an occluded region in a neighbouring driving lane, wherein the occluded region is occluded by the trailer from a field of view of the one or more sensors (“On the right lane 2.1, a commercial vehicle 3, comprising a tractor unit 4 with side mirrors 7 and/or mirror replacement cameras 7 and a semi-trailer 5 or trailer, is driving through the curve 9. The side mirrors 7 and/or mirror replacement cameras 7 cover a viewing area B1 behind the commercial vehicle 3 and to the side of it. However, the semi-trailer 5 or trailer creates a shadow A behind the semi-trailer 5 or trailer, which is not visible through the side mirrors 7 and/or mirror replacement cameras 7.”, [0025]);
Schwalb teaches detecting, in the monitored environment, an occluded region in a neighbouring driving lane, wherein the occluded region is occluded by the trailer from a field of view of the one or more sensors; and “The radar sensor 8 can be positioned in such a way that signals emitted and received by the radar sensor 8 are guided under the semi-trailer 5 or trailer by multipath propagation and ground reflections. The radar sensor 8 therefore has a viewing area B2 which overlaps with the viewing area B1 of the side mirror 7 and/or the mirror replacement cameras 7 and includes the shadowing area A.” [0027] and “The radar sensor 8 also makes it possible to monitor traffic on both sides next to the commercial vehicle 3, as well as in its own lane 2.1 behind the semi-trailer 5 or trailer, even when driving around a curve.” [0030], but does not explicitly teach
controlling the articulated vehicle in its present driving lane in a view phase in which the pulling vehicle is steered towards the neighbouring lane to thereby momentarily removing the trailer from the field of view in the neighbouring lane of the one or more sensors.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313)446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM, Mountain Time, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights