DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in reply to the response filed 29 October 2025, which was in reply to the non-final action dated 30 July 2025.
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 Amendment
Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 1, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21-23 and 25 have been amended.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 12-25 (pgs. 2-3, Action), applicant’s amendments addressed the rejections. However, the amendments to claim 12 necessitated an additional rejection, as discussed below. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been maintained. The rejection of claims 21-25 have been rendered moot by the amendments.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-25 (pgs. 3-38, Action), applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1, 12 and 21 necessitated additional searching and consideration of new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are: claims 1, 3, 4, 7 and 9-11 in view of Gunther, Jammoussi and Abri; claim 2 in view of Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri and Krishnamurthi; claim 5 in view of Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri, Krishnamurthi and Motoyama; claim 6 in view of Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri and Motoyama; claim 8 in view of Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri, Krishnamurthi and Sujan; claims 12, 14, 15 and 18-21 in view of ; claims 12, 22 and 25 in view of Gunther, Jammoussi, Kreschel and Krishnamurthi; claims 16 and 17 in view of Gunther, Jammoussi, Kreschel and Dougherty; and claims 23 and 24 in view of Gunther, Jammoussi, Kreschel, Krishnamurthi and Sujan, as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 12-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 12, recites “converted speed information” on ln. 14. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from “converted speed information” in ln. 10.
Claims 13-20, are also rejected based upon their dependence on rejected claim 12.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
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, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germain Publication Number DE 102021002078 to Gunther et al. (hereafter Gunther) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0237012 to Jammoussi et al. (hereafter Jammoussi) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0197497 to Abri et al. (hereafter Abri).
As per claim 1, Gunther discloses [a] device (see at least Gunther, Abstract, pg. 3, para. 12 [claims], disclosing that Vehicle with in each case at least one environment monitoring sensor (8), a computing unit (9) and a wireless communication interface (10), characterized by a device for carrying out a method according to one of the Claims 1 to 8th),
... (1) ... configured to:
receive a message indicating an offer from a helping vehicle to provide virtual towing services to an impaired vehicle (see at least Gunther, Abstract. disclosing that the breakdown vehicle (1) transmits a breakdown message to a vehicle control center (4), whereupon the vehicle control center (4) sends at least one first towing vehicle (2.1) for the virtual towing of the breakdown vehicle (1) destination (5) determined; pg. 2, para. 5); and
activate a virtual towing mode based on acceptance of the offer (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 7, disclosing that the vehicle control center analyzes at least the routes traveled by the other vehicles and selects, for example, the towing vehicle for virtual towing, whose route coincides with a towing route running from a location where the broken down vehicle was to a suitable workshop along the longest possible route ), ... (2) ... configured to:
receive waypoint information ... (3) ... from the helping vehicle (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 10, disclosing that the vehicle control center can specify a workshop as the destination which is on a planned route of the towing vehicle or in the vicinity thereof); and
control movements of the impaired vehicle based on the waypoint information and the speed information (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 8, disclosing that the towing vehicle tows the broken down vehicle in that the broken down vehicle receives control commands and / or raw sensor data from the towing vehicle, which are provided by the environmental monitoring sensors of the towing vehicle; pg. 2, para. 10, disclosing that the vehicle control center can specify a workshop as the destination which is on a planned route of the towing vehicle or in the vicinity thereof) ... (4), ... (5) ... . But, Gunther does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Jammoussi:
(1) a processor (see at least Jammoussi, Abstract);
(2) a virtual towing mode comprises the processor (see at least Jammoussi, Abstract);
(3) receive ... speed information from the helping vehicle (see at least Jammoussi, [0027]); and
(4) control movements of the impaired vehicle based on the waypoint information and the speed information (see at least Jammoussi, [0027] disclosing that in order for host vehicle 10 to reach a predetermined destination, vehicle 10 may be programmed to operate in an autonomous towing mode—thereby following the leader vehicle's actions (e.g., accelerating, slowing, stopping, turning, signaling, etc.) and/or reacting to vehicle-to-vehicle communications from the leader vehicle regarding its forthcoming actions) ... . But, neither Gunther nor Jammoussi explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Abri:
(5) wherein the movements are constrained to a joint safety envelope that defines a safe distance to be maintained based on requirements from both the impaired vehicle and the helping vehicle (see at least Abri, Abstract; [0025] disclosing that at step 328, the transportation management system may instruct the identified second autonomous vehicle (Shepherd vehicle) to share its sensor data with the first autonomous vehicle (see for example, FIG. 1A) and/or lead the first autonomous vehicle (see for example, FIG. 1B) to the service center location. For instance ... the impaired sensor component or the sensor type of the impaired sensor component in the first autonomous vehicle may be the objects-detection component (e.g., LiDAR) due to which the vehicle is not able to properly identify objects surrounding the vehicle. The second autonomous vehicle may be instructed to drive close to the impaired vehicle, sense the surroundings using its functional sensor component, and share its sensing or sensor data with the first autonomous vehicle. In some embodiments, the second autonomous vehicle may share raw sensor data (e.g., data that has not been modified, altered, or edited). ... Further disclosing that the second autonomous vehicle may drive in front of the first vehicle to sense the environment and share its sensing with the first vehicle. In order to successfully share sensor data and/or for the sensor data to be relevant to the first vehicle, the second autonomous vehicle may need to be located within a predefined distance from the first autonomous vehicle. In some embodiments, the second vehicle may share the sensor data directly with the first vehicle via one or more wireless communication channels (e.g., Bluetooth, infrared, etc.). In some embodiments, the second autonomous vehicle may share its sensor data with the first vehicle via the transportation management system.; [0026] disclosing that the first autonomous vehicle may simply lock-onto the second autonomous vehicle and enter a new mode of autonomy where the objective is simply to follow the second autonomous vehicle (e.g., driving directly behind the second autonomous vehicle), trusting it to drive safely)).
Gunther, Jammoussi and Abri are analogous art to claim 1 because they relates to providing driving assistance to an autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle that may be unable to safely operate. Gunther relates to a method for virtually towing a broken-down, at least partially automatically controllable breakdown vehicle (see Gunther, pg. 1, para. 2 (description, para. 1)). Jammoussi relates to a method of instructing a host vehicle to follow a leader vehicle, monitoring driving behavior of the leader vehicle, and instructing the host vehicle to cease following the leader vehicle based on an abnormal driving action of the leader vehicle (see Jammoussi, Abstract). Abri relates to a computer system that receives an indication of an impaired sensor from a first vehicle, shares sensor data from a function sensor on a second autonomous vehicle (see Abri, Abstract).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Gunther, to provide the benefit of having a processor, a virtual towing mode that comprises a processor, receiving speed information from the helping vehicle, and control movements of the impaired vehicle based on the speed information, as disclosed in Jammoussi, and having the movements be constrained to a joint safety envelope that defining a safe distance to be maintained based on requirements from both the impaired vehicle and the helping vehicle, as disclosed in Abri, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of increasing safety by monitoring speed of the lead vehicle to determine whether the speed of the lead vehicle exceeds maximum speeds (see Jammoussi, [0058]).
As per claim 3, the combination of Gunther, Jammousi and Abri discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Jammoussi further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the processor configured to control movements of the impaired vehicle comprises the processor configured to plan an approach to a waypoint defined by the waypoint information and to maintain a target speed defined by the speed information (see at least Jammoussi, [0027]).
As per claim 4, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Abri discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Gunther further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the virtual towing mode further comprises the processor configured to transmit sensor data to the helping vehicle (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 8, disclosing that the towing vehicle tows the broken down vehicle in that the broken down vehicle receives control commands and / or raw sensor data from the towing vehicle, which are provided by the environmental monitoring sensors of the towing vehicle. For example, at least one camera, a lidar, an ultrasonic sensor, a radar sensor can be used for this purpose. Position data, for example position data obtained using a global navigation satellite system, can also be used to generate the control commands. To transmit the control commands and / or the raw sensor data from the towing vehicle to the breakdown vehicle, the two vehicles set up a communication link),
wherein the sensor data comprises information about an environment around the impaired vehicle (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 8).
As per claim 7, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Abri discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Gunther further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the virtual towing mode further comprises the processor further configured to execute a stop maneuver if: a distance between a current location of the impaired vehicle and the waypoint falls below a predetermined threshold; or the impaired vehicle fails to receive a communication confirmation from the helping vehicle within a predetermined time period (see at least Gunther, pg. 4, para. 8, disclosing that so can the respective towing vehicles 2.1 , 2.2 and 2.3 after handover of the breakdown vehicle 1 or after arriving at the destination 5 <interpreted as the stop and waypoint falling below a predetermined threshold; i.e. at the destination> continue to follow their planned route).
As per claim 9, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Abri discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Gunther further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the waypoint information comprises a plurality of waypoints over a time period, wherein each waypoint of the plurality of waypoints is associated with a different time of the time period (see at least Gunther, See, Pg. 3, para. 7, driving to a parking lot is particularly necessary if the vehicles have to stop to change the towing vehicle. Similarly, it can also be necessary for the towing vehicle to be changed at a location that is on a route of one of the towing vehicles; this is particularly the case if the respective towing vehicle is only allowed to have a particularly short downtime <parking lot interpreted as a waypoint >.; pg. 4, para. 8, disclosing that so can the respective towing vehicles 2.1 , 2.2 and 2.3 after handover of the breakdown vehicle 1 or after arriving at the destination 5 <interpreting the handover of the breakdown vehicle 1 between vehicles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 as a plurality of waypoints over a time period, and each handoff associated with different times > continue to follow their planned route).
As per claim 10, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Abri discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. Gunther further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to generate a trajectory over the time period based on the plurality of waypoints (see at least Gunther, pg. 4, para. 7, disclosing that Additionally or alternatively, the tow vehicle 2.1 also direct control commands to the breakdown vehicle 1 submit and the breakdown vehicle 1 thus remote control. The team from the breakdown vehicle 1 and tow truck 2.1 then controls the destination 5 <interpreted as generating a trajectory of time>; pg. 4, para. 8),
wherein the trajectory traverses fewer than all of waypoints (see at least Gunther, pg. 6, claim 3, cost function provides for the minimization of .... a number of performed towing vehicle changes for the virtual towing of the broken down vehicle (1) from a location (6) where the broken down vehicle (1) has stopped to the destination (5) <interpreted as the trajectory traverses fewer than all of waypoints).
As per claim 11, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Abri discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Gunther further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the virtual towing services comprise, in lieu of a physical connection between the impaired vehicle and the helping vehicle, a communication connection for receiving the waypoint information and the speed information from the helping vehicle (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 8, disclosing that the towing vehicle tows the broken down vehicle in that the broken down vehicle receives control commands and / or raw sensor data from the towing vehicle, which are provided by the environmental monitoring sensors of the towing vehicle. To transmit the control commands and / or the raw sensor data from the towing vehicle to the breakdown vehicle, the two vehicles set up a communication link. Communication can take place via a vehicle-to-vehicle communication interface).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunther, Jammoussi and Abri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0197702 to Krishnamurthi.
