DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/09/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The list of claims 1-30 is pending. In the claim set filed 05/08/2026 and requested for examination in the RCE filed 06/09/2026:
Claim(s) 1, 25, 29 and 30 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the instant application.
Claim(s) 1, 25, 29 and 30 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5-8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19-21, 23 and 24 has/have been indicated as previously presented.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 15, 18, 22 and 26-28 has/have been indicated as originally presented.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination(RCE) filed on 06/09/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered, and have been found persuasive. Therefore, the rejections(s) of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15, 17-19 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15, 17-19 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has/have been withdrawn.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the Non-Final Office Action below.
Non-Final Rejection
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations, which implement “means for” claim construction that the Examiner has interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are as follows: “means for identifying a set of non-malicious vehicles,” “means for transmitting a request message to the set of non-malicious vehicles,” “means for receiving an acceptance message from at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles” and “and means for configuring a platoon with the at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles” in claim 29.
With respect to the “means for identifying” and “means for configuring,” The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s specification in interpreting the claim limitations presented above. In particular, the Examiner points to paragraph 0131 and Fig. 3 of the Applicant’s specification, which states: “The component 198 may be one or more hardware components specifically configured to carry out the stated processes/algorithm, implemented by one or more processors configured to perform the stated processes/algorithm, stored within a computer-readable medium for implementation by one or more processors, or some combination thereof.”
As a result, the Examiner has interpreted the “means for identifying” and “means for configuring,” limitations presented above as using structure in the form of a combination of hardware and software elements, such as but not necessarily limited to a processor, for example.
With respect to the “means for transmitting” and “means for receiving,” The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s specification in interpreting the claim limitations presented above. In particular, the Examiner points to paragraph 0025 of the Applicant’s specification, which states: “For example, transmission and reception of wireless signals necessarily includes a number of components for analog and digital purposes (e.g., hardware components including antenna, RF-chains, power amplifiers, modulators, buffer, processor(s), interleaver, adders/summers, etc.). Techniques described herein may be practiced in a wide variety of devices, chip-level components, systems, distributed arrangements, aggregated or disaggregated components, end-user devices, etc. of varying sizes, shapes, and constitution.”
As a result, the Examiner has interpreted the “means for transmitting” and “means for receiving,” limitations presented above as using structure in the form of a combination of a hardware component, such as but not necessarily limited to an antenna, and for example.
Claim Objections/Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-7, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20, 22 and 26-28 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 13, 23-25, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAO et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0134159 A1) in view of CALMETTES et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0269845 A1) and Behringer et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0311871 A1), referenced as Cao, Calmettes and Behringer, respectively, moving forward.
With respect to claim 1, Cao discloses:
“An apparatus for platoon formation at a first vehicle, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor is configured to: identify a set of non-malicious vehicles based on at least one of data associated with the set of non-malicious vehicles or communication from a second vehicle or a road side unit (RSU)” [Cao; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cao discloses a second user equipment (UE) identifying a vehicle group to join based on an announcement message (denoted 408 in Fig. 4) from a head UE (denoted 406 in Fig. 4). Cao further discloses the disclosed UE's operate using one or processors and memory (Fig. 11). In view of at least the above, the Examiner has interpreted the disclosed second UE as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "first vehicle," the disclosed first UE as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "second vehicle," and the disclosed announcement message as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "data associated with the set of non-malicious vehicles;" Fig. 4, 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0067, 0126-0130];
“transmit a request message to the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Cao; "the UE may send a request message 414 as a joining application/request to the head UE 406 to join the platooning group 401;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0066; See also: Fig. 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0065, 0067];
“receive an acceptance message from at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Cao; "Upon receiving the request message 414, the head UE 406 may determine (at 416) whether to allow the UE 410 to join the group 401 or deny the request;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0067;
"For example, in one configuration, the head UE 406 may send an ACK in a response message 418 as a confirmation/approval for the U 410 to join the platoon 401;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0067; See also: Fig. 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0066];
“and configure a platoon with the at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Cao; "the third message comprising an ACK may be considered a confirmation (e.g., from the group head) that the first UE is permitted to join the group. Having received a confirmation to join, next at 938 the first UE may join the group and may become a member of the platooning group;" Fig. 9B; ¶: 0112; See also: ¶: 0107-0111].
Cao does not specifically state:
“wherein the acceptance message comprises a verifiable digitally signed vote;”
“and control the first vehicle to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon.”
