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 .
Allowable subject matter
An amendment adding only “sensor model or camera model” and removing “a number of sensors and a number of cameras” would be allowable over the prior art of record in claim 1.
Response to the Applicant’s arguments
The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Laubinger teaches “....transmitting, in the leading vehicle included in the platooning group, vehicle information about the leading vehicle to the potential following vehicle, wherein the potential following vehicle joins as a new last following vehicle in the platooning group regardless of when the join request is transmitted”; (see col. 31, lines 56 to col. 33 ,line 1, where the leading vehicle transitions to a rendezvous state 3621 and then the capabilities of the lead vehicle and the trailing vehicle are weighted to determine who will lead and who will follow and the relative locations of the vehicles; and the heavier TRAILING vehicle is identified to be the leader since it will have a longer braking distance or if the trailing vehicle is the lightest of the two then the trailing being lighter can be the second vehicle and this capability is performed before any ready to platoon command is provided in col. 35, lines 10-40)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of Laubinger with the disclosure of MUDALIDGE for the vehicles to share with a platoon controller information about the LIDAR, GPS, RADAR, VISUAL sensor and wheel speed and pedal and engine temperature and steering and brake pressure in a sensor fusion block 860: to share if there exist any faults for the platoon controller. The Hazards Monitor 810 “listens” on the Bus 730 for vehicle faults and communicates relevant vehicle faults to the NOC. The Hazards Monitor 810 also receives hazard alerts from the NOC, and, based on its inputs including vehicle status and environmental conditions, makes a local determination on whether to override a platooning authorization. This can provide an improved “safer” platoon as all sensors are working.
PNG
media_image1.png
698
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Laubinger teaches “....transmitting, in the leading vehicle included in the platooning group, vehicle information about the leading vehicle to the potential following vehicle, wherein the potential following vehicle joins as a new last following vehicle in the platooning group regardless of when the join request is transmitted”; (see col. 31, lines 56 to col. 33 ,line 1, where the leading vehicle transitions to a rendezvous state 3621 and then the capabilities of the lead vehicle and the trailing vehicle are weighted to determine who will lead and who will follow and the relative locations of the vehicles; and the heavier TRAILING vehicle is identified to be the leader since it will have a longer braking distance or if the trailing vehicle is the lightest of the two then the trailing being lighter can be the second vehicle)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2010/0256852 A1 to Mudalidge et al. that was filed in 2009 (hereinafter “Mudalidge”) and in view of International Patent Pub. No.: WO2017/200433 A1 to Matti that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter “Matti”) and in view of Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN 105702018 A to China Merchants Chongqing that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter “Chongqing”) and in view of European Patent Pub. No.: EP 3734567 B1 to Lesher that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter “LESHER”) and in view of United States Patent No.: 10,254,764 B2 to Laubinger that was filed in 2017 (hereinafter “Laubinger”).
PNG
media_image2.png
840
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mudalidge discloses “…1. A method for controlling a vehicle platooning system, the method comprising: (See FIG. 20 where the potential leader can provide a signal for v2v formation advertisement for the leader or follower or potential followers and then a formation is made)
generating a platooning group including a leading vehicle and at least one following vehicle, wherein the leading vehicle is a first vehicle in the platooning group, and the at least one following vehicle is one or more vehicle operating in the platooning group behind the leading vehicle and connected using a V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle) communication; (see paragraph 124, 81 and 95 where a defined navigation destination for the leader vehicle or the group and provided with an input from a human driver) (see paragraph 124 to 126 where the vehicles use v2v so a formation of vehicles can be formed in to a formation to am intended destination via a route) (See FIG. 20 where the potential leader can provide a signal for v2v formation advertisement for the leader or follower or potential followers and then a formation is made)”.
PNG
media_image3.png
526
756
media_image3.png
Greyscale
transmitting, in a potential following vehicle, a join request to the leading vehicle included in the platooning group after generating the platooning group, prior to transmitting the join request; (see FIG. 28 where the leader is formed and the group is formed and the leader can add extensions to existing follower and then to a new vehicle for a potential leader and then it can be granted to join the group and see FIG. 20 where the first potential leader will send a message to a second potential leader and to the potential followers using a v2v configuration advertising that they have an ambition or request to be the leader over the second potential leader and to the followers and the second potential leader and the potential followers provide an acceptance of the request and then a formation is created and sent to the second potential leader and to the potential followers) (see FIG. 20 where a formation is created and sent via a v2v to the second potential leader and the potential followers where the first potential leader is the leader and the rest are the followers with a leader and platoon that can accept extensions) (see paragraph 74 where a vehicle type is determined to provide a spacing and an offset from the other vehicles) (see paragraph 128 where the leader can detect and the followers can provide information so the leader can control the hybrid drive controls or the electric motor and fuel cells)(see fig. 21 where the first leader can be a truck and the second followers can be trucks that can take advantage of the resistance of the lead to get improved fuel efficiencies) (see Fig. 21 each of the vehicles is a heavy or light truck and See paragraph 124-126)”.
