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 CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 1/12/2026. Applicant amended claims 1-5 and 7-21. Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending and are examined below.
FINALITY
Applicant’s request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office Action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim interpretation under § 112(f), Applicant’s amendments filed on 1/12/2026 obviates the claim interpretation; namely, claim element “network interface” has been deleted. Accordingly, the claim interpretation under § 112(f) is withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 5 and 13 are objected to because of claim informalities. Namely, “the weather” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner suggests amending to “the weather condition”.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9 15 and 17 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kumai et al. (US20170001642A1; “Kumai”) in view of Burtch et al. (US20190092168A1; “Burtch”).
As to claim 1, Kumai discloses an apparatus comprising:
a processor (“ECU 10A” – ¶ 55.) configured to:
detect that a gap distance between a lead transport and a transport traveling behind the lead transport is outside a predetermined threshold based on sensor data received from a transport (“The external situation recognition unit 13 recognizes … the inter-vehicle distance[] between the vehicle V and the preceding vehicle based on the detection result of the external sensor 1.” ¶ 61. “The difference determination unit 21 performs the difference determination processing (S62) to determine whether the difference between the target inter-vehicle distance and the inter-vehicle distance … is equal to or larger than the second inter-vehicle distance threshold. If it is determined that the difference is equal to or larger than the second inter-vehicle distance threshold, the target correction unit 22 performs the target value correction processing (S64) to correct the target value of the correction candidate.” ¶ 115 and FIG. 6.);
in response to the gap being detected, determine a preferred gap distance between the transport and the lead transport for a driver of the transport (See at least ¶¶ 61, 115 and FIG. 6.); and
control a speed of the transport via a cruise control function based on the preferred gap distance (“The device restarts the speed control using … the corrected target inter-vehicle distance.” Abstract. See also ¶ 68 for discussion of the speed control.).
Kumai fails to explicitly disclose: determine a preferred gap distance between the transport and the lead transport for a driver of the transport using a machine learning model executed on contextual data about a weather condition affecting the transport.
Nevertheless, Burtch teaches: determine a preferred gap distance between a transport and a lead transport for a driver of the transport using a machine learning model executed on contextual data about a weather condition affecting the transport (“Weather conditions (rain, ice, etc.) may also play a role in the driver’s preference for gap size—for instance, a bigger gap may be preferred when braking and visibility are impaired.” ¶ 53. “The method 500 further includes, at 512, providing the data set to an artificial neural network 400 in response to the input being sensed. Said another way, when the driver signals a desired change in gap using the ACC gap input 210, various data (e.g., weather conditions, vehicle 102, 106 velocities, etc.) is sent to the ANN 400.” ¶ 54.).
Kumai discloses: an apparatus configured to, in response to determining that a gap distance between a transport and a lead transport is outside a threshold, determine a preferred gap distance; and control the transport via cruise control function based on the determined preferred gap distance. Burtch teaches: determine a preferred gap distance between a transport and a lead transport for a driver of the transport using a machine learning model executed on contextual data about a weather condition affecting the transport.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kumai to include the feature of: determine a preferred gap distance between a transport and a lead transport for a driver of the transport using a machine learning model executed on contextual data about a weather condition affecting the transport, as taught by Burtch, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for “present[ing] an ACC system that reduces the need for changes in the desired time gap by the driver,” especially in view of “weather conditions.” (Burtch, ¶¶ 5, 53.)
Independent claims 9 and 17 are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claims 7 and 15, Kumai fails to explicitly disclose: determine the preferred gap distance using the machine learning model on sensor data about an environment of the transport.
Nevertheless, Burtch teaches: determine a preferred gap distance using a machine learning model on sensor data about an environment of the transport (An “artificial neural network” — which interprets “sensor system data (e.g., from various sensors)” — may change and hence determine a desired “distance between vehicles” – see at least Abstract. See also ¶¶ 34 and 35.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kumai to include the feature of: determine a preferred gap distance using a machine learning model on sensor data about an environment of the transport, as taught by Burtch, with a reasonable expectation of success because these features are useful for “present[ing] an ACC system that reduces the need for changes in the desired time gap by the driver,” especially in view of “weather conditions.” (Burtch, ¶¶ 5, 53.)
Claim(s) 2, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kumai and Burtch as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Sellschopp (US20180222442A1; “Sellschopp”).
