DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 is presented as depending from claim 1.
However, due to the language of the claim (“in response to determining that the trailer type is a semi-trailer” and “in response to determining that the trailer type is a full trailer”), it appears that claim 5 was intended to depend from claim 4.
For the purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as depending from claim 4.
Claim 7 contains a typographical error, repeating the word “the”, see (emphasis added): “wherein the the processing circuitry is further configured to”.
Claim 8 contains a typographical error, repeating the word “the”, see (emphasis added): “wherein the the processing circuitry is further configured to”.
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.
Claims 3-4, 6, and 8 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.
In regard to claim 3,
Claim 3 recites (emphasis added): “and/or wherein the vehicle comprises an air suspension system, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain at least a portion of the vehicle combination load information by evaluating data from the air suspension system, in particular by evaluating a respective air pressure and/or a respective suspension height of at least one respective axle of the vehicle or the trailer, and/or wherein the vehicle comprises a brake system, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain at least a portion of the vehicle combination load information by evaluating data from the brake system, in particular by evaluating accelerations and/or yaw rates obtained by the brake system”.
The inclusion of the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite as it presents a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation in the same claim and does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
For the purposes of examination, the above noted portion of claim 3 is interpreted as reciting: -and/or wherein the vehicle comprises an air suspension system, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain at least a portion of the vehicle combination load information by evaluating a respective air pressure and/or a respective suspension height of at least one respective axle of the vehicle or the trailer, and/or wherein the vehicle comprises a brake system, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: obtain at least a portion of the vehicle combination load information by evaluating accelerations and/or yaw rates obtained by the brake system-.
In regard to claim 4,
Claim 4 recites (emphasis added): “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine a trailer type of the trailer, in particular the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether the trailer type is a semi-trailer or a full trailer, on the basis of the vehicle combination load information”.
The inclusion of the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite as it presents a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation in the same claim and does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
For the purposes of examination, the above noted portion of claim 4 is interpreted as reciting: -wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine whether the trailer type is a semi-trailer or a full trailer, on the basis of the vehicle combination load information-.
In regard to claim 6,
Claim 6 recites (emphasis added): “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the type of trailer connection using a trained model, preferably an artificial neural network, such as a recurrent neural network, which uses the vehicle combination load information as input, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the trailer type of the trailer using the trained model”.
The inclusion of the terms “preferably” and “such as” render the claim indefinite as it presents a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation in the same claim and does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
For the purposes of examination, the above noted portion of claim 6 is interpreted as reciting: -wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the type of trailer connection using an artificial neural network, which uses the vehicle combination load information as input, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the trailer type of the trailer using the neural network-.
In regard to claim 8,
Claim 8 recites (emphasis added): “wherein the the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive an overriding command from a user, override the determined trailer connection type with a correct trailer connection type, and, optionally, update the trained model based on the overriding command.”
Firstly, the inclusion of the terms “optionally” renders the claim indefinite as it presents a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation in the same claim and does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
Further, there is no definition of “a correct trailer connection type”. It is unclear what is intended by “a correct trailer”, rendering the claim indefinite.
Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the trained model”, rendering the claim indefinite.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van Thiel (US Pub No 2023/0415713).
In regard to claim 1, van Thiel discloses a computer system (with at least towing vehicle control device 35 and trailer control device 39, see Fig 1) comprising processing circuitry (see, for example, the basic circuit with at least sensors 6e and control device 35, in Fig 1, sending signal S1; also see Paragraph 0074: “a towing vehicle control device 35 with a towing vehicle stability control system 35a and corresponding towing vehicle control lines 20a for actuating individual towing vehicle brakes 37 via a towing vehicle control signal S1”) configured to:
obtain vehicle combination load information of at least one of a vehicle (1, Fig 1) and a trailer (2.1) of a vehicle combination (see Paragraph 0084 (emphasis added): “Furthermore, an axle load sensor 6e and/or a coupling sensor 6f of an automated towing hitch 43 and/or an articulation angle sensor 6g can be used as mechanically acting sensors as vehicle sensors 6 in order to draw conclusions about a coupled trailer 2.n. For this purpose, the axle load sensor 6e measures the forces acting on the axles of the towing vehicle 1, which change under mechanical influence when the first trailer 2.1 is coupled.”), the vehicle and the trailer being connected to each other (see Fig 1); and
determine a type of connection between the vehicle and the trailer based on said vehicle combination load information.
See Paragraph 0097 (emphasis added): “Preferably, it is also provided that the towing vehicle control signal S1 and the trailer control signal S2 are generated in the first trailer strategy 18ga depending on further information, for example depending on a number N of detected trailers 2.n and/or a detected trailer type T.i of the coupled trailer(s) 2.n. This additional information can also be determined based on the sensor signals S6 of the respective vehicle sensors 6. For example, a camera 6b can be used to draw conclusions about the number N of trailers 2.n but also about the trailer type T.i, for example the trailer loading condition AZ (empty, half-full, full), the position of a trailer center of gravity AS, the number of axles AN, the trailer structure AK (for example semi-trailer AK1, drawbar trailer AK2, . . . ), et cetera.
Examiner notes that semi-trailers and drawbar trailers have different connection types, i.e., drawbar trailers utilizing a drawbar.
In regard to claim 2, van Thiel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle combination load information comprises at least one of: a gross combined vehicle weight of the vehicle combination, one or more drive axle loads of the vehicle and/or the trailer, and a weight of the vehicle.
See Paragraph 0028: “An axle load sensor also provides a signal that is independent of the interface signals. If, for example, the towing vehicle is the towing vehicle of a semi-trailer, the coupling of a trailer or semi-trailer significantly changes the axle loads of the towing vehicle. As a result, the measured axle loads of the towing vehicle can in turn be used to draw conclusions as to whether or not a trailer is coupled to the towing vehicle.”
Also see Paragraph 0084: “For this purpose, the axle load sensor 6e measures the forces acting on the axles of the towing vehicle 1, which change under mechanical influence when the first trailer 2.1 is coupled.”
In regard to claim 4, van Thiel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
determine whether the trailer type is a semi-trailer or a full trailer, on the basis of the vehicle combination load information; and
See Paragraph 0097 (emphasis added): “Preferably, it is also provided that the towing vehicle control signal S1 and the trailer control signal S2 are generated in the first trailer strategy 18ga depending on further information, for example depending on a number N of detected trailers 2.n and/or a detected trailer type T.i of the coupled trailer(s) 2.n. … about the trailer type T.i, for example the trailer loading condition AZ (empty, half-full, full), the position of a trailer center of gravity AS, the number of axles AN, the trailer structure AK (for example semi-trailer AK1, drawbar trailer AK2, . . . ), et cetera.
Examiner notes that a draw bar trailer is a type of full trailer.
determine the type of connection between the vehicle and the trailer based on the determined trailer type.
Semi-trailers and drawbar (full trailers) inherently utilizing different connection types, i.e., drawbar trailers utilizing a drawbar.
In regard to claim 5, van Thiel discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
determine the type of connection between the vehicle and the trailer such that the system determines if the connection type between the vehicle and the trailer is a back of cab connection or an end of frame connection,
See Paragraph 0097 (emphasis added): “Preferably, it is also provided that the towing vehicle control signal S1 and the trailer control signal S2 are generated in the first trailer strategy 18ga depending on further information, for example depending on a number N of detected trailers 2.n and/or a detected trailer type T.i of the coupled trailer(s) 2.n. … about the trailer type T.i, for example the trailer loading condition AZ (empty, half-full, full), the position of a trailer center of gravity AS, the number of axles AN, the trailer structure AK (for example semi-trailer AK1, drawbar trailer AK2, . . . ), et cetera.
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: in response to determining that the trailer type is a semi-trailer, determine that the connection type between the vehicle and the trailer is the back of cab connection, and/or in response to determining that the trailer type is a full trailer, determine that the connection type between the vehicle and the trailer is the end of frame connection.
Inherent, as a semi-trailer is a back-of-cab connection (attaching behind a cab) and as a drawbar trailer is an end-of-frame connection (attaching to the end of a vehicle frame).
In regard to claim 7, van Thiel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: submit information indicative of the determined type of trailer connection to a user (Paragraph 0058: “For example, the driver or a person monitoring the vehicle can be informed about this vehicle condition or the comparison result via a user interface, such as a display.”).
In regard to claim 9, van Thiel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
based on the determined type of trailer connection or the trailer type, control the vehicle (controlling vehicle brakes).
See Paragraph 0097, vehicle control signal S1 being based, in part, on trailer structure.
