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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 line 13 reads “a positioning system”, but the positioning system already has antecedent basis in the same claim and thus should read “the positioning system” to improve clarity and consistency.
Claim 15 line 15 reads “a base station”, but the base station already has antecedent basis in the same claim and thus should read “the base station” to improve clarity and consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “onboarding” is given explanation in paragraph 0019:
“The present disclosure provides for vehicle onboarding (i.e., pairing an established data connection with the vehicle at a given location) so that the vehicle can act upon commands issued by a control system. More specifically, in some examples, the vehicle’s (e.g., a target vehicle) expected position is validated, thereby reducing any unintentional attempts at onboarding nearby vehicles relative to the location of the target vehicle. One or more examples implement a global positioning system (GPS) and/or a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) and real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning corrections for GPS/GNSS delays that obviates the need for any time consuming, tedious, and/or manual workarounds. In one or more examples, using the GPS/GNSS system combined with RTK functionality also facilitates guidance during marshaling in the case where the system temporarily may lose track of the vehicle. In this case, the vehicle can be re-onboarded, and in-place, quickly with the vehicle’s precise location. As a result of onboarding and/or re-onboarding the vehicle using one or more examples described herein, less operator interaction, fewer manual interventions, and/or less restrictions on how the vehicle is introduced to the system and/or where the vehicle can be instructed to move are needed.”
In light of this paragraph, “onboarding” will be interpreted as shorthand for the claimed method wherein a network connection is established and a corrected/validated location of a vehicle is determined and transmitted utilizing the secure network.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. US 20130116908 A1 (hereinafter Oh) and Gonzalez et al. US 20190051015 A1 (hereinafter Gonzalez).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Oh teaches a marshaling system for guiding an autonomously operated vehicle (paragraph 0044 "autonomous platooning vehicles"), the marshaling system comprising:
a positioning system configured to communicate with a base station and the vehicle (Abstract discloses GPS communicates with both vehicle and base station);
the base station (Abstract “base station”) configured to:
in response to the vehicle being within range of the base station, onboard the vehicle to the marshaling system based on the secure data connection (paragraph 0010 discloses performing onboarding with a vehicle connected to a mobile base station, i.e. within range, through V2X communication);
transmit location information to the vehicle from a positioning system (Abstract discloses that a base station transmits DGPS correction data to the vehicle; examiner considers DGPS correction data applicable to both location information and positioning related-corrections),
transmit one or more positioning-related corrections to the vehicle from a base station (Abstract discloses that a base station determines DGPS correction data and transmits it to the vehicle), and
cause, based on the location information and the one or more positioning-related corrections (Figure 2B ST24 shows performing traveling control based on received DGPS corrective data ST21 and received GPS information ST22), a current position of the vehicle (Abstract discloses vehicle speed is corrected; paragraphs 0042-0043 detail an example of correcting vehicle speed to adjust relative position between vehicles which examiner considers equivalent to correcting current vehicle position), an orientation of the vehicle (Abstract discloses vehicle direction is corrected), or a combination thereof to be adjusted (Abstract); and
the vehicle configured to:
receive the location information (Abstract discloses vehicle receives GPS data),
receive the one or more positioning-related corrections (Abstract discloses vehicle receives DGPS data), and
adjust the current position (Abstract discloses vehicle adjusts its speed; paragraphs 0042-0043 detail an example of correcting vehicle speed to adjust relative position between vehicles which examiner considers equivalent to correcting current vehicle position) and the orientation of the vehicle (Abstract discloses vehicle adjusts its direction).
Oh does not explicitly teach identifying a vehicle to onboard to the marshaling system for marshaling and establish a secure data connection between the vehicle and the marshaling system at a predetermined location so that the vehicle can act upon marshaling commands issued by the marshaling system. Although it may be implied that a vehicle is identified since a target vehicle needs to have been identified/selected/detected/etc. in order to perform the onboarding process detailed above, and although it may further be implied that a data connection is established between the vehicle and the marshaling system since a connection to the system is required to perform the vehicle location management method, for completeness of record, Gonzalez will be used to teach these limitations.
