DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This Final Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 19 September 2025. Claims 1-3, & 5-9 are pending and have been considered as follows. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Claim 6-9 have been entered.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 06 November 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 06 November 2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 06 November 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-3 and 5 under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 06 November 2025 has been withdrawn.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, & 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the driving condition of the second vehicles" in Line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This can be fixed by changing “a driving condition” in Line 18-19 to –a driving condition of the second vehicles—in Claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the driving condition" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This can be fixed by changing the above “the driving condition” to –the driving condition of the second vehicles—in Claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the driving condition of the second vehicles" in Line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
This can be fixed by changing “a driving condition” in Line 17-18 to –a driving condition of the second vehicles- in Claim 5-.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 states, “wherein the processor is configured to determine the factor that provokes the tailgating by comparing the information on the traveling state of the first vehicle with the accumulated data on the traveling state of the second vehicles traveling in a same traveling section as a traveling section of the first vehicle.”. Claim 1 recites “determine a factor that provokes tailgating by comparing ….(2) accumulated data on traveling states of second vehicles that were not subjected to tailgating, wherein the accumulated data is classified in advance according to a plurality of driving conditions, and wherein a subset of the accumulated data corresponding to a driving condition determined to be similar to a current driving condition of the first vehicle is selected for comparing with the information on the traveling state of the first vehicle….wherein the driving condition of the second vehicles indicates that at least one of the following (1), (2), (3), or (4) is identical to that of the first vehicle:(1) roads on which the second vehicles were driven being identical to a road on which the first vehicle is traveling, in at least one of predetermined data categories: curved shape, inclination, traveling lane, or width;(2) a traveling section of the second vehicles being a same as a section where the first vehicle is traveling.”. It seems claim 2 would be repeating the limitation and not further limiting the subject matter in claim 1 if the same section option is chosen as the option in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 MOISES GASCA ALVA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3752. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 - 4:00. 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,
Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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.
/MOISES GASCA ALVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/FARIS S ALMATRAHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights