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 . Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 remain pending and have been examined in this application.
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 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.
Claims 1, 6-8, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolk (Event-Triggered Control for String-Stable Vehicle Platooning, a copy of which was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement received 11/10/2022 and is being relied upon) in view of Zhang (US 2015/0327028 A1).
As per claim 1, Dolk discloses a method for controlling a vehicle platoon containing at least two vehicles, the at least two vehicles forming a pair of vehicles (Dolk - section I.A., page 3486, column 1, paragraph 3 - "The main objective of Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) systems is to maintain a desired, not necessarily constant, (small) distance between vehicles, while ensuring that disturbances are attenuated throughout the string of vehicles. The latter property is also referred to as string stability ... vehicle platoons”) comprising a first vehicle arranged directly ahead of a second vehicle in the vehicle platoon (Dolk – Fig. 2 – first vehicle being vehicle i-1 and second vehicle being vehicle i), wherein the at least two vehicles in the vehicle platoon each comprise (Dolk – Fig. 2 and section III.A., page 3488, column 1, paragraph 5 - "a vehicle platoon consisting of N identical vehicles as illustrated in Fig. 2.”) a communication system configured to transmit and/or receive information by means of vehicle-to-vehicle communication (Dolk – Fig. 2 and section I.A., page 3486, column 2, paragraph 1 - "vehicle-to-vehicle communication") and wherein the second vehicle is designed to regulate control of the second vehicle based on values for at least one kinematic control parameter received from the first vehicle, in order to adjust values for at least one kinematic state parameter of the second vehicle to kinematic targets (Dolk – Fig. 2 – “transmitted measurement of the desired acceleration” and section III.A., page 3489, column 1, paragraph 2 - "a one vehicle look-ahead control strategy is considered in the sense that the control law of vehicle i only depends on local information and information of its predecessor, vehicle i-1"), the method comprising: (a) determining a delay time for the vehicle-to-vehicle communication, wherein the delay time for the vehicle-to-vehicle communication corresponds to a time interval between consecutive transmissions of values for the at least one kinematic control parameter can be transmitted from the first vehicle to the second vehicle without breaching the string stability (Dolk – Abstract – “the desired closed-loop performance properties” and section I.B., page 3486, column 2, paragraph 2 – “these communication imperfections can have a significant influence on the performance of CACC systems in the sense that if the communication delays are too large and/or the rate at which transmissions occur is too small, string stability and other performance properties for a given time gap might no longer be guaranteed. Hence, the number of transmissions in time should be sufficiently large and communication delays sufficiently small in order to obtain the desired platooning behavior” and section III.B., page 3490, column 1, paragraph 2 - "Propose a resource-aware (event triggered) CACC system with guaranteed individual vehicle stability and string stability in the presence of time-varying communication delays (given upper bounds on the maximal delay values) and that significantly reduces the number of unnecessary transmissions compared to control methods that employ fixed transmission rates." and section V.B., page 3491 - “positive lower-bound on the minimum inter-event time (MIET)”); and (b) determining transmission resources for at least one data transmission session for the vehicle-to-vehicle communication between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on the delay time, wherein the transmission resources are determined such that the values for the at least one kinematic control parameter can be transmitted by the first vehicle using the transmission resources and received by the second vehicle in time intervals less than the delay time (Dolk - section III.B., page 3490, column 1, paragraph 2 - "Propose a resource-aware (event-triggered) CACC system with guaranteed individual vehicle stability and string stability in the presence of time-varying communication delays (given upper bounds on the maximal delay values) and that significantly reduces the number of unnecessary transmissions compared to control methods that employ fixed transmission rates." and section V.B., page 3491 - “positive lower-bound on the minimum inter-event time (MIET)”).
Dolk does not appear to explicitly disclose determining a maximum delay time for the vehicle-to-vehicle communication such that at least one condition for maintaining a string stability of the vehicle platoon is fulfilled, the at least one condition depending on the kinematic targets and vehicle-specific control parameters, wherein the maximum delay time for the vehicle-to-vehicle communication corresponds to a maximum time interval between consecutive transmissions of values for the at least one kinematic control parameter can be transmitted from the first vehicle to the second vehicle without breaching the string stability.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determining a maximum delay time for the vehicle-to-vehicle communication such that at least one condition for maintaining a string stability of the vehicle platoon is fulfilled, the at least one condition depending on the kinematic targets and vehicle-specific control parameters (Zhang – [0015-0017, 0033-0042] – messages received from other vehicles… inter-vehicle distance D and relative speed R… maximum transmission interval T1), wherein the maximum delay time for the vehicle-to-vehicle communication corresponds to a maximum time interval between consecutive transmissions of values for the at least one kinematic control parameter can be transmitted from the first vehicle to the second vehicle without breaching the string stability (Zhang – [0033-0042] – messages received from other vehicles… safety message at time t1, safety message at time t2… message transmission interval T1 is T1 = t2-t1… maximum transmission interval T1).
In order to significantly reduces the number of unnecessary transmissions (Dolk - section III.B., page 3490), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Zhang into the invention of Dolk with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of ensuring that the vehicle will always transmit safety messages at a minimum frequency, to minimize unnecessary radio channel load and congestion between the vehicles (Zhang – [0015-0017, 0042]).
As per claim 6, Dolk discloses characterized in that the kinematic targets include (BRI only requires one of the following) at least: specified targets for a speed of the vehicles of the at least one pair of vehicles along a route, or a headway distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle of the at least one pair of vehicles, or a headway time between the first vehicle and the second vehicle of the at least one pair of vehicles; or the at least one kinematic state parameter includes at least time-dependent measured values for the speed of the first vehicle or of the second vehicle of the at least one pair of vehicles, or the headway distance between the first vehicle and the second vehicle of the at least one pair of vehicles, or the headway time between the first vehicle and the second vehicle of the at least one pair of vehicles (Dolk – section I.A., page 3486, column 2, paragraph 1 – “distance or time gap, based on measurements of distance and distance rate that are obtained via onboard sensors such as radar” and section III.A, column 1, paragraph 5 – “desired distance…time gap”).
As per claim 7, Dolk discloses characterized in that the vehicle-specific control parameters include (BRI only requires one of the following) at least vehicle identification numbers, model parameters of a regulator and/or model parameters of a control loop (Dolk – Abstract – “the desired closed-loop performance properties”).
As per claim 8, Dolk discloses characterized in that the at least one condition for the string stability is based on a cooperative adaptive cruise control model (CACC) (Dolk – Abstract – “Cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC)”), taking into account the kinematic targets (Dolk – section I.A., page 3486, column 2, paragraph 1 – “distance or time gap, based on measurements of distance and distance rate that are obtained via onboard sensors such as radar” and section III.A, column 1, paragraph 5 – “desired distance…time gap”) and the vehicle-specific control parameters (Dolk – Abstract – “the desired closed-loop performance properties”).
As per claim 14, Dolk discloses characterized in that the at least one kinematic control parameter includes at least acceleration of the first vehicle of the at least one pair of vehicles (Dolk - section I.C., page 3487, column 1, paragraph 2 - " In CACC systems, the desired acceleration is transmitted over the DSRC channel. Due to the packet-based nature of DSRC, these transmissions only occur at discrete instants in time.”).
As per claim 15, Dolk discloses characterized in that the kinematic targets are redefined due to at least one external event during a journey and steps (a) and (b) are performed with the new kinematic targets that replace the kinematic targets defined before the point in time that the at least one external event occurred (Dolk – section IV.B., page 3491, column 1, paragraph 4 – “Event-triggered control (ETC) schemes that determine the transmission instants by means of a triggering condition that depends on locally available output measurements... In this way, the communication resources are only used when necessary to maintain desired closed-loop behavior and the utilization of communication resources is reduced.”).