As per claim 2, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Abri discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Gunther, Jammoussi nor Abri explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Krishnamurthi:
wherein the processor is configured to generate a breakdown report that indicates an impaired operation of the impaired vehicle (see at least Krishnamurthi, [0035] disclosing that based on the determination of the specific issue, the analysis of the diagnostic data can be sent to backend service 208 <interpreting diagnostic data as the breakdown report>, which can route autonomous towing vehicle 204 via routing service 210 in accordance with the determination. For example, routing service 208 can determine an appropriate response to the specific issue identified by diagnostics service 206, such as routing autonomous towing vehicle 204 to tow autonomous vehicle 202 to a specific shop, notifying and setting up maintenance, picking up a passenger, etc.; [0036] disclosing that the analysis of the diagnostic data can be sent to autonomous towing vehicle 204 directly. For instance, the autonomous vehicle 202 may signal for help to passing towing vehicles, which can be picked up by one or more sensors 212 on autonomous towing vehicle 204. Autonomous towing vehicle 204 could then determine whether it is able to tow autonomous vehicle 202 and/or forward any information received from autonomous vehicle 202 (e.g., diagnostic data) to backup service 208; [0047] disclosing that autonomous vehicle 402 can recognize, via diagnostic data, that it is in need of roadside assistance. In response, the autonomous vehicle 402 can establish a link with backup service 404 and request (406) help. The autonomous vehicle 402 can send information about the problem with the request. For example, information about the maintenance, fuel, and/or charging needs can be included as part of the request message from the autonomous vehicle 402. The right towing vehicle can be dispatched based on the type of maintenance needed, the fuel needed (gas, fuel for fuel-cell cars, the right type of connector for electric vehicles, etc.).),
wherein the message is responsive to the breakdown report (see at least Krishnamurthi, [0047]).
Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri and Krishnamurthi are analogous art to claim 2 because they relates to providing driving assistance to an autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle that may be unable to safely operate. Gunther relates to a method for virtually towing a broken-down, at least partially automatically controllable breakdown vehicle (see Gunther, pg. 1, para. 2 (description, para. 1)). Jammoussi relates to a method of instructing a host vehicle to follow a leader vehicle, monitoring driving behavior of the leader vehicle, and instructing the host vehicle to cease following the leader vehicle based on an abnormal driving action of the leader vehicle (see Jammoussi, Abstract). Abri relates to a computer system that receives an indication of an impaired sensor from a first vehicle, shares sensor data from a function sensor on a second autonomous vehicle (see Abri, Abstract). Krishnamurthi relates to systems and methods for an autonomous towing vehicle providing assistance to vehicles (see at least Krishnamurthi, [0001]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Gunther as modified by Jammoussi and Abri, to provide the benefit of generating a breakdown report that indicates an impaired operation of the impaired vehicle and having the message is responsive to the breakdown report, as disclosed in Krishnamurthi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of remove roadside assistance in the absence for autonomous vehicles, particularly those without an operator (see Krishnamurthi, [0003]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri and Krishnamurthi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0340130 To Motoyama.
As per claim 5, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri and Krishnamurthi discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. But, neither Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri nor Krishnamurthi explicitly disclose the following limitation disclosed in Motoyama:
wherein the impaired operation of the impaired vehicle comprises a failure of an automated driving system of the impaired vehicle (see at least Motoyama, [0345] disclosing that emergency evacuation processing for pulling over the own vehicle to an evacuation space may be executed in a case where an abnormality in the state of the own vehicle such as a punctured tire, an engine trouble, or a sensor failure <interpreted as a failure of on automated driving system> has been detected).
Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri, Krishnamurthi and Motoyama are analogous art to claim 5 because they relates to providing driving assistance to an autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle that may be unable to safely operate. Gunther relates to a method for virtually towing a broken-down, at least partially automatically controllable breakdown vehicle (see Gunther, pg. 1, para. 2 (description, para. 1)). Jammoussi relates to a method of instructing a host vehicle to follow a leader vehicle, monitoring driving behavior of the leader vehicle, and instructing the host vehicle to cease following the leader vehicle based on an abnormal driving action of the leader vehicle (see Jammoussi, Abstract). Abri relates to a computer system that receives an indication of an impaired sensor from a first vehicle, shares sensor data from a function sensor on a second autonomous vehicle (see Abri, Abstract). Krishnamurthi relates to systems and methods for an autonomous towing vehicle providing assistance to vehicles (see at least Krishnamurthi, [0001]). Motoyama relates to an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, and a program that allow for appropriately pulling over to a safe road shoulder when an emergency occurs during automated driving (see at least Motoyama, [0001]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Gunther as modified by Jammoussi and Abri, and further modified by Krishnamurthi, to provide the benefit of having the impaired operation of the impaired vehicle comprise a failure of an automated driving system of the impaired vehicle, as disclosed in Motoyama, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving safety by having a disabled autonomous vehicle depart the roadway in the event of an emergency (see at least Motoyama, [0003]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunther, Jammoussi and Abri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Motoyama.
As per claim 6, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Abri discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Gunther further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the virtual towing mode comprises the processor further configured to control movements of the impaired vehicle based on the waypoint information and speed information (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 8, disclosing that the towing vehicle tows the broken down vehicle in that the broken down vehicle receives control commands and / or raw sensor data from the towing vehicle, which are provided by the environmental monitoring sensors of the towing vehicle; pg. 2, para. 10, disclosing that the vehicle control center can specify a workshop as the destination which is on a planned route of the towing vehicle or in the vicinity thereof) ... . But, neither Gunther, Jammoussi nor Abri explicitly disclose the following limitation taught in Motoyama:
control movements of the impaired vehicle based on the waypoint information and speed information in lieu of the automated driving system (see at least Motoyama, [0095] disclosing that the automated driving control unit 112 performs control related to automated driving such as autonomous traveling or driving support. Specifically, for example, the automated driving control unit 112 performs cooperative control for the purpose of implementing functions of an advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) <interpreted as the virtual towing mode> including ... follow-up traveling based on an inter-vehicle distance, vehicle speed maintaining traveling).
Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri and Motoyama are analogous art to claim 6 because they relates to providing driving assistance to an autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle that may be unable to safely operate. Gunther relates to a method for virtually towing a broken-down, at least partially automatically controllable breakdown vehicle (see Gunther, pg. 1, para. 2 (description, para. 1)). Jammoussi relates to a method of instructing a host vehicle to follow a leader vehicle, monitoring driving behavior of the leader vehicle, and instructing the host vehicle to cease following the leader vehicle based on an abnormal driving action of the leader vehicle (see Jammoussi, Abstract). Abri relates to a computer system that receives an indication of an impaired sensor from a first vehicle, shares sensor data from a function sensor on a second autonomous vehicle (see Abri, Abstract). Motoyama relates to an information processing apparatus, an information processing method, and a program that allow for appropriately pulling over to a safe road shoulder when an emergency occurs during automated driving (see at least Motoyama, [0001]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Gunther as modified by Jammoussi and Abri, to provide the benefit of controlling movements of the impaired vehicle based on the waypoint information and speed information in lieu of the automated driving system, as disclosed in Motoyama, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving safety by having a disabled autonomous vehicle depart the roadway in the event of an emergency (see at least Motoyama, [0003]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri and Krishnamurthi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0027355 to Sujan et al. (hereafter Sujan).
As per claim 8, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri and Krishnamurthi discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. But, neither Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri nor Krishnamurthi explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Sujan:
wherein the breakdown report further comprises vehicle characteristics about the impaired vehicle and/or status information about an automated driving system of the impaired vehicle (see at least Sujan, [0028] disclosing that the platoon 20 includes Class 8 Line Haul vehicles 24a-d. Heavy vehicles 24a-d present situations that limit the control formulations for automated or semi-automated driving. The vehicles 24a-d travel at significantly higher masses that typical passenger car vehicles (e.g., up to 80,000 lbs.) and define larger dimensions (i.e., Class 8 Line Haul trucks are bigger than standard passenger vehicles). Due to their large size, these vehicles tend to gain significant fuel efficiency benefits typically when platooning behind other large vehicles (similar to their own size)).
Gunther, Jammoussi, Abri, Krishnamurthi and Sujan are analogous art to claim 8 because they relates to providing driving assistance to an autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle that may be unable to safely operate. Gunther relates to a method for virtually towing a broken-down, at least partially automatically controllable breakdown vehicle (see Gunther, pg. 1, para. 2 (description, para. 1)). Jammoussi relates to a method of instructing a host vehicle to follow a leader vehicle, monitoring driving behavior of the leader vehicle, and instructing the host vehicle to cease following the leader vehicle based on an abnormal driving action of the leader vehicle (see Jammoussi, Abstract). Abri relates to a computer system that receives an indication of an impaired sensor from a first vehicle, shares sensor data from a function sensor on a second autonomous vehicle (see Abri, Abstract). Krishnamurthi relates to systems and methods for an autonomous towing vehicle providing assistance to vehicles (see at least Krishnamurthi, [0001]). Sujan relates to systems and methods for providing platoon aids for vehicle spacing (see at least Sujan, [0002]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Gunther as modified by Jammoussi and Abri, and further modified by Krishnamurthi, to provide the benefit of having the breakdown report further comprises vehicle characteristics about the impaired vehicle and/or status information about an automated driving system of the impaired vehicle, as disclosed in Sujan, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of reducing the separation between the vehicles and provide better fuel economy (see at least Sujan, [0003]).
Claims 12, 14, 15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunther in view of Jammoussi and German Patent Publication Number DE 102019217212 to Kreschel.
As per claim 12, similar to claim 1, Gunther discloses [a]n apparatus (see at least Gunther, Abstract, pg. 3, para. 12 [claims], disclosing that a vehicle with in each case at least one environment monitoring sensor (8), a computing unit (9) and a wireless communication interface (10), characterized by a device for carrying out a method according to one of the Claims 1 to 8th) comprising:
... (1) ... configured to:
transmit a message indicating an offer from a helping vehicle to provide virtual towing services to a towed vehicle (see at least Gunther, Abstract. disclosing that the breakdown vehicle (1) transmits a breakdown message to a vehicle control center (4), whereupon the vehicle control center (4) sends at least one first towing vehicle (2.1) for the virtual towing of the breakdown vehicle (1) destination (5) determined; pg. 2, para. 5); and
activate a virtual towing mode based on acceptance of the offer (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 2, disclosing that the user then confirms a respective vehicle selected for towing <interpreted as acceptance of the offer, and activation of the virtual towing>), ... (2) ... configured to:
determine a pathway to a repair destination for the towing vehicle together with the towed vehicle (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 7, disclosing that the vehicle control center analyzes at least the routes traveled by the other vehicles and selects, for example, the towing vehicle for virtual towing, whose route coincides with a towing route running from a location where the broken down vehicle was to a suitable workshop <interpreted as the repair destination> along the longest possible route ),
determine waypoint information and speed information for the towed vehicle (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 8, disclosing that the towing vehicle tows the broken down vehicle in that the broken down vehicle receives control commands <interpreted as waypoint and speed information> and / or raw sensor data from the towing vehicle, which are provided by the environmental monitoring sensors of the towing vehicle; pg. 2, para. 10, disclosing that the vehicle control center can specify a workshop as the destination which is on a planned route of the towing vehicle or in the vicinity thereof)
along the pathway based on the joint safety assessment of the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle (see at last Gunther, pg. 5, claim 5, disclosing that a traffic safety influenced by a towing vehicle change is maintained <interpreted as the joint safety assessment>; and/or compliance with minimizing at least one of the parameters of the cost function); ... (3) ... ;
transmit the converted waypoint information ... (4) ... to the towed vehicle (see at last Gunther, pg. 2, para. 8, disclosing that the towing vehicle tows the broken down vehicle in that the broken down vehicle receives control commands <interpreted as waypoint > and / or raw sensor data from the towing vehicle, which are provided by the environmental monitoring sensors of the towing vehicle); and
control movements of the towing to travel toward the waypoint ... (5) ... according to the joint safety assessment (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 8, disclosing that the towing vehicle tows the broken down vehicle in that the broken down vehicle receives control commands and / or raw sensor data from the towing vehicle, which are provided by the environmental monitoring sensors of the towing vehicle; pg. 2, para. 10, disclosing that the vehicle control center can specify a workshop as the destination which is on a planned route of the towing vehicle or in the vicinity thereof; Claim 5, pgs. 5). But, Gunther does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Jammoussi:
(1) a processor (see at least Jammoussi, Abstract);
(2) wherein the virtual towing mode comprises the processor (see at least Jammoussi, Abstract);
(4) transmit ... speed information to the towed vehicle (see at least Jammoussi, [0027]); and
(5) control movements of the towing vehicle to travel toward the waypoint at speed and according to the joint safety assessment, the converted waypoint information and the converted speed information (see at least Jammoussi, [0027] disclosing that in order for host vehicle 10 to reach a predetermined destination, vehicle 10 may be programmed to operate in an autonomous towing mode—thereby following the leader vehicle's actions (e.g., accelerating, slowing, stopping, turning, signaling, etc.) and/or reacting to vehicle-to-vehicle communications from the leader vehicle regarding its forthcoming actions)). But, neither Gunther nor Jammoussi explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Kreschel:
(3) determine converted waypoint information and converted speed information for the towed vehicle based on a transformation of first coordinates associated with the waypoint and the speed from in a first coordinate system of the towing vehicle into second coordinates associated with a second coordinate system of the towed vehicle (see at least Kreschel, [pg. 3, para. 4] disclosing that, the global coordinate system can be a coordinate system of a global satellite navigation system. According to this embodiment, the method can have, as a further step, a transformation of the movement trajectory determined in the global coordinate system into a local coordinate system of a vehicle of the two vehicles. A movement trajectory of the vehicle traveling ahead or of the vehicle behind, which is determined in a global coordinate system, can be transformed into a local coordinate system of the vehicle behind. As an alternative to this, a movement trajectory of the vehicle traveling ahead or of the vehicle behind, which is determined in a global coordinate system, can be transformed into a local coordinate system of the vehicle traveling in front. The local coordinate system can be a vehicle coordinate system of a vehicle. The local coordinate system can thus be a coordinate system traveling with a vehicle or a vehicle-bound coordinate system. According to this embodiment, the step of determining the relative position in the local coordinate system can also be carried out; [pg. 6, para. 3] disclosing that an evaluation of the movement trajectory 12th of the vehicle in front 10 by the motion determination unit 26th is also based on at least one driving dynamics parameter of the vehicle 10. The at least one driving dynamics parameter can be at least one of a vehicle speed, a vehicle acceleration, a steering angle, a vehicle rate of rotation and any other known driving dynamics parameter) ... .
Gunther, Jammoussi and Kreschel are analogous art to claim 12 because they relates to providing driving assistance to an autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle that may be unable to safely operate. Gunther relates to a method for virtually towing a broken-down, at least partially automatically controllable breakdown vehicle (see Gunther, pg. 1, para. 2 (description, para. 1)). Jammoussi relates to a method of instructing a host vehicle to follow a leader vehicle, monitoring driving behavior of the leader vehicle, and instructing the host vehicle to cease following the leader vehicle based on an abnormal driving action of the leader vehicle (see Jammoussi, Abstract). Kreschel relates to a method for monitoring an intermediate area between two vehicles traveling one behind the other (see Kreschel, Abstract).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Gunther, to provide the benefit of having a processor, a virtual towing mode that comprises a processor, transmitting speed information from the towed vehicle, and control movements of the impaired vehicle based on the speed information, as disclosed in Jammoussi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide an increase in safety by having the processor monitoring speed of the lead vehicle to determine whether the speed of the lead vehicle exceeds maximum speeds (see Jammoussi, [0058]). And, further, it would have been obvious to have modified the device, as disclosed in Gunther, as modified by Jammoussi, to provide and to provide the benefit of determining converted waypoint information and converted speed information for the towed vehicle based on a transformation of first coordinates associated with the waypoint and the speed from in a first coordinate system of the towing vehicle into second coordinates associated with a second coordinate system of the towed vehicle, as disclosed in Kreschel, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of increasing computing speed by having the data transmitted in a single vehicle-related coordinate system (see Kreschel, [pg. 3, para. 4]).
As per claim 14, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Kreschel discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. Gunther further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the joint safety assessment comprises a safety evaluation of movements of the towed vehicle and the towing vehicle based on at least one of: a safety envelope that encompasses at least dimensions of the towed vehicle and the towing vehicle; a weight of the towed vehicle and/or of the towing vehicle; traffic objects proximate to the towed vehicle and/or to the towing vehicle; and a traffic environment along the pathway to the repair destination (see at least Gunther, pg. 5, claim 5, disclosing that Ensuring that a traffic safety influenced by a towing vehicle change is maintained; and / or compliance with minimizing at least one of the parameters of the cost function).
As per claim 15, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Kreschel discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. Gunther further disclose the following limitations:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine a towing position of the towing vehicle with respect to the towed vehicle (see at least Gunther, Fig. 1, showing the towing position; pg. 4, para. 4, disclosing that Fig. 1 shows an at least partially automatically controllable breakdown vehicle 1; pg. 4, para. 5, disclosing that The breakdown vehicle 1 is available via a communication interface 10 with a vehicle control center 4th in connection. The breakdown is reported directly to the vehicle control center 4th transmitted, whereupon the vehicle control center 4th a suitable tow vehicle 2.1 for the virtual towing of the breakdown vehicle 1 to one in 2 destination shown 5 , for example a workshop, determined), and
wherein the towing position is based on at least one of: a breakdown report that indicates impaired operation of an automated driving system of the towed vehicle, a traffic situation around the towed vehicle, a road type where the towed vehicle is positioned, and a lane in which the towed vehicle is positioned (see at least Gunther, Claim 5, pgs. 5, disclosing that the traffic safety influenced by a towing vehicle change is maintained; and / or compliance with minimizing at least one of the parameters of the cost function).
As per claim 18, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Kreschel discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. Gunther further disclose the following limitation:
wherein the processor is configured to accept the offer based on at least one of: a current location of the towing vehicle, a breakdown location of the towed vehicle, a type of impairment of the towed vehicle; and a geographic distance between the towed vehicle and the towing vehicle (see at least Gunther, Pg. 5, Claim 3, disclosing that cost function provides for the minimization of at least one of the following parameters: an arrival time of a towing vehicle (2.1, 2.2, 2.3) towing the breakdown vehicle (1) at the breakdown vehicle (1); - a downtime occurring for at least one towing vehicle (2.1, 2.2, 2.3) due to the towing of the broken down vehicle (1); - A distance to be covered by at least one towing vehicle (2.1, 2.2, 2.3) for towing the broken down vehicle to the destination (5); - a total length of a total towing route to be towed; and / or - a number of performed towing vehicle changes for the virtual towing of the broken down vehicle (1) from a location (6) where the broken down vehicle (1) has stopped to the destination (5)).
