Bajpai, Devendra

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2020

14316939 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/316,939 06/27/2014 Devendra Bajpai MAG04- P2317-423731 4170
153508 7590 01/22/2020
HONIGMAN LLP/MAGNA
650 TRADE CENTRE WAY
SUITE 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
EXAMINER
ABOUZAHRA, HESHAM K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
asytsma@honigman.com
patent@honigman.com
tflory@honigman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEVENDRA BAJPAI
Appeal 2019-000994
Application 14/316,939
Technology Center 2400
Before KARL D. EASTHOM, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which are all of the pending
claims. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as applicant, Magna
Electronics Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000994
Application 14/316,939

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the invention “relates generally to rear vision
systems for vehicles and, more particularly, to rear vision systems having a
rearward facing camera at a rear portion of a vehicle.” Spec. ¶ 2. By way of
background, Appellant’s Specification describes challenges drivers face in
trying to “back up a trailer on their vehicle due to the dynamic interaction
between the relative positions of the vehicle, trailer[,] and front vehicle
wheel angles.” Id. ¶ 13. Purportedly to address those challenges,
Appellant’s Specification describes the present invention, which
provides a determination of the trailer angle (the angle of the
longitudinal axis of the towed trailer relative to the longitudinal
axis of the towing vehicle) and a prediction or estimation of the
trailer angle, such as based on the vehicle dynamics and the
vehicle and trailer parameters. The trailer angle detection and
prediction system or trailering assist system is useful in
assisting a driver in parking a trailer at a parking space.
Id. According to Appellant’s Specification, the system may estimate the
trailer angle relative to the towing vehicle for a given driving condition and
steering direction or steering angle. Id. ¶ 15. As part of the estimation of
the trailer angle, the system may also estimate a wheel angle of the towing
vehicle, and then compare the estimated wheel angle to a “measured wheel
angle (such as determined by or received from a vehicle status system or
sensor and vehicle network bus or the like).” Id. ¶ 16. “The error or
difference between the estimated wheel angle and the determined or actual
wheel angle is used to modify the estimated trailer angle in subsequent
determinations.” Id. Thus, by using a known vehicle wheel angle, the
system is able to compute an error value in its estimation of the wheel angle,
Appeal 2019-000994
Application 14/316,939

3
and the system then uses that error value to revise its estimation of the trailer
angle.
Claims 1, 12, and 18 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below
with disputed limitations italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A trailering assist system for a vehicle, said trailering
assist system comprising:
a camera disposed at a vehicle equipped with said
trailering assist system;
wherein said camera comprises a two dimensional array
of photosensing elements;
wherein said camera has a field of view rearward of the
equipped vehicle that encompasses a trailer that is being towed
by the equipped vehicle, and wherein said camera is operable to
capture image data;
a control;
said control comprising an image processor operable to
process image data captured by said camera;
wherein said control receives an input of vehicle
parameters;
wherein, responsive to receipt of said input of vehicle
parameters and to processing of captured image data by said
image processor, said trailering assist system is operable to
determine an estimated trailer angle and an estimated steering
wheel angle of the equipped vehicle;
wherein the estimated trailer angle comprises an
estimation of an angle of a longitudinal axis of the trailer
relative to a longitudinal axis of the equipped vehicle;
wherein said control compares said estimated vehicle
steering wheel angle to an actual steering wheel angle of the
equipped vehicle to determine a steering wheel angle error
value, and wherein said steering wheel angle error value is
Appeal 2019-000994
Application 14/316,939

4
derived from the difference between the estimated steering
wheel angle and the actual steering wheel angle;
wherein said steering wheel angle error value is used to
modify the estimated trailer angle in subsequent determinations
of the estimated trailer angle;
wherein, while said steering wheel angle error value is
within a threshold range, said trailering assist system continues
to determine steering wheel angle error values in making
subsequent determinations of the estimated trailer angle as the
driver of the vehicle continues the driving maneuver; and
wherein said control is operable to generate an output
responsive to said steering wheel angle error value being at or
above a threshold level.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dattilo et al. (“Dattilo”)
Greenwood et al. (“Greenwood”)
Kossira et al. (“Kossira”)
Lavoie
US 2008/0162000 A1
US 2008/0231701 A1
US 2014/0136052 A1
US 2014/0303847 A1
July 3, 2008
Sept. 25, 2008
May 15, 2014
Oct. 9, 2014
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1–4, 10–13, and 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Lavoie, Kossira, and Dattilo.
Final Act. 5–11, 14.3

2 All rejections are under the provisions of Title 35 of the United States
Code in effect after the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act of 2011.
3 The Examiner does not specify grounds particularly for claims 12–20, but
states they are rejected “under the same art and evidentiary limitations for
the system of claims 1–11.” Final Act. 14. The Examiner appears to rely on
Greenwood for a “graphic overlay” as recited in claim 5 (id. at 11–12); this
Appeal 2019-000994
Application 14/316,939

5
Claims 5–9 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Lavoie, Dattilo, Kossira, and
Greenwood. Final Act. 11–14.
OPINION
Appellant presents several arguments challenging the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions.4 For the reasons stated below, we are persuaded
of Examiner error in the rejection, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20. We need address only claim 1, which is the
broadest independent claim and is argued by Appellant collectively with
independent claims 12 and 18, and we deem it to be representative on
appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds Lavoie teaches a trailering assist system including
a camera and control system (Final Act. 5–6), but finds Lavoie does not
explicitly suggest, inter alia, “compar[ing] said estimated vehicle steering
wheel angle to an actual steering wheel angle of the equipped vehicle to
determine . . . a steering wheel angle error value,” or “wherein said steering
wheel angle error value is used to modify the estimated trailer angle in
subsequent determinations of the estimated trailer angle” (id. at 6–7). The
Examiner finds Dattilo teaches the “control compares said estimated vehicle
steering wheel angle to an actual steering wheel angle of the equipped

is also recited in claim 14. Accordingly, we have grouped claim 14 with
claims 5–9.
4 Appellant raises additional issues beyond those addressed herein. Because
the identified issues are dispositive of Appellant’s arguments on appeal, we
do not reach the additional issues.

Appeal 2019-000994
Application 14/316,939

6
vehicle to determine a steering wheel angle error value.” Id. at 7 (citing
Dattilo ¶ 4). The Examiner also finds Kossira teaches “wherein said steering
wheel angle error value is used to modify the estimated trailer angle in
subsequent determinations of the estimated trailer angle.” Id. at 8 (citing
Kossira ¶¶ 8–9).
Appellant argues that the cited art fails to teach or suggest “a
trailering assist system that is operable to determine an estimated steering
wheel angle of the equipped vehicle (collectively and in combination with
the other claim elements).” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added). Noting that the
Examiner relies on Lavoie for this limitation, Appellant argues “Lavoie
merely and solely discloses receiving the actual steering wheel angle” (id.
(emphasis added)) and “makes no disclosure regarding a control that,
responsive to receipt of inputs of vehicle parameters and to processing of
captured image data by the image processor, estimates a steering wheel
angle of the equipped vehicle” (id. at 16 (emphasis added)). We agree.
Lavoie discloses “sensing the hitch angle” between a vehicle and a towed
trailer determining a “hitch angle” based on an input of “various parameters
associated with” the vehicle and the trailer, including the “steering angle at
steered front wheels” of the vehicle. Lavoie ¶¶ 27, 39, 40. The Examiner
does not point, however, to disclosure in Lavoie that supports a finding of
estimating a steering wheel angle, as Appellant correctly contends. See
Final Act. 6 (citing disclosure in Lavoie about using a camera to “determine
the hitch angle” and alleging “an estimated trailer angle and an estimated
steering wheel angle” reads thereon) (citing Lavoie ¶ 27).
Appellant further argues that Kossira does not remedy the deficiencies
in Lavoie, because Kossira discloses a method “for determining the drawbar
Appeal 2019-000994
Application 14/316,939