Also see Paragraph 0075: “towing vehicle control signal S1 can be a hydraulic or a pneumatic or an electrical control signal, which can also be converted between the individual “media” via suitable control valves. As a result, purely hydraulic or purely pneumatic or purely electrical actuation of the towing vehicle brakes 37 or a combination thereof (electro-pneumatic, electro-hydraulic, hydraulic-pneumatic) may be made possible, wherein additional control valves which are not shown are to be provided in the towing vehicle control lines 20a for combined actuation”.
In regard to claim 10, van Thiel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
based on the determined type of trailer connection or the trailer type, issue control information to control valves of the vehicle to connect a pneumatic system of the vehicle to a pneumatic system of the trailer.
See Paragraph 0097, vehicle control signal S1 being based, in part, on trailer structure.
Also see Paragraph 0075: “towing vehicle control signal S1 can be a hydraulic or a pneumatic or an electrical control signal, which can also be converted between the individual “media” via suitable control valves. As a result, purely hydraulic or purely pneumatic or purely electrical actuation of the towing vehicle brakes 37 or a combination thereof (electro-pneumatic, electro-hydraulic, hydraulic-pneumatic) may be made possible, wherein additional control valves which are not shown are to be provided in the towing vehicle control lines 20a for combined actuation”.
In regard to claim 11, van Thiel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
based on the determined type of trailer connection or the trailer type, issue control information to control a braking system of the vehicle and/or the trailer.
See Paragraph 0097, vehicle control signal S1 being based, in part, on trailer structure.
Also see Paragraph 0075 (emphasis added): “towing vehicle control signal S1 can be a hydraulic or a pneumatic or an electrical control signal, which can also be converted between the individual “media” via suitable control valves. As a result, purely hydraulic or purely pneumatic or purely electrical actuation of the towing vehicle brakes 37 or a combination thereof (electro-pneumatic, electro-hydraulic, hydraulic-pneumatic) may be made possible, wherein additional control valves which are not shown are to be provided in the towing vehicle control lines 20a for combined actuation”.
In regard to claim 12, van Thiel discloses a vehicle (1) being configured to connect to a trailer (2.1, see Fig 1), the vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1, above).
In regard to claim 13, van Thiel discloses a computer-implemented (via at least towing vehicle control device 35 and trailer control device 39, see Fig 1) method (for example, see Paragraph 0009: “method includes: reading at least one sensor signal from at least one vehicle sensor, wherein the vehicle sensor is configured to generate the sensor signal in dependence upon whether the at least one trailer is coupled”) for determining a type of trailer connection of a vehicle combination, the method comprising:
obtaining, by processing circuitry of a computer system (see, for example, the basic circuit with at least sensors 6e and control device 35, in Fig 1, sending signal S1; also see Paragraph 0074: “a towing vehicle control device 35 with a towing vehicle stability control system 35a and corresponding towing vehicle control lines 20a for actuating individual towing vehicle brakes 37 via a towing vehicle control signal S1”), vehicle combination load information of at least one of a vehicle (1, Fig 1) and a trailer (2.1) of the vehicle combination (see Paragraph 0084 (emphasis added): “Furthermore, an axle load sensor 6e and/or a coupling sensor 6f of an automated towing hitch 43 and/or an articulation angle sensor 6g can be used as mechanically acting sensors as vehicle sensors 6 in order to draw conclusions about a coupled trailer 2.n. For this purpose, the axle load sensor 6e measures the forces acting on the axles of the towing vehicle 1, which change under mechanical influence when the first trailer 2.1 is coupled.”), the vehicle and the trailer being connected to each other (see Fig 1); and
determining, by the processing circuitry, a type of connection between the vehicle and the trailer based on said vehicle combination load information.
See Paragraph 0097 (emphasis added): “Preferably, it is also provided that the towing vehicle control signal S1 and the trailer control signal S2 are generated in the first trailer strategy 18ga depending on further information, for example depending on a number N of detected trailers 2.n and/or a detected trailer type T.i of the coupled trailer(s) 2.n. This additional information can also be determined based on the sensor signals S6 of the respective vehicle sensors 6. For example, a camera 6b can be used to draw conclusions about the number N of trailers 2.n but also about the trailer type T.i, for example the trailer loading condition AZ (empty, half-full, full), the position of a trailer center of gravity AS, the number of axles AN, the trailer structure AK (for example semi-trailer AK1, drawbar trailer AK2, . . . ), et cetera.