Mudalidge is silent but Chongqing teaches “ transmitting, in the leading vehicle included in the platooning group, vehicle information to the potential following vehicle, (see claim 1 s1-s6 where the head vehicle can provide information to the message 1. The fleet driving direction 2. The vehicle type being the same s3 and the 3. Target speed of the feet and if this upper limit is too high for other vehicles) wherein the potential following vehicle joins the last following vehicle in the platooning group; and (see block S19 where the fleet can receive a v2v message and the vehicles are identified, and then current location and lane and travel direction and velocity is provided to each) (see block s22 where the vehicles can determine the requirements of the fleet and if the vehicle meets the requirements of the fleet based on the capabilities then it is permitted to join and if not it is refused; in FIG. 1, this can be 1. Passenger car. 2. Special purpose vehicle., 3 bus or trailer and in paragraph 1-2 if the vehicle has radar, and can accelerate and vehicle oil consumption; see also blocks s16 to s17 to s30 where the vehicle has a communication structure and then determines that the vehicle cannot and is dismissed and see blocks s24 to s26 where the tail position can be added; S24: head vehicle judges to request whether vehicle is located at itself currently according to the position and oneself positional relationship of request vehicle In front of position；It is then, to issue the message that fleet is added in refusal to request vehicle；Otherwise, step S25 is executed；
S25: the vehicle for adhereing to the response message of fleet to request addition fleet is sent；
S26: the vehicle that fleet is added in request is added to the tail portion or fleet middle position of current fleet, completes that fleet is added Step.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of Mudalidge with the teachings of Chongqing since Chongqing teachings that vehicle that can communicate and can accelerate and that can have oil that is sufficient are all allowed to join while other vehicles that has poor capabilities in terms of acceleration, and communication and use excess oil are refused and provided a v2v signal to not join and go away and perhaps form their own group. This can provide an improved safe platoon. See blocks s16 to s32 and paragraph 1-4.
Mudalidge discloses “...beginning a cruising operation after a join process is completed, (See FIG. 20-21 where a formation is created with the first leader being the leader and the second potential leader being a follower and the potential followers are next with a separation distance being shown in FIG. 21 and messages sent via a v2v to the second potential leader and the potential followers where the first potential leader is the leader and the rest are the followers with a leader and platoon that can accept extensions and see paragraph 70 where an ACC cruise is used)
PNG
media_image4.png
892
677
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. (see paragraph 55 where the platoon has adaptive cruise control in the platoon shape with a so called fixed range; see claims 1-5 where a destination of the platoon is used as a profile and then an index is created and if the vehicle has a same destination in block 5:5 then the vehicle can join the platoon otherwise they can wait for a different travel direction or destination or platoon time or distance that is more suitable and join a second platoon in claim 2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine the disclosure of Mudalidge and the teachings of Matti since Matti teaches that a platoon profile can be provided to vehicle that are attempting to join a platoon so certain parameters can be disclosed before joining a platoon. For example, a fuel saving parameter can be described as well as traveling as long as possible to a destination, speed limit, and compatibility of communication. This can be consulted and also may include at least one of: velocity, travel direction, destination, current location, platooning time, travel distance before refueling or recharging is required, distance to adjacent front and back vehicles in the vehicle platoon, and speed of Internet connection. Thus, a new vehicle may decide this platoon is too risky to join and too far away and instead may join a more compatible and safer platoon and avoid a platoon with too close a following distance between vehicles based on the profile. Further, vehicles that has a different communication format also can be avoided in a platoon See claims 1-9 and page 13-20 of Matti.
Mudalige is silent but Matti teaches “wherein the join process fails based on a planned route of the leading vehicle. , (see claims 1-5 where a distance to adjacent front to back vehicles in the vehicle platoon is provided as a property of the platoon vehicle as a basis for a decision to join the platoon) ; (see claims 1-5 where a travel distance and destination of the platoon is used as a profile and then an index is created and if the vehicle has a same travel distance and destination in block 5:5 then the vehicle can join the platoon otherwise they can wait for a different travel distance and travel direction or destination or platoon time or distance that is more suitable and join a second platoon in claim 2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine the disclosure of Mudalidge and the teachings of Matti since Matti teaches that a platoon profile can be provided to vehicle that are attempting to join a platoon so certain parameters can be disclosed before joining a platoon. For example, a fuel saving parameter can be described as well as traveling as long as possible to a destination, speed limit, and compatibility of communication. This can be consulted and also may include at least one of: velocity, travel direction, destination, current location, platooning time, travel distance before refueling or recharging is required, distance to adjacent front and back vehicles in the vehicle platoon, and speed of Internet connection. Thus a new vehicle may decide this platoon is too risky to join and too far away and instead may join a more compatible and safer platoon and avoid a platoon with too close a following distance between vehicles based on the profile. Further, vehicles that has a different communication format also can be avoided in a platoon See claims 1-9 and page 13-20 of Matti.
PNG
media_image5.png
778
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Mudalidge is silent but Lesher teaches “...transmitting, in the leading vehicle included in the platooning group, vehicle information to the potential following vehicle, wherein the potential following vehicle joins [[the]] as a new last following vehicle in the platooning group regardless of when the join request is transmitted; [[and]] (see paragraph 55 -60 where based on safety the platoons E and F are merged as vehicles 510-512 for safety based on an algorithm)
generating a new platooning group including the leading vehicle, the at least one following vehicle and the potential following vehicle, wherein the potential following vehicle is a last following vehicle in the new platooning group; and...”. (see FIG. 16 where the first platoon may be determined to have a first overall efficiency level of the platoon and then the platoon is determined to split in block 1608 and then the split signal is provided and the join signal is provided to split the platoon and then join a second platoon in blocks 1620-1630 and then the vehicles can be merged and provided increased efficiency and then intervehicle communication)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine the disclosure of Mudalidge and the teachings of LESHER since LESHER teaches that a platoon safety can be determined and a platoon efficiency also can be determined. Then if the parameters are less than a threshold value in block 1510, then the platoon can be split and the new platoon can be formed with a higher platoon efficiency and vehicle communication can be provided. This can provide a split of the platoon based on safety and efficiency. See paragraph 55-65 and Fig. 15.
PNG
media_image6.png
882
850
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is amended to recite “...is the last vehicle based on a platoon management information including information related to the vehicle in the platooning group and information related to a distance for a platooning group”. (see paragraph 55-60 where based on the safety rating of the vehicle being 15-35 and for efficiency the vehicle can provide a maximum intervehicle distance within the platoon and if the vehicle’s 516 and 514 are considered safe and efficient vehicles based on the rating information that is low then they are allowed to join as the last vehicle in the larger platoon group of FIG 5b however if they 516 and 514 are not safe and efficient then they do not join and need to lag behind the safe platoon as shown in FIG. 5a)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine the disclosure of Mudalidge and the teachings of LESHER since LESHER teaches that a platoon safety can be determined and a platoon efficiency also can be determined. Then if the parameters are less than a threshold value in block 1510, then the platoon can be split and the new platoon can be formed with a higher platoon efficiency and vehicle communication can be provided. This can provide a split of the platoon based on safety and efficiency. See paragraph 55-65 and Fig. 15.
PNG
media_image6.png
882
850
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
850
1366
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but Laubinger teaches “wherein the vehicle information of the leader vehicle includes at least one of sensor model, camera, model, a number of sensors and a number of cameras”. (see FIG. 8b where the device can provide a sensor fusion module information to the platooning controller 860L; To perform the foregoing functions, the Platooning Controller receives inputs from the tractor representing status of various tractor functions, shown generally at Tractor Sensing 860. In an embodiment, those functions include Lidar data 860A, Visual data 860B, radar 860C, GPS position 860D, wheel speed 860E, pedal position 860F, Engine Temperature 860G (sensed either from the block, from the engine bay, or other suitable location), steering 860H, inertial measurement 8601, brake pressure 860J, barometer and related weather sensing 860K, and combinations of such sensed data indicated as sensor fusion 860L. Other data, such as fuel level or remaining driving range, as well as Sensed Vehicle Signature Data (discussed hereinafter at FIG. 17 et seq.) is also provided in some embodiments. In some embodiments, the Tractor Sensing function communicates bi-directionally with the Inter-Vehicle Communication module, in particular where some processing of the data related to vehicle signature occurs within the ECU's associated with the Tractor Sensing functions.)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of Laubinger with the disclosure of MUDALIDGE for the vehicles to share with a platoon controller information about the LIDAR, GPS, RADAR, VISUAL sensor and wheel speed and pedal and engine temperature and steering and brake pressure in a sensor fusion block 860: to share if there exist any faults for the platoon controller. The Hazards Monitor 810 “listens” on the Bus 730 for vehicle faults and communicates relevant vehicle faults to the NOC. The Hazards Monitor 810 also receives hazard alerts from the NOC, and, based on its inputs including vehicle status and environmental conditions, makes a local determination on whether to override a platooning authorization. This can provide an improved “safer” platoon as all sensors are working.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2010/0256852 A1 to Mudalidge et al. that was filed in 2009 (hereinafter “Mudalidge”) and in view of International Patent Pub. No.: WO2017/200433 A1 to Matti that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter “Matti”) and in view of Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN 105702018 A to China Merchants Chongqing that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter “Chongqing”) and in view of Lesher and Laubinger.
The primary reference is silent but Chongquin teaches “..2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle information further comprises vehicle type information of the leading vehicle”. (See claim 1, block s4 and s5 where the fleet vehicle type is identical and in block s5 the upper limit speed is comparable else the vehicle cannot keep up).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of Mudalidge with the teachings of Chongqing since Chongqing teachings that vehicle that can communicate and can accelerate and that can have oil that is sufficient are all allowed to join while other vehicles that has poor capabilities in terms of acceleration, and communication and use excess oil are refused and provided a v2v signal to not join and go away and perhaps form their own group. This can provide an improved safe platoon. See blocks s16 to s32 and paragraph 1-4.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2010/0256852 A1 to Mudalidge et al. that was filed in 2009 (hereinafter “Mudalidge”) and in view of International Patent Pub. No.: WO2017/200433 A1 to Matti that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter “Matti”) and in view of Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN 105702018 A to China Merchants Chongqing that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter “Chongqing”) and Lesher and Laubinger.
Matti teaches “...3. (Original) The method of claim 2, wherein the vehicle information further comprises information about main mounted functions. (see block 302 where the vehicle share properties with the leader, follower and candidates about the speed of the internet connection and internet capabilities in that vehicle)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to combine the disclosure of Mudalidge and the teachings of Matti since Matti teaches that a platoon profile can be provided to vehicle that are attempting to join a platoon so certain parameters can be disclosed before joining a platoon. For example, a fuel saving parameter can be described as well as traveling as long as possible to a destination, speed limit, and compatibility of communication. This can be consulted and also may include at least one of: velocity, travel direction, destination, current location, platooning time, travel distance before refueling or recharging is required, distance to adjacent front and back vehicles in the vehicle platoon, and speed of Internet connection. Thus a new vehicle may decide this platoon is too risky to join and too far away and instead may join a more compatible and safer platoon and avoid a platoon with too close a following distance between vehicles based on the profile. Further, vehicles that has a different communication format also can be avoided in a platoon See claims 1-9 and page 13-20 of Matti.
Claim 4-5 are cancelled.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2010/0256852 A1 to Mudalidge et al. that was filed in 2009 (hereinafter “Mudalidge”) and in view of International Patent Pub. No.: WO2017/200433 A1 to Matti that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter “Matti”) and in view of Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN 105702018 A to China Merchants Chongqing that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter “Chongqing”) and Lesher and Laubinger.
Mudalidge discloses “...6. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the cruising operation includes a SCC (Smart cruise control), a LKA (Lane Keeping Assistance) or an ACC (Adaptive cruise control)”. (see paragraph 55 where each vehicle has adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assistance).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2010/0256852 A1 to Mudalidge et al. that was filed in 2009 (hereinafter “Mudalidge”) and in view of International Patent Pub. No.: WO2017/200433 A1 to Matti that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter “Matti”) and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2019/0171225A1 to Switkes that was filed in 2016 and in view of Chongqing and in view of Lesher and Laubinger.
Swikes teaches “…7. The method of claim 6, wherein the potential following vehicle drives manually or automatically. ”. (see paragraph 6 and 102).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of SWITKES with the disclosure of MUDALIGE since SWITKES teaches that a parameter of a manual driver or an autonomous diver can be taken prior to the vehicles that can join the platoon. For example, if a human is a lead vehicle, then the human must consent to the platoon formation and that the driver is ready for the platoon. See claims 1-15. If the human declines then the command to join in second vehicles is prohibited. See claims 1-16.
Mudalige discloses “...8. (Original) The method of claim 7, wherein the leading vehicle and the at least one following vehicle are controlled in a platoon based on data obtained from at least one sensor. (See paragraph 54)
Mudalidge discloses “..9. (Original) The method of claim 8, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a radar, a lidar or a camera. (see paragraph 54)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2010/0256852 A1 to Mudalidge et al. that was filed in 2009 (hereinafter “Mudalidge”) and in view of International Patent Pub. No.: WO2017/200433 A1 to Matti that was filed in 2016 (hereinafter “Matti”) and in view of U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2019/0171225A1 to Switkes that was filed in 2016 and in view of Chongqing and in view of United States Patent Pub. No.: US20170293296A1 to Stenneth that was filed on 3-22-2017 and in view of Lesher and Laubinger.
Stenneth teaches “...10. (Original) The method of claim 9, wherein the vehicle platooning system comprises a server for performing a route management, a charge process or a payment process”. (see paragraph 5 and 55 where a payment can be made via an account associated with the two vehicles to join the platoon via a payment server).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of STENNETH with the disclosure of MUDALIGE since STENNETH teaches that one the two vehicles in the platoon agree based on the destination and the planned stops then a payment can be exchanged so a vehicle can follow a leader to the destination and then a joint request can be made. See paragraph 3-7 and claims 1-13.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668