Gonzalez teaches identifying a vehicle to onboard to the marshaling system for marshaling (paragraph 0045-0046 discloses identifying vehicles to form a platoon; examiner understands platooning as a type of marshaling), and establishing a secure data connection between the vehicle and the marshaling system at a predetermined location (paragraph 0020 discloses that communication for vehicle management can be implemented via a private, i.e. secure, network such as a cellular network; paragraph 0048 discloses establishing a communication link between vehicles that are within a close proximity) so that the vehicle can act upon marshaling commands issued by the marshaling system (paragraph 0048 discloses, following formation of the platoon, the vehicle follows platoon commands).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Oh to incorporate the teachings of Gonzalez such that identified vehicles can have a secure V2X connection be established between vehicles (or as used in Oh, between a vehicle and another vehicle referred to as a mobile base station) when they are within a proximity of each other as taught by Gonzalez wherein the vehicle can be provided with corrected positioning data from the base station and incorporated into a platoon as taught by Oh. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow greater flexibility in platoon length by identifying new members to be onboarded, improve security of the platoon by utilizing a secure connection, and save processing time by only establishing connections with proximate vehicles.
Claim(s) 4, 6, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as modified by Gonzalez as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of DeCabooter et al. US 8884821 B2 (hereinafter DeCabooter).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, the modified Oh reference teaches all of claim 1 and 15 as detailed above.
Oh does not teach re-onboarding, based on a disruption of the secure data connection and a positioning system associated with the base station, the vehicle.
DeCabooter teaches re-onboarding, based on a disruption of the secure data connection and a positioning system associated with the base station, the vehicle (column 8 lines 5-54 discloses a method for providing a vehicle with location data after jamming has occurred between a base station and a vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Oh to incorporate the teachings of DeCabooter such that upon jamming occurring between the vehicle and base station of Oh, the method of DeCabooter can be performed. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure that a correct location can be associated with the vehicle even during malicious attacks.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Oh reference teaches all of claim 1 as detailed above.
Oh does not teach that the one or more positioning-related corrections are based on a disruption of a secure data connection with the vehicle.
DeCabooter teaches that the one or more positioning-related corrections are based on a disruption of a secure data connection with the vehicle (column 8 lines 5-54 discloses providing a vehicle with location data after jamming has occurred between a base station and a vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Oh to incorporate the teachings of DeCabooter such that upon jamming occurring between the vehicle and base station of Oh, the method of DeCabooter can be performed. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure that a correct location can be associated with the vehicle even during malicious attacks.
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as modified by Gonzalez as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Ghosh et al. US 11,984,034 B2 (hereinafter Ghosh).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, the modified Oh reference teaches all of claims 1 and 15 as detailed above. Oh further teaches that the positioning system is at least one of a global positioning system (Abstract "GPS"), a global navigation satellite system, a differential global positioning system (Abstract "DGPS"), or a combination thereof.
Oh does not explicitly teach validating, based on identifying the vehicle and the positioning system, the current position of the vehicle.
Ghosh teaches validating, based on identifying the vehicle and the positioning system, the current position of the vehicle (Figure 7 discloses verifying a vehicle position 710 based on wireless positioning signals of a vehicle 702 and characteristics thereof 704-708; examiner understands the vehicle has to be identified/detected to perform this method).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Oh to incorporate the teachings of Ghosh such that the location information of Oh can be independently validated as taught by Ghosh. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent malicious GPS spoofing that would destabilize a vehicle formation or trajectory as disclosed in Ghosh (column 10 lines 1-22).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as modified by Gonzalez and DeCabooter as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang US 20220390613 A1 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Oh reference teaches all of claim 6 as detailed above.
Oh does not teach that the one or more positioning-related corrections include real-time kinematic corrections and are at least one of a correction of a delay in the secure data connection, a clock error, or a combination thereof.
Wang teaches that the one or more positioning-related corrections include real-time kinematic corrections (paragraph 0074 discloses using RTK positioning for transmitted position correction data) and are a correction of a clock error (paragraph 0076 discloses due to reception of positioning correction data from a base station, clock error can be removed).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Oh to incorporate the teachings of Wang such that the location data of DeCabooter can also include RTK positioning data and be utilized to remove clock error as taught by Wang. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve precision of positioning to centimeter level precision as disclosed in Wang (paragraph 0073).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as modified by Gonzalez as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of DeCabooter and Wang.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Oh reference teaches all of claim 15 as detailed above. Claim 20 is a mere combination of the disclosed limitations of claims 6 and 7 and therefore the same grounds of rejection apply.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments filed 2/17/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the claim objections for claims 4 and 6 of record detailed in the Office Action dated 12/2/2025. These/this objections have been withdrawn have/has been withdrawn. Examiner notes that in remarks filed 2/17/2026, see page 10, the applicant indicates that claim 15 was amended to overcome further claim objections; however, the real claim amendments do not reflect this assertion and therefore these objections are maintained.
Specification amendments filed 2/17/2026 have been received and fully considered and overcome the drawing objections of record detailed in the Office Action dated 12/5/2025. These/this objections have/has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-13, applicant argues that Gonzalez does not teach onboarding a vehicle to a marshaling system. Examiner respectfully asserts that the marshalling system is generically claimed, only containing a positioning system. Since successful platooning necessarily requires utilization of positioning data in one form or another, identifying vehicles to establish a connection between to form a platoon reasonably covers establishing a connection between a vehicle and marshalling system provided one the identified vehicle receives positioning data from the other vehicle which is distinctly the case is Oh (wherein one vehicle is a mobile base station for the other providing positional correction data) and Gonzalez (wherein uniform vehicle movement is performed utilizing a secure connection). Even if Gonzalez alone is considered insufficient to indicate a vehicle connected to the identified vehicle is part of the marshaling system, since Gonzalez is used in combination with Oh, it is clear this limitation in totality is taught.
On pages 11-14, applicant further argues that Gonzalez is not satisfactory for teaching “establishing a secure data connection between the vehicle and the vehicle marshaling system at a predetermined location” since Gonzalez teaches a proximity between vehicles rather than a static location. While examiner agrees that a proximity may be a dynamic location due to its relative nature, examiner emphasizes that the claim language does not explicitly limit the predetermined location to a non-relative location as was previously recommended in the interview performed 1/27/2026. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, relative locations such as a proximity satisfy this limitation.
On pages 12-13, applicant further argues that Gonzalez does not teach “in response to the vehicle being within range of a base station, onboarding the vehicle to the vehicle marshaling system based on the secure data connection”. Examiner agrees with this assertion which is why Oh was previously utilized to teach this limitation when it was part of the now cancelled claim 3. Applicant fails to articulate arguments against Oh regarding this limitation. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On pages 13-14, applicant argues against utilization of Nakano for now cancelled claim 2. While most of the arguments are moot due to the new ground of rejection not relying on Nakano, applicant’s argument regarding a base station not being a marshaling system is still applicable and will be addressed. Applicant argues that the claims recite “establishing a secure data connection between the vehicle and the vehicle marshaling system”, not between a vehicle a base station. As detailed above, the marshaling system is generically recites, only containing a positioning system. As the base station of Oh utilizes a positioning system to provide updated positioning information to a vehicle, a connection between the base station and vehicle adequately covers a connection between a positioning system and vehicle wherein the base station acts as an intermediary. Furthermore, claim 15, as worded, may be interpreted as the base station being comprised within the marshalling system, further emphasizing how a connection to a base station may adequately teach a connection to a marshalling system. Examiner understands this interpretation may not be intended, which is why the above arguments were also provided.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
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 Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669