As per claim 16, Dolk discloses characterized in that each of the at least two vehicles in the vehicle platoon includes a cooperative adaptive cruise control system (CACC) (Dolk – Abstract – “Cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC)”) configured to regulate control of the respective vehicle in the vehicle platoon by means of (BRI only requires one of the following) a closed-loop control system (Dolk – Abstract – “the desired closed-loop performance properties” and section I.A., page 3486, column 2, paragraph 1 – “distance or time gap, based on measurements of distance and distance rate that are obtained via onboard sensors such as radar” and section III.A., column 1, paragraph 5 – “desired distance…time gap”), and/or a satellite positioning system.
As per claim 18, Dolk discloses characterized in that the communication systems of the at least two vehicles in the vehicle platoon are configured for the vehicle-to-vehicle communication in such a way that the values for the at least one kinematic control parameter are transmitted as information only unidirectionally along the vehicle platoon between any two successive vehicles in the vehicle platoon (Dolk – section III.A., page 3489, column 1, paragraph 4 – “However, as shown in [34], in one vehicle look-ahead platoons, i.e., platoons in which the vehicles can only obtain information of their predecessors, string stability properties can only be achieved when the spacing policy is velocity dependent.”).
As per claim 19, Dolk discloses characterized in that the vehicle platoon includes (BRI only requires one of the following) a lead vehicle arranged at the start of the vehicle platoon in the direction of travel (Dolk – section I.E., page 3488, Fig. 2 – vehicle i-1 is a lead vehicle), an organizer vehicle configured to exchange information between the organizer vehicle and all the other vehicles in the vehicle platoon via the vehicle-to-vehicle communication, and/or a network vehicle configured to exchange information between the network vehicle and a base station (BS) via a vehicle-to-network communication.
As per claim 20, Dolk discloses a system comprising a vehicle platoon manager designed to carry out the method according to claim 1 (Dolk – Abstract – Cooperative adaptive cruise control system to establish a string stable platoon with a string-stable control strategy).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolk in view of Zhang and further in view of Wu (US 2018/0084511 A1).
As per claim 2, Dolk does not appear to explicitly disclose characterized in that at least the first vehicle of the at least one pair of vehicles receives information about the transmission resources determined for the vehicle-to-vehicle communication, and the values for the at least one kinematic control parameter are transmitted in accordance with said information by the first vehicle and received by the second vehicle.
Wu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: characterized in that at least the first vehicle of the at least one pair of vehicles receives information about the transmission resources determined for the vehicle-to-vehicle communication (Wu – Fig. 6, [0057-0058] – transmit a transmission grant to the leading vehicle 102a indicating the allocated radio resource… leading vehicle 102a transmits the transmission grant to the following vehicle 102b), and the values for the at least one kinematic control parameter are transmitted in accordance with said information by the first vehicle and received by the second vehicle (Wu – Fig. 6, [0058, 0090] – the leading vehicle 102a and the following vehicle 102b synchronously transmit the platoon information on the allocated resource corresponding to the allocated resource…platoon information includes at least one of a travelling speed or inter-vehicle distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Wu into the invention of Dolk with a reasonable expectation of success to improve the reliability of platoon-related information transmission and improve road safety (Wu – [0004, 0040]).
As per claim 10, Dolk does not appear to explicitly disclose characterized in that the at least one data transmission session is a semi-persistent data transmission session.
Wu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: characterized in that the at least one data transmission session is a semi-persistent data transmission session (Wu – [0059] – allocate a dedicated resource, semi-persistent scheduling resources for the synchronous transmission).
The motivation to combine Dolk and Wu is the same as in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolk in view of Zhang and further in view of Brooks (US 2017/0232943 A1).
As per claim 3, Dolk discloses characterized in that the kinematic targets are specified based on the vehicle-specific control parameters that are provided at least partly by vehicles in the vehicle platoon (Dolk - section III.A., page 3489, column 1, paragraph 2 - "a one vehicle look-ahead control strategy is considered in the sense that the control law of vehicle i only depends on local information and information of its predecessor, vehicle i-1”).