As per claim 19, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Kreschel discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. Gunther further disclose the following limitation:
wherein the towing vehicle is configured in the virtual towing mode to coordinate with at least one other helping vehicle to provide the virtual towing services to the towed vehicle (see at least Gunther, Fig. 2 ; pg. 4, para. 4, disclosing that Fig. 2 is a schematic representation of a particularly efficient towing process with several towing vehicle changes; pg. 4, para. 7, disclosing that with the help of the towing vehicle change, there is a downtime for the respective towing vehicles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 by towing the broken down vehicle 1 minimized. So can the respective towing vehicles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 after handover of the breakdown vehicle 1 or after arriving at the destination 5 continue to follow their planned route. This also increases the total length of the two vehicles 2.1 , 2.2 and 2.3 The detour route covered is reduced. The vehicle control center determines this 4th the one for towing the breakdown vehicle 1 certain towing vehicles 2.1 , 2.2 and 2.3 so that a total effort to tow the broken down vehicle 1 is minimized).
As per claim 20, similar to claim 11, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Kreschel discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. Gunther further disclose the following limitations:
wherein the virtual towing services comprise, in lieu of a physical connection between the towed vehicle and the towing vehicle, a communication connection for transmitting the converted waypoint information and the converted speed information to the towed vehicle (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 8).
As per claim 21, similar to claims 1 and 12,
... (1) ... , Gunther discloses the following limitations that:
activate a virtual towing mode of the towing vehicle based on acceptance of the offer to provide virtual towing services to an impaired vehicle (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 2, disclosing that the user then confirms a respective vehicle selected for towing <interpreted as acceptance of the offer, and activation of the virtual towing>);
determine a pathway to a repair destination for the towing vehicle together with impaired vehicle (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 7, disclosing that the vehicle control center analyzes at least the routes traveled by the other vehicles and selects, for example, the towing vehicle for virtual towing, whose route coincides with a towing route running from a location where the broken down vehicle was to a suitable workshop <interpreted as the repair destination> along the longest possible route),
determine waypoint information and speed information for the towed vehicle (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 10; pg. 2, para. 8)
along the pathway based on the joint safety assessment of the towing vehicle and the towed vehicle (see at least Gunther, see at last Gunther, pg. 5, claim 5, disclosing that a traffic safety influenced by a towing vehicle change is maintained <interpreted as the joint safety assessment>; and/or compliance with minimizing at least one of the parameters of the cost function); ... (2) ... ;
transmit the waypoint information ... (3) ... to the impaired vehicle (see at last Gunther, pg. 2, para. 8, disclosing that the towing vehicle tows the broken down vehicle in that the broken down vehicle receives control commands <interpreted as waypoint > and / or raw sensor data from the towing vehicle, which are provided by the environmental monitoring sensors of the towing vehicle); and
control movements of the towing vehicle toward on the waypoint information and ... (4) ... according to the joint safety assessment (see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 8, disclosing that the towing vehicle tows the broken down vehicle in that the broken down vehicle receives control commands and / or raw sensor data from the towing vehicle, which are provided by the environmental monitoring sensors of the towing vehicle; pg. 2, para. 10, disclosing that the vehicle control center can specify a workshop as the destination which is on a planned route of the towing vehicle or in the vicinity thereof; Claim 5, pgs. 5). But, Gunther does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Jammoussi:
(1) A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions which, if executed, cause one or more processors (see at least Jammoussi, Abstract; [0033] disclosing that memory 34 may include any non-transitory computer usable or readable medium, which may include one or more storage devices or articles; [0076] disclosing that a computer-readable medium (also referred to as a processor-readable medium) includes any non-transitory (e.g., tangible) medium that participates in providing data (e.g., instructions) that may be read by a computer (e.g., by a processor of a computer). Such a medium may take many forms, including, but not limited to, non-volatile media and volatile media);
(3) transmit ... speed information to the impaired vehicle (see at least Jammoussi, [0027]); and
(4) control movements of the towing vehicle to travel toward the waypoint at speed and according to the joint safety assessment, the converted waypoint information and the converted speed information (see at least Jammoussi, [0027]). But, neither Gunther nor Jammoussi explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Bauch:
(2) determine converted waypoint information and converted speed information for the towed vehicle based on a transformation of first coordinates associated with the waypoint and the speed from in a first coordinate system of the towing vehicle into second coordinates associated with a second coordinate system of the towed vehicle (see at least Kreschel, [pg. 3, para. 4] ; [pg. 6, para. 3]) ... .
Gunther, Jammoussi and Kreschel are analogous art to claim 21 because they relates to providing driving assistance to an autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle that may be unable to safely operate. Gunther relates to a method for virtually towing a broken-down, at least partially automatically controllable breakdown vehicle (see Gunther, pg. 1, para. 2 (description, para. 1)). Jammoussi relates to a method of instructing a host vehicle to follow a leader vehicle, monitoring driving behavior of the leader vehicle, and instructing the host vehicle to cease following the leader vehicle based on an abnormal driving action of the leader vehicle (see Jammoussi, Abstract). Kreschel relates to a method for monitoring an intermediate area between two vehicles traveling one behind the other (see Kreschel, Abstract).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus, as disclosed in Gunther, to provide the benefit of having a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions, transmitting speed information from the towed vehicle, and control movements of the impaired vehicle based on the speed information, as disclosed in Jammoussi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide an increase in safety by having the processor monitoring speed of the lead vehicle to determine whether the speed of the lead vehicle exceeds maximum speeds (see Jammoussi, [0058]). And, further, it would have been obvious to have modified the device, as disclosed in Gunther as modified by Jammoussi, to provide and to provide the benefit of determining converted waypoint information and converted speed information for the towed vehicle based on a transformation of first coordinates associated with the waypoint and the speed from in a first coordinate system of the towing vehicle into second coordinates associated with a second coordinate system of the towed vehicle, as disclosed in Kreschel, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of increasing computing speed by having the data transmitted in a single vehicle-related coordinate system (see Kreschel, [pg. 3, para. 4]).
