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The previous rejection is withdrawn.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.
Claims 1 and 6 are amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but Pilkington teaches “...the accumulated platooning distance corresponds to a total platooning distance that the leader vehicles has driven”. (see block 750 and paragraph 89-90 and 98 where a weighting is provided on the vehicles to determine the length of time that the vehicle has previously been platooning and where this can be taken into account as to who is the leader and what the inter vehicle distance is provided between the vehicles; and see paragraph 84-85 where the amount of time that the vehicles are platooning recently is taken to determine the distance between the platooning members and also who is the leader and who is the follower where vehicles that have used a hard braking and a lot of miles traveled can provide restrictions on those vehicles and see claims 1-2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of MUDALIGE with the teachings of Pilkington with a reasonable expectation of success since Pilkington teaches that a leader and a follower vehicle can provide a distance between each other that is based on an amount of time in service or the number of miles driven by the vehicle. For example, if a vehicle has undergone a very large ABS or ESP braking and has been platooning for a long amount of time (miles) then this may be a candidate for a relatively larger distance between the vehicles and this is not a good candidate for a leading vehicle. While a second different vehicle that is fresh and driven no miles, and no amount of time and has no massive braking events is a good candidate for a leader vehicle and also for a close inter vehicle distance. See paragraph 42 and 89-90 and 98 and claims 1-2.
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.
Claims 1-2 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 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 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.: US20180188745A1 to Pilkington that was filed in 2016 .
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)
receiving 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) (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
Mudalige is silent but Addepalli teaches “...receiving at the leading 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.
PNG
media_image3.png
803
683
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mudalidge discloses “....beginning a cruising operation after a join process is completed, wherein the potential following vehicle is controlled in a platoon based on data obtained from at least one sensor. (See paragraph 55 where the vehicles have lidar and radar for lane keeping all of the vehicles in the lane; see Fig. 11 where the sensors control the leader and follower for an offset value and distance from the vehicles; 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
519
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The primary reference to Mudalige is silent but Matti teaches “…prior to transmitting the joining 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.
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 othersie 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.
Claim 1 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but Pilkington teaches “...the accumulated platooning distance corresponds to a total platooning distance that the leader vehicles has driven”. (see block 750 and paragraph 89-90 and 98 where a weighting is provided on the vehicles to determine the length of time that the vehicle has previously been platooning and where this can be taken into account as to who is the leader and what the inter vehicle distance is provided between the vehicles; and see paragraph 84-85 where the amount of time that the vehicles are platooning recently is taken to determine the distance between the platooning members and also who is the leader and who is the follower where vehicles that have used a hard braking and a lot of miles traveled can provide restrictions on those vehicles and see claims 1-2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of MUDALIGE with the teachings of Pilkington with a reasonable expectation of success since Pilkington teaches that a leader and a follower vehicle can provide a distance between each other that is based on an amount of time in service or the number of miles driven by the vehicle. For example, if a vehicle has undergone a very large ABS or ESP braking and has been platooning for a long amount of time (miles) then this may be a candidate for a relatively larger distance between the vehicles and this is not a good candidate for a leading vehicle. While a second different vehicle that is fresh and driven no miles, and no amount of time and has no massive braking events is a good candidate for a leader vehicle and also for a close inter vehicle distance. See paragraph 42 and 89-90 and 98 and claims 1-2.
PNG
media_image5.png
772
980
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
882
1144
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
634
960
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is amended to recite and SUJAN et al. teaches “...determining a join process of the potential following vehicle based on the vehicle information, (See FIG. 7, where a platoon vehicle can provide a process of joining a platoon that includes 1. Fuel consumption 2. Min. catch up time, 3. average time to destination and 4. platoon speed, 5. road terrain and 6. location in the tail of the platoon)
wherein the vehicle information comprises vehicle type information of the leading vehicle as well as multiple capability information about main mounted functions of the leading vehicle and joining the last following vehicle in the platooning group; (see paragraph 20 where the characteristics that are taken about the platoon are the weight of the vehicles; and the fuel maps of the vehicles; and the drag of the vehicles in paragraph 22 and in paragraph 36 where a type of power train and propulsion power of each vehicle in the platoon can also be determined for a decision to join or not join and in paragraph 47 the braking and terrain characteristics of the vehicle to determine a stopping distance and see paragraph 27 where this is all communicated via a data set exchanged between two vehicles) (see FIG. 3 where the two vehicles can communicate with v2v transceivers in blocks 137, 162 via path 144) (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 and see FIG. 9 where the joining member can determine a fuel consumption if they join in blocks 1-3e)”.
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 discloses “..2. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a radar, a lidar or a camera. (see paragraph 55-56 and a camera in paragraph 59)”.
Claim 3-4 are cancelled.
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 United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20130301584A1 to Addepalli that was filed in 2011 and is assigned to Cisco™ and in view of Sunjan and Pilkington.
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).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious by 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 United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20130301584A1 to Addepalli that was filed in 2011 and is assigned to Cisco™ and in view of Sunjan and Pilkington.
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 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)
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 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 discloses ‘....wherein the vehicle information comprises vehicle type information of the leading vehicle; 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)
PNG
media_image2.png
741
1005
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mudalige is silent but Addepalli teaches “.. vehicle information from the leading 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) 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.
PNG
media_image5.png
772
980
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
882
1144
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
634
960
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is amended to recite and SUJAN et al. teaches “...determining a join process of the potential following vehicle based on the vehicle information, (See FIG. 7, where a platoon vehicle can provide a process of joining a platoon that includes 1. Fuel consumption 2. Min. catch up time, 3. average time to destination and 4. platoon speed, 5. road terrain and 6. location in the tail of the platoon)
wherein the vehicle information comprises vehicle type information of the leading vehicle as well as multiple capability information about main mounted functions of the leading vehicle and joining the last following vehicle in the platooning group; (see paragraph 20 where the characteristics that are taken about the platoon are the weight of the vehicles; and the fuel maps of the vehicles; and the drag of the vehicles in paragraph 22 and in paragraph 36 where a type of power train and propulsion power of each vehicle in the platoon can also be determined for a decision to join or not join and in paragraph 47 the braking and terrain characteristics of the vehicle to determine a stopping distance and see paragraph 27 where this is all communicated via a data set exchanged between two vehicles) (see FIG. 3 where the two vehicles can communicate with v2v transceivers in blocks 137, 162 via path 144) (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 and see FIG. 9 where the joining member can determine a fuel consumption if they join in blocks 1-3e)”.
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.
Mudalidge discloses “...a controller configured to begin a cruising operation after a join process is completed, wherein the potential following vehicle is controlled in a platoon based on data obtained from at least one sensor. (See paragraph 55 where the vehicles have lidar and radar for lane keeping all of the vehicles in the lane; see Fig. 11 where the sensors control the leader and follower for an offset value and distance from the vehicles; 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)
Claim 6 is amended to recite and PIKINGTON teaches “..determining a join process of the potential following vehicle based on the vehicle information of the leading vehicle and an accumulated platooning distance of the leadings vehicle”. (see FIG. 6 and paragraph 43-45 and 75-80 where the platoon distance management system can determine the length of time that the vehicle has been previously platoon as a parameter to determine if they are the leader or not; and if the vehicle has not been in a platoon for a long time (DISTANCE) then the vehicle is ordered to be a platoon leader)”.
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 PIKINGTON since PIKINGTON teaches that a platoon joining process may determine if the vehicle has been driving in a platoon for an extended period of time. If so, then this vehicle likely will not be the leader. While a second different vehicle can be fresh can only driven a few miles and have a strong braking capability and this vehicle can be the platoon leader based on the total hours being driven in the platoon. See paragraph 43-45
Claim 6 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but Pilkington teaches “...the accumulated platooning distance corresponds to a total platooning distance that the leader vehicles has driven”. (see block 750 and paragraph 89-90 and 98 where a weighting is provided on the vehicles to determine the length of time that the vehicle has previously been platooning and where this can be taken into account as to who is the leader and what the inter vehicle distance is provided between the vehicles; and see paragraph 84-85 where the amount of time that the vehicles are platooning recently is taken to determine the distance between the platooning members and also who is the leader and who is the follower where vehicles that have used a hard braking and a lot of miles traveled can provide restrictions on those vehicles and see claims 1-2)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of MUDALIGE with the teachings of Pilkington with a reasonable expectation of success since Pilkington teaches that a leader and a follower vehicle can provide a distance between each other that is based on an amount of time in service or the number of miles driven by the vehicle. For example, if a vehicle has undergone a very large ABS or ESP braking and has been platooning for a long amount of time (miles) then this may be a candidate for a relatively larger distance between the vehicles and this is not a good candidate for a leading vehicle. While a second different vehicle that is fresh and driven no miles, and no amount of time and has no massive braking events is a good candidate for a leader vehicle and also for a close inter vehicle distance. See paragraph 42 and 89-90 and 98 and claims 1-2.
PNG
media_image4.png
519
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Mudalige discloses “…7. The potential following vehicle of claim 6, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a radar, a lidar or a camera. (see paragraph 55-56 and a camera in paragraph 59)”.
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 United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20130301584A1 to Addepalli that was filed in 2011 and is assigned to Cisco™ and in view of Sunjan and Pilkington.
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