7
length of a trailer of a tractor trailer by estimating an articulation angle and
comparing it to a known or actual articulation angle to determine an
articulation angle error, whereby the determined articulation angle error is
used to adjust the estimation of the drawbar length.” Appeal Br. 10
(emphasis added). Kossira’s “articulation angle” appears to be the same as
the claimed “trailer angle”—that is, the angle of the longitudinal axis of the
towed trailer relative to the longitudinal axis of the towing vehicle. See
Spec. ¶ 13 and Fig. 2; Kossira ¶ 2 and Fig. 1. Although Kossira discloses
estimating the articulation angle (Kossira ¶¶ 8–9), the Examiner does not
point to disclosure in Kossira that supports a finding of estimating a steering
wheel angle, as Appellant correctly contends. Rather, references in Kossira
to a steering angle appear to be only to an actual measured steering angle,
not an estimated steering angle. See Kossira ¶¶ 7, 8, 11.
Appellant also argues Dattilo does not remedy the deficiencies of
Lavoie or Kossira, because
Dattilo discloses comparing an actual steering wheel angle and
the actual steering direction of the vehicle to provide feedback
to an operator of a motion-control system of a mobile machine,
whereas the presently claimed invention compares an estimated
vehicle steering wheel angle to an actual steering wheel angle
of the equipped vehicle to determine a steering wheel angle
error value.
Appeal Br. 9. We agree. Dattilo discloses a “steer-by-wire steering system”
in which a “controller generates a command signal based on the speed of the
vehicle, the actual steering direction of the vehicle, the angle of the steering
wheel, and a control error determined by comparing an actual steering
direction of the vehicle and the angle of the steering wheel.” Dattilo ¶ 4
(emphasis added). Although Dattilo discloses calculating “a control error,”
Appeal 2019-000994
Application 14/316,939

8
this error is calculated based on the difference between “a target value” of an
operating parameter and an “actual value” of that same parameter. Id. ¶ 7.
The Examiner does not point to disclosure in Dattilo that supports
calculating an error value between an estimated parameter (e.g., a steering
wheel angle) and an actual value of that parameter.
The Examiner’s statements in the Answer regarding calculating an
estimated steering wheel angle are also not supported by the cited
references. In particular, the Examiner states in the Answer that Dattilo
teaches comparing “an actual steering angle to a non-actual steering angle.”
Ans. 9. Assuming the Examiner intends “non-actual steering angle” to mean
“estimated steering wheel angle,” this finding is not supported by Dattilo, as,
by the Examiner’s own admission, Dattilo discloses “comparing an actual
steering direction of the vehicle and the angle of the steering wheel.” Ans. 9
(citing Dattilo ¶ 4 (emphasis omitted)). In other words, Dattilo relies on
actual measured parameters regarding steering direction and steering wheel
angle, and not estimated values. The Examiner further states Kossira
teaches “an articulation angle made . . . partially from the steering angle.”
Id. (citing Kossira ¶ 7). Even if correct, this disclosure does not support a
determination that Kossira (alone or in combination with Lavoie and Dattilo)
teaches or suggests determining “a steering wheel angle error value” that is
based on comparing an “estimated vehicle steering wheel angle to an actual
steering wheel angle,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant shows Examiner error in the
rejection of claim 1 as obvious over the combination of Lavoie, Dattilo, and
Kossira. In particular, the Examiner has not pointed sufficiently to evidence
Appeal 2019-000994
Application 14/316,939

9
that any of these references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest the
following limitations recited in claim 1 (emphasis added):
wherein, responsive to receipt of said input of vehicle
parameters and to processing of captured image data by said
image processor, said trailering assist system is operable to
determine an estimated trailer angle and an estimated steering
wheel angle of the equipped vehicle;
wherein said control compares said estimated vehicle
steering wheel angle to an actual steering wheel angle of the
equipped vehicle to determine a steering wheel angle error
value, and wherein said steering wheel angle error value is
derived from the difference between the estimated steering
wheel angle and the actual steering wheel angle; [and]
wherein said steering wheel angle error value is used to
modify the estimated trailer angle in subsequent determinations
of the estimated trailer angle[.]
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claim 1, or of independent claims 12 and 18, which
contain commensurate limitations. The dependent claims stand with the
independent claims.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is reversed.
Appeal 2019-000994
Application 14/316,939

10
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 10–13,
15–20
103 Lavoie, Kossira,
Dattilo
1–4, 10–
13, 15–20
5–9, 14 103 Lavoie, Kossira,
Dattilo, Greenwood
5–9, 14
Overall Outcome:

1–20
REVERSED