Examiner notes that semi-trailers and drawbar trailers have different connection types, i.e., drawbar trailers utilizing a drawbar.
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 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Thiel (US Pub No 2023/0415713), in view of Coombs (US Pub No 2021/0178846).
In regard to claim 3,
van Thiel discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain at least a portion of the vehicle combination load information from a set of axle load sensors comprising at least one axle load sensor, each axle load sensor being adapted to issue information indicative of an axle load of an axle of the vehicle or the trailer,
see Paragraph 0084 (emphasis added): “Furthermore, an axle load sensor 6e and/or a coupling sensor 6f of an automated towing hitch 43 and/or an articulation angle sensor 6g can be used as mechanically acting sensors as vehicle sensors 6 in order to draw conclusions about a coupled trailer 2.n. For this purpose, the axle load sensor 6e measures the forces acting on the axles of the towing vehicle 1, which change under mechanical influence when the first trailer 2.1 is coupled.”
and/or (interpreted as “or”)
and/or (interpreted as “or”)
van Thiel does not positively disclose wherein the vehicle comprises an air suspension system.
However, it is very well known in the art to configure towing vehicle and trailer systems with air suspensions.
For example, Coombs discloses towing vehicle and trailer systems, see Fig 2, and most importantly teaches that air suspensions allow for adjusting in response to dynamically changing loads to prevent cargo movement; see Paragraph 0035: “maintaining the trailer in a level configuration during loading of discrete load units (e.g., pallets) by automatically actuating the air suspension system in response to dynamically-changing load distribution within the cargo compartment, which can prevent discrete load units from sliding, rolling, or otherwise moving within the cargo compartment during loading”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the vehicle in the system of van Thiel with an air suspension to prevent unwanted cargo movement as taught by Coombs.
In regard to claim 8,
van Thiel discloses the system of claim 1.
van Thiel does not positively disclose wherein the the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive an overriding command from a user, override the determined trailer connection type with a correct trailer connection type, and, optionally, update the trained model based on the overriding command.
However, it is very well known in the art to allow uses to issue override commands.
For example, Coombs discloses towing vehicle and trailer systems, see Fig 2, and most importantly teaches supplying a user with an override switch to override vehicle loading data provided by a vehicle (see Paragraph 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the system of van Thiel such that the circuity could receive an override command to allow for the user to have final say when presented with data from the system, as demonstrated by Coombs, (to include updating model training).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Thiel (US Pub No 2023/0415713), in view of Nariyambut murali et al. (US Pub No 2024/0336256).
In regard to claim 6,
van Thiel discloses the system of claim 1, which uses the vehicle combination load information as input (see Paragraph 0084) to determine the trailer type (see Paragraph 0097).
van Thiel does not positively disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the type of trailer connection using an artificial neural network, which uses the vehicle combination load information as input, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the trailer type of the trailer using the neural network.
However, such practices are known in the art.
Nariyambut murali discloses a trailer hitching assist method (see the Abstract), and most importantly, teaches that a neural network can be trained to accurately identify a variety of trailers and connection types (Paragraph 0038: “the detection models 25 utilize neural networks that have been trained to accurately detect object types and/or characteristics of those object types. For example, the trailer detection model 25A may utilize a neural network that has been trained, based on a plurality of images of trailers 18, to accurately identify a variety of types of trailers 18 and/or characteristics of those trailers 18. Similarly, the coupler detection model 25B may utilize a neural network that has been trained, based on a plurality of images of couplers 16, to accurately identify a variety of types of couplers 16 and/or characteristics of those couplers 16”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a neural network in the system of van Thiel in order to accurately identify a variety of trailers and connection types as taught by Nariyambut murali. Such a utilization is a simple and obvious use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2141 III).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over van Thiel (US Pub No 2023/0415713), alone.
In regard to claim 14,
van Thiel discloses the method of claim 13.
van Thiel does not positively disclose a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 13.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is ubiquitously known throughout the art to utilize computer programs comprising computer code, executed by processing circuitry, to perform methods, and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure can Thiel thus.
In regard to claim 15,
van Thiel discloses the method of claim 13.
van Thiel does not positively disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 13.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is ubiquitously known throughout the art to utilize a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, executed by processing circuitry, to perform methods, and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure can Thiel thus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB M AMICK whose telephone number is (571)272-5790. The examiner can normally be reached Core Hours 10-6 M-F (First Fridays Off).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/JACOB M AMICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights