Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/740,963

PLATOONING CONTROL APPARATUS AND METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 10, 2022
Examiner
CASS, JEAN PAUL
Art Unit
3666
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hyundai Mobis Co., Ltd.
OA Round
7 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
7-8
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
719 granted / 984 resolved
+21.1% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
83 currently pending
Career history
1067
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.5%
-29.5% vs TC avg
§103
56.8%
+16.8% vs TC avg
§102
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
§112
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 984 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to the Applicant’s arguments The previous rejection is withdrawn.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 rejection is made herein. Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims. Claim 1 is amended to recite and Horvitz teaches “...receiving, at the potential following vehicle, platooning vehicle information from the leading vehicle included in the platooning group, wherein the platooning vehicle information comprises vehicle [[type]] model information corresponding to the leading vehicle” (see paragraph 82 where a platoon searcher 512 can select the leader and the follower vehicle and see paragraph 85-86 where the searcher can provide the same type of vehicle to travel more aerodynamically and a collective unit 514 can provide that all of the vehicles including the leader and the follower can be a LEXUS RX HYBRID vehicle for an efficient operation. See FIG. 9 where the vehicle that is the follower and the leader can receive data from the AI component 922 and analysis component 920; 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 HORVITZ since HORVITZ teaches that a platoon profile can be provided to the leader and the follower vehicle from an AI model that can take into account the leader and the follower. For example, the leader can be a LEXUS RX hybrid and the follower and all other vehicles in the group can also be a LEXUS RX hybrid vehicle for better wind resistance and aerodynamic qualities so the vehicles use less fuel. 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(a) 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 United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20130301584A1 to Addepalli that was filed in 2011 and is assigned to Cisco™ and in view of United States Patent No.: 10788845 B2 to Sujan et al. that was filed on 12-1-2017 (hereinafter “Sujan”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2008/0249667 A1 to Horvitz assigned to Microsoft filed in 2007. PNG media_image1.png 840 642 media_image1.png Greyscale Mudalidge discloses “…1. A method for controlling a potential following vehicle in a platooning group, the method comprising: transmitting a join request to the leading vehicle included in the platooning group, wherein the platooning group includes 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 a intended destination via a route) PNG media_image2.png 741 1005 media_image2.png Greyscale Mudalige is silent but Addepalli teaches “...receiving at the potential following vehicle, (see FIG. 2, where the in vehicle device of the followers can communicate with the leaders 104a via communication from 104e to the intermediate vehicle 104d) vehicle information from the leading vehicle including in the platooning group, wherein the vehicle information comprises vehicle type information of the leading vehicle (see block 286-316 of FIG. 16) as well as multiple capability information about the main mounted functions of the leading vehicle for securing a reliability of the leading vehicle”. (see paragraph 54-58 where each vehicle can be provided with a v2i infrastructure for reliable communication between the vehicle using a CALM open architecture that all vehicles can access; and see paragraph 52 where a vehicle diagnostic can be provided to provide a health of the actuators and sensors, and vehicle controllers, and see claims 1-13 where the vehicles can perform a scan to determine 1. A channel allocation 2. A gateway information 3. A radio access tree information and 4. The control channel for communication, and 5 a return message for a mobile cell gateway, and 6. Where the vehicles can now “self organize” for an ad hoc mobile network and where the vehicle can include an iterative power control algorithm to provide a signal to interference plus noise ratio and then calculate an individual power component for the node). 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 Addepalli at the time of the effective filing date since Addepalli teaches that platoon vehicles can perform a scan to determine 1. A channel allocation 2. A gateway information 3. A radio access tree information and 4. The control channel for communication, and 5 a return message for a mobile cell gateway, and 6. Where the vehicles can now “self organize” for an ad hoc mobile network and where the vehicle can include an iterative power control algorithm to provide a signal to interference plus noise ratio and then calculate an individual power component for the node. This can ensure a reliable open source access of the communication between nodes. See paragraph 50-58 and 150-155. Mudalidge discloses “...receiving vehicle information from the leading vehicle included in the platooning group, wherein the vehicle information comprises (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) vehicle type information of the leading vehicle as well as information about main mounted functions; and (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) 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_image3.png 892 677 media_image3.png Greyscale Matti teaches “..transmitting a join request to a leading vehicle...that includes prior to transmitting the join request....wherein the potential following vehicle joins the last following vehicle in the platooning group. (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. PNG media_image4.png 772 980 media_image4.png Greyscale Mudalidge is silent but SUJAN teaches “...and determining a join process”. (see FIG. 4 where a follower can evaluate the health of the platoon and the components of the platoon such as for example, 1. The number of fault codes and the 2. Last service history and 3. The current power capability and the 4. Current maximum braking power available and 5. The current minimum stopping distance and wear estimates of the brakes, pressure available and the temperature of the brake pads and then a following vehicle can determine based on these that the platoon is safe for traveling together at a close space and should be joined and see col. 2, lines 45-60 and col. 7, line 15- col. 10, line 54 )”. 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 SUNJAN since SUNJAN teaches that a platoon joining process may determine if the platoon can be held at a very close spacing for drafting and may look at the health of the platoon members and if they have excessive brake wear and poor braking power and poor brake pressure that this is a dangerous platoon and the member can reject the platoon as being unsafe. If the health can be high and the brakes are new and low temperature and the vehicle is new and has high power and brake pressure then drafting can be possible and then the join can be completed. See FIG. 4 and col. 7 to Col. 8 and the abstract of SUNJAN. 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 710 896 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 708 880 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 696 906 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 748 1032 media_image8.png Greyscale Sujan teaches “...platooning vehicle information from the leading vehicle included in the platooning group, wherein the platooning vehicle information comprises a vehicle type information for representing a type related to the leading vehicle, distance information for representing a distance related to the leading vehicle and basic information for the leading vehicle”. (see FIG. 7 where the vehicle can determine 1. The mass and 2. Braking stopping distance for a separation distance and see FIG. 8 where the separation distance based on the mass to provide a stopping distance can be provided and the vehicle can decline this if the large truck vehicle attempts to enter a platoon with super small vehicles as the truck cannot match the braking and stopping distance and should enter for trucks) (see FIG. 9 where the attributes of both the 1. Leading platoon and the 2 following platoon can be determined; and In FIG. 9 the consumption rate of the follower and the leader can be determined and the FIG. 4 can show the maximum power capability of each of the vehicles can be determined including the brake wear estimates and the average brake pressure and temperature and then the platoon can be declined based on a poor health). Claim 1 is amended to recite and Horvitz teaches “...receiving, at the potential following vehicle, platooning vehicle information from the leading vehicle included in the platooning group, wherein the platooning vehicle information comprises vehicle [[type]] model information corresponding to the leading vehicle” (see paragraph 82 where a platoon searcher 512 can select the leader and the follower vehicle and see paragraph 85-86 where the searcher can provide the same type of vehicle to travel more aerodynamically and a collective unit 514 can provide that all of the vehicles including the leader and the follower can be a LEXUS RX HYBRID vehicle for an efficient operation. See FIG. 9 where the vehicle that is the follower and the leader can receive data from the AI component 922 and analysis component 920; 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 HORVITZ since HORVITZ teaches that a platoon profile can be provided to the leader and the follower vehicle from an AI model that can take into account the leader and the follower. For example, the leader can be a LEXUS RX hybrid and the follower and all other vehicles in the group can also be a LEXUS RX hybrid vehicle for better wind resistance and aerodynamic qualities so the vehicles use less fuel. Claim 2-3 are cancelled. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103(a) 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 Addepali and in view of Sunjan and HORVITZ. Swikes teaches “…4. The method of claim 1, 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. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103(a) 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 Addepali and in view of Sunjan and HORVITZ. Mudalige discloses “…5. The method of claim 1, wherein the potential following vehicle comprises at least one truck”. (See FIG. 21 where the follower and the leader are trucks that form an improved drag fuel efficient configuration). 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 Matti and in view of Addepali and Sunjan and HORVITZ. PNG media_image1.png 840 642 media_image1.png Greyscale Mudalidge discloses “…6. A potential following vehicle in a platooning group, the potential following vehicle comprising: a transceiver configured to transmit a join request to the leading vehicle included in the platooning group and receive vehicle information from the leading vehicle included in the platooning group, (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) wherein the platooning group includes a leading vehicle and at least one following vehicle, (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 an intended destination via a route) 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 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) wherein the vehicle information comprises vehicle type information of the leading vehicle as well as information about main mounted functions; and (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)”. PNG media_image2.png 741 1005 media_image2.png Greyscale Claim 6 is amended to recite and Horvitz teaches “...receiving, at the potential following vehicle, platooning vehicle information from the leading vehicle included in the platooning group, wherein the platooning vehicle information comprises vehicle [[type]] model information corresponding to the leading vehicle” (see paragraph 82 where a platoon searcher 512 can select the leader and the follower vehicle and see paragraph 85-86 where the searcher can provide the same type of vehicle to travel more aerodynamically and a collective unit 514 can provide that all of the vehicles including the leader and the follower can be a LEXUS RX HYBRID vehicle for an efficient operation. See FIG. 9 where the vehicle that is the follower and the leader can receive data from the AI component 922 and analysis component 920; 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 HORVITZ since HORVITZ teaches that a platoon profile can be provided to the leader and the follower vehicle from an AI model that can take into account the