Claims 13, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunther, Jammoussi and Kreschel as applied to claims 12 and 21 above, and further in view of Krishnamurthi.
As per claim 13, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Kreshel discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. But, neither Gunther, Jammoussi nor Kreshel explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Krishnamurthi:
wherein the processor is further configured to receive a breakdown report that indicates impaired operation of an automated driving system of the towed vehicle (similar to claim 2, see at least Krishnamurthi, [0035]; [0036]; [0047]),
wherein the message is responsive to the breakdown report (similar to claim 2, see at least Krishnamurthi, [0047]).
Gunther, Jammoussi, Kreschel and Krishnamurthi are analogous art to claim 13 because they relates to providing driving assistance to an autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle that may be unable to safely operate. Gunther relates to a method for virtually towing a broken-down, at least partially automatically controllable breakdown vehicle (see Gunther, pg. 1, para. 2 (description, para. 1)). Jammoussi relates to a method of instructing a host vehicle to follow a leader vehicle, monitoring driving behavior of the leader vehicle, and instructing the host vehicle to cease following the leader vehicle based on an abnormal driving action of the leader vehicle (see Jammoussi, Abstract). Kreschel relates to a method for monitoring an intermediate area between two vehicles traveling one behind the other (see Kreschel, Abstract). Krishnamurthi relates to systems and methods for an autonomous towing vehicle providing assistance to vehicles (see at least Krishnamurthi, [0001]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus, as disclosed in Gunther, as modified by Jammoussi, and further modified by Kreschel, to provide the benefit of generating a breakdown report that indicates an impaired operation of the impaired vehicle and having the message is responsive to the breakdown report, as disclosed in Krishnamurthi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide remove roadside assistance in the absence for autonomous vehicles, particularly those without an operator (see Krishnamurthi, [0003]).
As per claim 22, similar to claim 2 and claim 13, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Kreschel discloses all of the limitations of claim 21, as shown above. But, neither Gunther, Jammoussi nor Bauch explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Krishnamurthi:
wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to receive a breakdown report that indicates impaired operation of an automated driving system of the impaired vehicle (similar to claims 2 and 13, see at least Krishnamurthi, [0035]; [0036]; [0047]),
wherein the offer to provide virtual towing services to an impaired vehicle is responsive to the breakdown report (similar to claims 2 and 13, see at least Krishnamurthi, [0047]).
Gunther, Jammoussi, Kreschel and Krishnamurthi are analogous art to claim 22 because they relates to providing driving assistance to an autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle that may be unable to safely operate. Gunther relates to a method for virtually towing a broken-down, at least partially automatically controllable breakdown vehicle (see Gunther, pg. 1, para. 2 (description, para. 1)). Jammoussi relates to a method of instructing a host vehicle to follow a leader vehicle, monitoring driving behavior of the leader vehicle, and instructing the host vehicle to cease following the leader vehicle based on an abnormal driving action of the leader vehicle (see Jammoussi, Abstract). Kreschel relates to a method for monitoring an intermediate area between two vehicles traveling one behind the other (see Kreschel, Abstract). Krishnamurthi relates to systems and methods for an autonomous towing vehicle providing assistance to vehicles (see at least Krishnamurthi, [0001]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Gunther as modified by Jammoussi and further modified by Kreschel, to provide the benefit of generating a breakdown report that indicates an impaired operation of the impaired vehicle and having the message is responsive to the breakdown report, as disclosed in Krishnamurthi, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of remove roadside assistance in the absence for autonomous vehicles, particularly those without an operator (see Krishnamurthi, [0003]).
As per claim 25, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi, Kreschel and Krishnamurthi discloses all of the limitations of claim 22, as shown above. Gunther further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the virtual towing services comprise, in lieu of a physical connection between the impaired vehicle and the towing vehicle, a communication connection for transmitting the converted waypoint information and the converted speed information to the impaired vehicle (similar to claims 11 and 20, see at least Gunther, pg. 2, para. 8).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunther, Jammoussi and Kreschel as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0297700 to Dougherty et al. (hereafter Dougherty).
As per claim 16, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Kreschel discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. But, neither Gunther, Jammoussi nor Kreschel explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Dougherty:
wherein the towing position comprises a rear position located behind the towed vehicle, a front position located in front of the towed vehicle, a side position located beside the towed vehicle (see at least Dougherty, [0100] disclosing that FIG. 6 illustrates an example in which autonomous vehicles clear a path to allow another vehicle to pass the others or exit the caravan. With reference to FIGS. 1A-6, the VADS in autonomous vehicle 402 may generate and use an ACM to determine that that vehicle 406 is being manually operated by a human driver or otherwise does not have the required level of autonomy to follow at its current tailgating distance. In response, the VADS component may communicate with the other vehicles 404, 408, 410, 412, 418 to perform a coordinated maneuver in which the autonomous vehicles change lanes in order to allow the rear surrounding vehicle 406 to pass. Similarly, the vehicles 404, 408, 410, 412, 418 may communicate with their surrounding vehicles 602, 606 to perform additional coordinated maneuvers to allow them to change lanes and let the rear vehicle 406 pass).
Gunther, Jammoussi, Kreschel and Dougherty are analogous art to claim 16 because they relates to providing driving assistance to an autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle that may be unable to safely operate. Gunther relates to a method for virtually towing a broken-down, at least partially automatically controllable breakdown vehicle (see Gunther, pg. 1, para. 2 (description, para. 1)). Jammoussi relates to a method of instructing a host vehicle to follow a leader vehicle, monitoring driving behavior of the leader vehicle, and instructing the host vehicle to cease following the leader vehicle based on an abnormal driving action of the leader vehicle (see Jammoussi, Abstract). Kreschel relates to a method for monitoring an intermediate area between two vehicles traveling one behind the other (see Kreschel, Abstract). Dougherty relates to methods, devices and systems of adjusting a driving parameter of the autonomous vehicle so that the autonomous vehicle is more or less reliant on the capabilities of the identified vehicle based on whether the ACM of the identified vehicle exceeds the thresholds (see at least Dougherty, Abstract).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus, as disclosed in Gunther as modified by Jammoussi and further modified by Kreschel, to provide the benefit of having the towing position comprise a rear position located behind the towed vehicle, a front position located in front of the towed vehicle, a side position located beside the towed vehicle, as disclosed in Dougherty, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing autonomous vehicles with vehicle-based communications to form a caravan (or virtual towing), and drive much faster and closer to one another to increase traffic throughput (see at least Dougherty, [0003]).
As per claim 17, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi and Kreschel discloses all of the limitations of claim 12, as shown above. Gunther further disclose the following limitation:
wherein the processor is further configured to determine the joint safety assessment based on the vehicle sensor data from the towed vehicle (see at least Gunther, Claim 5, pgs. 5). But, neither Gunther, Jammoussi nor Kreschel explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Dougherty:
wherein the processor is further configured in the virtual towing mode to receive vehicle sensor data from the towed vehicle (see at least Dougherty, [0033] disclosing that response to determining that there would be an operational advantage to engaging in a cooperative driving arrangement, the VADS component may initiate a cooperative driving engagement in which the autonomous vehicle shares sensor data with the identified vehicle(s) and/or drives in a particular location relative to the identified other vehicle(s) so as to best leverage the sensors of each vehicle. For example, the autonomous vehicle and the identified other vehicle(s) may coordinate to position the vehicle with the best forward looking sensor in the lead of a caravan) ... .
Gunther, Jammoussi, Kreschel and Dougherty are analogous art to claim 17 because they relates to providing driving assistance to an autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle that may be unable to safely operate. Gunther relates to a method for virtually towing a broken-down, at least partially automatically controllable breakdown vehicle (see Gunther, pg. 1, para. 2 (description, para. 1)). Jammoussi relates to a method of instructing a host vehicle to follow a leader vehicle, monitoring driving behavior of the leader vehicle, and instructing the host vehicle to cease following the leader vehicle based on an abnormal driving action of the leader vehicle (see Jammoussi, Abstract). Kreschel relates to a method for monitoring an intermediate area between two vehicles traveling one behind the other (see Kreschel, Abstract). Dougherty relates to methods, devices and systems of adjusting a driving parameter of the autonomous vehicle so that the autonomous vehicle is more or less reliant on the capabilities of the identified vehicle based on whether the ACM of the identified vehicle exceeds the thresholds (see at least Dougherty, Abstract).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Gunther as modified by Jammoussi and further modified by Kreschel, to provide the benefit of receiving vehicle sensor data from the towed vehicle, as disclosed in Dougherty, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing autonomous vehicles with vehicle-based communications to form a caravan (or virtual towing), and drive much faster and closer to one another to increase traffic throughput (see at least Dougherty, [0003]).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunther, Jammoussi, Kreschel and Krishnamurthi as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Sujan.
As per claim 23, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi, Kreschel and Krishnamurthi discloses all of the limitations of claim 22, as shown above.
wherein the breakdown report further comprises vehicle characteristics about the towed vehicle and/or status information about an automated driving system of the towed vehicle (similar to claim 8, see at least Sujan, [0028]).
Gunther, Jammoussi, Kreschel, Krishnamurthi, and Sujan are analogous art to claim 23 because they relates to providing driving assistance to an autonomous or partially autonomous vehicle that may be unable to safely operate. Gunther relates to a method for virtually towing a broken-down, at least partially automatically controllable breakdown vehicle (see Gunther, pg. 1, para. 2 (description, para. 1)). Jammoussi relates to a method of instructing a host vehicle to follow a leader vehicle, monitoring driving behavior of the leader vehicle, and instructing the host vehicle to cease following the leader vehicle based on an abnormal driving action of the leader vehicle (see Jammoussi, Abstract). Kreschel relates to a method for monitoring an intermediate area between two vehicles traveling one behind the other (see Kreschel, Abstract). Krishnamurthi relates to systems and methods for an autonomous towing vehicle providing assistance to vehicles (see at least Krishnamurthi, [0001]). Sujan relates to systems and methods for providing platoon aids for vehicle spacing (see at least Sujan, [0002]).
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device, as disclosed in Gunther as modified by Jammoussi, as further modified by Kreschel, and further modified by Krishnamurthi, to provide the benefit of having the breakdown report further comprise vehicle characteristics about the towed vehicle and/or status information about an automated driving system of the towed vehicle, as disclosed in Sujan, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of reducing the separation between the vehicles and provide better fuel economy (see at least Sujan, [0003]).
As per claim 24, the combination of Gunther, Jammoussi, Kreschel, Krishnamurthi, and Sujan discloses all of the limitations of claim 23, as shown above. Gunther further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine the joint safety assessment (see at least Gunther, Claim 5, pgs. 5 ) ... .
Sujan further discloses the following limitation:
determine the joint safety assessment based on the vehicle characteristics (see at least Sujan, [00300] disclosing that as shown in FIG. 4, a platoon control system 52 is structured to interact with the platoon 20 of vehicles 24a-d (e.g., heavy duty trucks) in three general steps. First, the platoon control system 52 identifies and communicates in real time the dynamic capabilities of each vehicle 24a-d <interpreted as the vehicle characteristics> and continually monitors the dynamic capabilities for changes. Dynamic capabilities include, but are not limited to, vehicle mass, power capability, powertrain/vehicle losses (e.g., drag, rolling resistance, inefficiencies), state of accessories, braking capability, impact of environment conditions (e.g., rain, snow, wind), sensing capability (e.g., vehicle speed, acceleration, eHorizon, GPS)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5;30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3666
/PATRICK M BRADY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666