As to claims 2, 10 and 18, the combination of Kumai and Burtch fails to explicitly disclose: remotely activate the cruise control function.
Nevertheless, Sellschopp teaches: remotely activate the cruise control function (“Motor vehicle 12 comprises a control device 16 that is designed to establish a wireless connection 18 with vehicle-external server device 14. Conversely, the vehicle-external server device is designed to establish wireless connection 18. Vehicle-external server device 14 is used to activate and deactivate a variety of vehicle-internal functions 20.” ¶ 25. “The vehicle-internal functions can, for example, be a cruise control system, a cruise control system for maintaining distance between vehicles.” ¶ 9.).
Kumai discloses: an apparatus configured to, in response to determining that a gap distance between a transport and a lead transport is outside a threshold, determine a preferred gap distance; and control the transport via cruise control function based on the determined preferred gap distance. Burtch teaches: determine a preferred gap distance between a transport and a lead transport for a driver of the transport using a machine learning model executed on contextual data about a weather condition affecting the transport. Sellschopp teaches: transmitting remotely activate the cruise control function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kumai and Burtch to include the feature of: remotely activate the cruise control function, as taught by Sellschopp, with a reasonable expectation of success because remote control of a vehicle is a well-known and routine feature in the vehicle control art. Sellschopp lists several advantages of remote control, such as ensuring authorized use, deactivating erroneous functionality, etc. (See Sellschopp, ¶¶ 14-20.)
Claim(s) 3, 11, 14 and 19 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kumai and Burtch as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Li et al. (US20160249180A1; “Li”).
As to claims 3, 11 and 19, the combination of Kumai and Burtch fails to explicitly disclose: remotely trigger the transport to change speed to achieve the preferred gap distance.
Nevertheless, Li teaches: remotely trigger a transport to change speed to achieve a preferred gap distance (“Control center 102 may generate the remote driving commands for the respective vehicle 101 in accordance with the previously collected environmental information, and further transmit the remote driving commands to the vehicle 101. For example, when the distance sensors on the vehicle 101 indicate that a distance between vehicle 101 and another vehicle in front of the vehicle 101 is less than a predetermined threshold value set as a safe following distance, control center 102 may remotely transmit a driving command to the respective vehicle 101 so that the processors on the vehicle 101 apply the brake to reduce the speed of the vehicle 101.” ¶ 35.).
Kumai discloses: an apparatus configured to, in response to determining that a gap distance between a transport and a lead transport is outside a threshold, determine a preferred gap distance; and control the transport via cruise control function based on the determined preferred gap distance. Burtch teaches: determine a preferred gap distance between a transport and a lead transport for a driver of the transport using a machine learning model executed on contextual data about a weather condition affecting the transport. Li teaches: remotely trigger a transport to change speed to achieve the preferred gap distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kumai and Burtch to include the feature of: remotely trigger a transport to change speed to achieve a preferred gap distance, as taught by Li, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing a “driving assistance service.” (See Li, ¶ 3.)
As to claim 14, the combination of Kumai and Burtch fails to explicitly disclose: remotely controlling the speed.
Nevertheless, Li teaches: remotely controlling the speed (“Control center 102 may generate the remote driving commands for the respective vehicle 101 in accordance with the previously collected environmental information, and further transmit the remote driving commands to the vehicle 101. For example, when the distance sensors on the vehicle 101 indicate that a distance between vehicle 101 and another vehicle in front of the vehicle 101 is less than a predetermined threshold value set as a safe following distance, control center 102 may remotely transmit a driving command to the respective vehicle 101 so that the processors on the vehicle 101 apply the brake to reduce the speed of the vehicle 101.” ¶ 35.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kumai and Burtch to include the feature of: remotely trigger a transport to change speed to achieve a preferred gap distance, as taught by Li, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing a “driving assistance service.” (See Li, ¶ 3.)
Claim(s) 4, 12 and 20 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kumai and Burtch as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Wigard et al. (US20190184993A1; “Wigard”).
As to claims 4, 12 and 20, the combination of Kumai and Burtch fails to explicitly disclose: determine the preferred gap distance based on traffic data.