leader and the follower. For example, the leader can be a LEXUS RX hybrid and the follower and all other vehicles in the group can also be a LEXUS RX hybrid vehicle for better wind resistance and aerodynamic qualities so the vehicles use less fuel. Mudalige is silent but Addepalli teaches “...receiving at the potential following vehicle, (see FIG. 2, where the in vehicle device of the followers can communicate with the leaders 104a via communication from 104e to the intermediate vehicle 104d) vehicle information from the leading vehicle including in the platooning group, wherein the vehicle information comprises vehicle type information of the leading vehicle (see block 286-316 of FIG. 16) (see paragraph 54-58 where each vehicle can be provided with a v2i infrastructure for reliable communication between the vehicle using a CALM open architecture that all vehicles can access; and see paragraph 52 where a vehicle diagnostic can be provided to provide a health of the actuators and sensors, and vehicle controllers, and see claims 1-13 where the vehicles can perform a scan to determine 1. A channel allocation 2. A gateway information 3. A radio access tree information and 4. The control channel for communication, and 5 a return message for a mobile cell gateway, and 6. Where the vehicles can now “self organize” for an ad hoc mobile network and where the vehicle can include an iterative power control algorithm to provide a signal to interference plus noise ratio and then calculate an individual power component for the node). 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 Addepalli at the time of the effective filing date since Addepalli teaches that platoon vehicles can perform a scan to determine 1. A channel allocation 2. A gateway information 3. A radio access tree information and 4. The control channel for communication, and 5 a return message for a mobile cell gateway, and 6. Where the vehicles can now “self organize” for an ad hoc mobile network and where the vehicle can include an iterative power control algorithm to provide a signal to interference plus noise ratio and then calculate an individual power component for the node. This can ensure a reliable open source access of the communication between nodes. See paragraph 50-58 and 150-155. PNG media_image8.png 748 1032 media_image8.png Greyscale Sujan teaches “...platooning vehicle information from the leading vehicle included in the platooning group, wherein the platooning vehicle information comprises a vehicle type information for representing a type related to the leading vehicle, distance information for representing a distance related to the leading vehicle and basic information for the leading vehicle”. (see FIG. 7 where the vehicle can determine 1. The mass and 2. Braking stopping distance for a separation distance and see FIG. 8 where the separation distance based on the mass to provide a stopping distance can be provided and the vehicle can decline this if the large truck vehicle attempts to enter a platoon with super small vehicles as the truck cannot match the braking and stopping distance and should enter for trucks) (see FIG. 9 where the attributes of both the 1. Leading platoon and the 2 following platoon can be determined; and In FIG. 9 the consumption rate of the follower and the leader can be determined and the FIG. 4 can show the maximum power capability of each of the vehicles can be determined including the brake wear estimates and the average brake pressure and temperature and then the platoon can be declined based on a poor health). PNG media_image4.png 772 980 media_image4.png Greyscale Mudalidge discloses “...a controller configured to begin 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) Matti teaches “…prior to transmitting the join request, ...wherein the potential following vehicle joins the last following vehicle in the platooning group. (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. 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 710 896 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 708 880 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image7.png 696 906 media_image7.png Greyscale Claim 7-8 are cancelled. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103(a) 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 Addepalli and Sunjan and HORVITZ. Swikes teaches “… 9. The potential following vehicle 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. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103(a) 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 Addepalli and Sunjan and HORVITZ. Mudalige discloses “..10. The potential following vehicle of claim 6, wherein the potential following vehicle comprises at least one truck. ”. (See FIG. 21 where the follower and the leader are trucks that form an improved drag fuel efficient configuration). 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 10, 2022
Application Filed
May 01, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 01, 2023
Response Filed
Oct 23, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 26, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 28, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 01, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 27, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 27, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 20, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 24, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 24, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 24, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Oct 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 12, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Nov 21, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 05, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593752
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CONTROLLING HARVESTING IMPLEMENT OPERATION OF AN AGRICULTURAL HARVESTER BASED ON TILT ACTUATOR FORCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596986
GLOBAL ADDRESS SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590801
REAL TIME DETERMINATION OF PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION OF TRAVEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583572
MARINE VESSEL AND MARINE VESSEL PROPULSION CONTROL SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571183
EXCAVATOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+25.9%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 984 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month