Dolk does not appear to explicitly disclose the kinematic targets are specified based on destination parameters.
Brooks, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: the kinematic targets are specified based on destination parameters (Brooks – [0062, 0125] – trip plan created by collecting and using trip data, route data, and vehicle data… ending location… grades, curvatures, speed limits of the route… trip plan designates speeds of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Brooks into the invention of Dolk with a reasonable expectation of success to create a trip plan based on constraints placed on the operational settings used at the locations of interest, such as speed limits (Brooks – [0125]). This would improve safety by ensuring that the vehicles follow the necessary constraints during the trip.
As per claim 5, Dolk does not appear to explicitly disclose characterized in that the destination parameters include at least one or more destinations, one or more routes, a maximum speed permitted along the one or more routes, and/or traffic information.
Brooks, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: characterized in that the destination parameters include (BRI only requires one of the following) at least one or more destinations (Brooks – [0062] – ending location), one or more routes (Brooks – [0062, 0125] – route data), a maximum speed permitted along the one or more routes (Brooks – [0062, 0125] – speed limits of the route), and/or traffic information.
The motivation to combine Dolk and Brooks is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolk in view of Zhang and further in view of Loo (US 9,141,112 B1).
As per claim 4, Dolk does not appear to explicitly disclose characterized in that during vehicle platooning each vehicle in the vehicle platoon is assigned a vehicle identification number and destination specifications are defined, wherein vehicle platooning involves plural steps starting prior to specification of the kinematic targets and/or after an external event has occurred.
Loo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: characterized in that during vehicle platooning each vehicle in the vehicle platoon is assigned a vehicle identification number (Loo – column 8, lines 34-36 and column 11, lines 35-45 – vehicles 202 in a caravan may be autonomously controlled…VIN numbers of vehicles are collected, assigned to a caravan) and destination specifications are defined (Loo – column 13, lines 53-55 – route generated with destination information), wherein vehicle platooning involves plural steps starting prior to specification of the kinematic targets (Loo – column 18, line 44 – column 19, line 15 – various steps are described prior to a specification of distance between to be maintained between vehicles) and/or after an external event has occurred (Loo – column 20, line 16 – column 21, line 61 – various steps are described after a route is required to be modified due to various factors, such as changes in environmental information regarding weather or traffic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Loo into the invention of Dolk with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an improved experience for participants in the caravan (Loo – column 2, lines 10-13).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolk in view of Zhang and further in view of Shattil (US 2016/0254889 A1).
As per claim 9, Dolk does not appear to explicitly disclose characterized in that the at least one data transmission session includes a plurality of resource blocks arranged periodically in time, wherein a time interval between adjacent resource blocks arranged one immediately after the other in time is defined by a period duration of the at least one data transmission session, which is smaller than the maximum delay time.
Shattil, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: characterized in that the at least one data transmission session includes a plurality of resource blocks arranged periodically in time, wherein a time interval between adjacent resource blocks arranged one immediately after the other in time is defined by a period duration of the at least one data transmission session, which is smaller than the maximum delay time (Shattil – [0202] – The transmitter inserts a cyclic prefix in order to provide a guard time (i.e., cyclic prefix/guard time is the time interval between) to prevent inter-block interference (IBI) due to multipath propagation. In general, the cyclic prefix is a copy of the last part of the block, which is added at the start of each block (i.e., between adjacent blocks). If the length of the cyclic prefix is longer than the maximum delay spread of the channel, or roughly, the length of the channel impulse response, then, there is no IBI.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Shattil into the invention of Dolk with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent inter-block interference due to multipath propagation (Shattil – [0202]).
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolk in view of Zhang and further in view of Zhao (US 2022/0182206 A1).
As per claim 11, Dolk does not appear to explicitly disclose characterized in that the transmission resources determined for the vehicles in the vehicle platoon satisfy a half-duplex condition, and that resource blocks allocated to two immediately successive vehicles in the vehicle platoon for the transmission of information do not overlap in time.
Zhao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: characterized in that the transmission resources determined for the vehicles in the vehicle platoon satisfy a half-duplex condition (Zhao – [0043-0045] – vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications… including vehicles platooning…supporting half-duplex technology), and that resource blocks allocated to two immediately successive vehicles in the vehicle platoon for the transmission of information do not overlap in time (Zhao – [0043-0045, 0072, 0074, 0083, 0126] – vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications… including vehicles platooning… the terminals in the half-duplex state prevent conflicts between the transmitting and receiving information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Zhao into the invention of Dolk with a reasonable expectation of success to improve communication between multiple terminals, for example in vehicle-to-vehicle communications (Zhao – [0043-0045, 0072, 0074]).
As per claim 17, Dolk does not appear to explicitly disclose characterized in that the at least one communication system which is configured to transmit and/or receive information by means of vehicle-to-vehicle communication is also configured to transmit or receive information to/from a base station (BS) of a mobile communication network by means of vehicle-to-vehicle communication.
Zhao, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: characterized in that the at least one communication system which is configured to transmit and/or receive information by means of vehicle-to-vehicle communication is also configured to transmit or receive information to/from a base station (BS) of a mobile communication network by means of vehicle-to-vehicle communication (Zhao – Fig. 1, [0031, 0033, 0040, 0043] – terminals 110 may establish wireless connection with the base station 120 through a wireless interface… in cellular based V2X communication between the vehicle mounted device and other devices can be transferred through the base station. A direct link between devices may also be used for communication.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Zhao into the invention of Dolk with a reasonable expectation of success because in V2X communication, the communication between the vehicle-mounted device and other devices can be transferred through the base station and core network, thereby improving communication efficiency (Zhao – [0043]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolk in view of Zhang and further in view of Seo (US 2021/0297210 A1).
As per claim 12, Dolk does not appear to explicitly disclose characterized in that at least two data transmission sessions are allocated to the at least one pair of vehicles in the vehicle platoon as transmission resources for transmitting and/or receiving information by means of the vehicle-to-vehicle communication, wherein the at least two data transmission sessions have the same period duration but different starting times, and a time interval between the starting times is less than the period duration of the sessions.
Seo, in the same field of endeavor (with regards to side link communication), teaches the following limitations: characterized in that at least two data transmission sessions are allocated to the at least one pair of devices as transmission resources for transmitting and/or receiving information by means of the communication (Seo - Abstract – “A method by which a first terminal transmits a side link signal to a second terminal in a wireless communication system. Particularly, the method for transmitting a side link signal comprises the steps of: transmitting, in a first number of transmission time units, a control signal, which includes resource allocation information of a data signal, and a first reference signal for the control signal; and transmitting, in a second number of transmission time units, the data signal and a second reference signal for the data signal.”), wherein the at least two data transmission sessions have the same period duration but different starting times (Seo - Fig. 8, [0063-0064, 0069] – different UEs start transmission at different times, each transmission has the same length, see UE1 and UE2 in Fig. 8), and a time interval between the starting times is less than the period duration of the sessions (Seo - Fig. 8, [0063-0064, 0069] – the duration between the different starting times of UE1 and UE2 is less than the length of the transmission of UE1 and UE2, see Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Seo into the invention of Dolk with a reasonable expectation of success in order to transmit and receive side link signals more efficiently (Seo – [0061]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolk in view of Zhang and further in view of Pinheiro (US 2018/0213376 A1).
As per claim 13, Dolk discloses characterized in that the first vehicle of the at least one pair of vehicles sends the values for the at least one kinematic control parameter as information to the second vehicle of the at least one pair of vehicles with a time interval (Dolk - section I.C., page 3487, column 1, paragraph 2 - "In CACC systems, the desired acceleration is transmitted over the DSRC channel. Due to the packet-based nature of DSRC, these transmissions only occur at discrete instants in time.”).
Dolk does not appear to explicitly disclose a time interval that is less than 20 ms.
Pinheiro, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: a time interval that is less than 20 ms (Pinheiro – [0033] - “maximum amount of time between transmission… 10 ms”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Pinheiro into the invention of Dolk with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to select a message transmission rate that satisfies latency requirements (Pinheiro – [0033]). Furthermore, Pinheiro demonstrates a wide range of acceptable maximum intervals between transmissions in a V2X environment, which demonstrates the obviousness of selecting a maximum time interval of less than 20 ms. Selecting a maximum time interval of less than 20 ms would yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments the previous claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 filed 9/29/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the following: Zhang does not teach or suggest determining a maximum delay time tied to string stability. The cited portions of Zhang are directed to adjusting the transmission rate of safety messages in order to avoid collisions between vehicles moving arbitrarily in traffic. The transmission rate is based on instantaneous variables such as distance relative speed, and maximum acceleration. These criteria serve only local collision-avoidance purposes. By contrast, claim 1 requires that the maximum delay time is defined so that string stability of a platoon is preserved and depends on kinematic targets and vehicle-specific control parameters and ensures that disturbances do not amplify along the platoon, i.e. that the platoon is stable. This is a fundamentally different objective than that of Zhang. Nothing in Zhang discloses or suggests determining a maximum communication interval from string stability conditions. Likewise, Dolk does not disclose or suggest deriving a maximum delay time from such conditions. The combination therefore fails to teach or suggest the claimed subject matter.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues against the references individually with regards to the limitation of determining a maximum communication interval from string stability conditions. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. This is because “[T]he test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA].” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Dolk and Zhang, and Applicant fails to provide any arguments or evidence demonstrating that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been able to combine the teachings Dolk and Zhang to arrive at the claimed subject matter, and instead merely asserts that this is the case.
Applicant further argues a definition of string stability where disturbances do not amplify along the platoon. The claim recites “a vehicle platoon containing at least two vehicles…” and therefore according to broadest reasonable interpretation the vehicle platoon may include only two vehicles. It is therefore important to establish the broadest reasonable interpretation for string stability of a platoon including only two vehicles. In a two-vehicle platoon, maintaining string stability depends on the follower vehicle maintaining a stable distance without exaggerating fluctuations from the leader vehicle. Page 8 of the specification discusses that the condition for string stability may be based on a cooperative adaptive cruise control model (CACC).
In the arguments presented above, Applicant first discusses what Zhang teaches (i.e., transmission rates based on instantaneous variables such as distance, relative speed, and maximum acceleration). Applicant then provides a blanket statement that these criteria serve only local collision-avoidance purposes. However, just because Zhang teaches using the maximum delay time for collision-avoidance of two vehicles does not necessarily mean the maximum delay time cannot be implemented into Dolk’s system by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Applicant is missing the necessary evidence or arguments as to how this conclusion was reached, and therefore the argument is not persuasive. Since Zhang teaches using instantaneous dynamic variables such as inter-vehicle distance, relative speed, and maximum acceleration to set the maximum transmission interval between two vehicles, a person having ordinary skill the art could have applied this to Dolk’s system to yield predictable results. Zhang paragraphs [0001-0002] recites “The present disclosure relates generally to wireless communications and, more particularly, to control of the transmission rate of messages between vehicles. However, it will be appreciated that the embodiments herein will find use with any portable or mobile communication device in many applications. Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications enable a wide range of vehicle control, safety, and other applications. To help reduce traffic accidents, vehicles may use V2V communications to exchange safety messages with nearby vehicles wherein the safety messages may contain data relating to the position, speed, driving direction, and other useful information transmitted from each vehicle. The information in the safety messages exchanged between vehicles may be used to assess risks of collision with other vehicles, to warn drivers of danger or to take proactive actions to control the vehicle for avoiding the danger accordingly.” Therefore Zhang suggests use in many different applications to enable a wide range of vehicle control, safety, and other applications. Furthermore, the entire objective in Dolk is to maintain the string stability while minimizing communications to reduce communication resources. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 in view of Dolk and Zhang is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669