Nevertheless, Wigard teaches: determine a preferred gap distance based on traffic data (“The other information used to determine optimum intervehicle distance may include information regarding whether adjacent vehicles are autonomous vehicles or non-autonomous vehicles. Alternatively or additionally, the additional information may include road conditions, traffic/congestion, weather, and/or the like.” See at least ¶ 19.).
Kumai discloses: an apparatus configured to, in response to determining that a gap distance between a transport and a lead transport is outside a threshold, determine a preferred gap distance; and control the transport via cruise control function based on the determined preferred gap distance. Burtch teaches: determine a preferred gap distance between a transport and a lead transport for a driver of the transport using a machine learning model executed on contextual data about a weather condition affecting the transport. Wigard teaches: determine a preferred gap distance based on traffic data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kumai and Burtch to include the feature of: determine a preferred gap distance based on traffic data, as taught by Wigard, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “facilitat[ing] autonomous, driverless vehicles as well as enhanc[ing] the driver-based vehicle experience.” (Wigard, ¶ 2.)
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kumai and Burtch as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Mallinger (US20180265085A1; “Mallinger”).
As to claims 5 and 13, the combination of Kumai and Burtch fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the processor is further configured to receive data indicating a change in the weather condition; and in response, control the cruise control to change the speed of the transport based on the change in the weather.
Nevertheless, Mallinger teaches: receive data indicating a change in the weather condition; and in response, control a cruise control to change a speed of a transport based on the change in the weather (In the disclosed method, operation 110 comprises determining “whether weather conditions are changing” and then proceeding to make “a determination of what a new vehicle following speed should be.” See at least ¶ 17 and FIG. 2.).
Kumai discloses: an apparatus configured to, in response to determining that a gap distance between a transport and a lead transport is outside a threshold, determine a preferred gap distance; and control the transport via cruise control function based on the determined preferred gap distance. Burtch teaches: determine a preferred gap distance between a transport and a lead transport for a driver of the transport using a machine learning model executed on contextual data about a weather condition affecting the transport. Mallinger teaches: changing a speed of a transport via an activated cruise control function based on a detected change in weather.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kumai and Burtch to include the feature of: receive data indicating a change in the weather condition; and in response, control a cruise control to change a speed of a transport based on the change in the weather, as taught by Mallinger, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for “broaden[ing] the intelligence of an adaptive cruise control system to leverage … real time data in a manner to … improve the utility of present day adaptive cruise control systems.” (Mallinger, ¶ 4.)
Claim(s) 8, 16 and 21 is/are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Kumai and Burtch as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Scofield et al. (US20170068245A1; “Scofield”).
As to claims 8, 16 and 21, the combination of Kumai and Burtch fails to explicitly disclose: generate a digital twin of the transport; and transfer the preferred gap distance to another transport via the digital twin.
Nevertheless, Schofield teaches:
generate a digital twin of the transport (“The remote preference provider component 602 may provide the driving profile 604 to the first automated driving component 606.” ¶ 39. Note: A driving profile 604 meets the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a digital twin because it is a digital representation of possible states/actions of a vehicle.) and
transfer the preferred gap distance to another transport via the digital twin (“The automated driving component 302 may be configured to generate an operational tailgate parameter 306 for the autonomous vehicle 312 based upon the tailgating preference 304. The operational tailgate parameter 306 may determine a tailgate threshold distance 310. The tailgate threshold distance 310 may be a distance maintained between the autonomous vehicle 312 and a second vehicle 314 during operation of the autonomous vehicle 312.” ¶ 36. See also ¶ 39 wherein the a driving profile containing the tailgate parameter is transferred to a transport.).
Kumai discloses: an apparatus configured to, in response to determining that a gap distance between a transport and a lead transport is outside a threshold, determine a preferred gap distance; and control the transport via cruise control function based on the determined preferred gap distance. Burtch teaches: determine a preferred gap distance between a transport and a lead transport for a driver of the transport using a machine learning model executed on contextual data about a weather condition affecting the transport. Schofield teaches: generating a digital twin of a transport, and transferring a preferred gap distance to another transport via the digital twin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kumai and Burtch to include the features of: generate a digital twin of the transport; and transfer the preferred gap distance to another transport via the digital twin, with a reasonable expectation of success, because this feature is useful for providing users the “ability to control various aspects of how the autonomous vehicle operates, such as those users that have been accustomed a certain driving style, route, driving speed, etc.” (Schofield, ¶ 2.)
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668