Calmettes, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for vehicle platooning, teaches: “wherein the acceptance message comprises a verifiable digitally signed vote” [Calmettes; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Calmettes teaches allowing one or more vehicles traveling in a convoy to vote to accept or reject another vehicle requesting to join the convoy. Calmettes further teaches that communication between vehicles comprises use of security certificates in order to prove authenticity of the communication, wherein the disclosed security certificates, which are included in the vehicle voting process, that are verified to determine their authenticity have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "verifiable digitally signed vote;" ¶: 0061-0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon as disclosed by Cao to incorporate the teachings regarding considering a vote from all vehicles operating in a platoon before allowing a prospective vehicle to join or leave the platoon, based on a plurality of parameters such as the sensor capabilities of the prospective joining vehicle as taught by Calmettes with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon that is more robust in its ability to potentially accommodate vehicles that do not possess all of the ideal instruments, based on the result of a vote in which all of the vehicles may consider the instrumentation available in the requesting vehicle [Calmettes; ¶: 0060-0062].
Behringer, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for vehicle platooning, teaches: “and control the first vehicle to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon” [Behringer; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Behringer teaches controlling the speed of a vehicle joining a platoon, referred to as vehicle EGO, to match the speed of vehicles 1, 2, 3 and 4 already traveling in the platoon, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "average speed associated with the platoon" as well as to adjust a distance of vehicle EGO d0,ego to a distance needed to join the platoon, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon;" Fig. 1, 2; ¶: 0059-0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon as disclosed by Cao to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a vehicle that is joining a platoon to match the speed and appropriate following distances of current members of the platoon as taught by Behringer with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon that is more robust in its ability to determine at least one control profile portion for a vehicle based on time optimal, wear optimal and/or energy optimal aspects [Behringer; ¶: 0025-0029].
With respect to claim 8, Cao discloses: “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from the RSU, information regarding at least one of: a platoon leader associated with the platoon, a platoon formation lane associated with the platoon, an average speed associated with the platoon, an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon, or a platoon identifier (ID) associated with the platoon” [Cao; "Although beamformed signals are illustrated between UE 104 and base station 102/180, aspects of beamforming may similarly may be applied by UE 104 or RSU 107 to communicate with another UE 104 or RSU 107, such as based on V2X, V2V, or D2D communication;" Fig. 1A; ¶: 0036;
"The public message portion may comprise basic information (e.g., such as group identifier (ID), speed, direction etc.) that may be needed for other devices to be aware of the presence of the platooning group;" ¶:0060;].
With respect to claim 9, Cao discloses: “wherein the request message is a maneuver sharing and coordination message (MSCM) request comprising information regarding at least one of: a platoon leader associated with the platoon, a platoon formation lane associated with the platoon, an average speed associated with the platoon, an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon, or a platoon identifier (ID) associated with the platoon, and wherein the acceptance message is a MSCM response” [Cao; "Furthermore, the UE 410 may determine (at 412) whether the UE 410 wants to join the private platoon 401. Again, assuming for discussion purposes that the UE 410 determines to join the private platoon 401 (e.g., based on a UE setting, configuration, and/or user selection), the UE may send a request message 414 as a joining application/request to the head UE 406 to join the platooning group 401. In some configurations, the request message 414 may include, for example, vehicle information such as speed, direction, traveling route of the UE 410, and other information such as group ID of the group 401 that the UE 410 requests to join, and optionally the private ID/key;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0066;
"Upon receiving the request message 414, the head UE 406 may determine (at 416) whether to allow the UE 410 to join the group 401 or deny the request. In some configurations, the head UE 406 may determine to allow or deny joining of the UE 410 based on the information in the request message 414 and/or other information regarding the UE 410 known to the group head 406. Based on the determination, in some configurations, the head UE 406 may provide (implicitly or explicitly) a response to the UE 410 indicating an approval or denial to join the group 401. For example, in one configuration, the head UE 406 may send an ACK in a response message 418 as a confirmation/approval for the U 410 to join the platoon 401. In one configuration, if an ACK, is not received from the head UE 406 in response to the request message 414, this may be considered as an implicit indication of a denial to join the group 401. In various configurations, an ACK (approval) or a NACK (denial) may be transmitted as a broadcast, multicast, or as a unidirectional message;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0067; See also: Fig. 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0065].
With respect to claim 13, Cao discloses: “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from at least one other vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles, a denial message indicating a lack of joining the platoon” [Cao; Upon receiving the request message 414, the head UE 406 may determine (at 416) whether to allow the UE 410 to join the group 401 or deny the request. In some configurations, the head UE 406 may determine to allow or deny joining of the UE 410 based on the information in the request message 414 and/or other information regarding the UE 410 known to the group head 406. Based on the determination, in some configurations, the head UE 406 may provide (implicitly or explicitly) a response to the UE 410 indicating an approval or denial to join the group 401. For example, in one configuration, the head UE 406 may send an ACK in a response message 418 as a confirmation/approval for the U 410 to join the platoon 401. In one configuration, if an ACK, is not received from the head UE 406 in response to the request message 414, this may be considered as an implicit indication of a denial to join the group 401. In various configurations, an ACK (approval) or a NACK (denial) may be transmitted as a broadcast, multicast, or as a unidirectional message; Fig. 4; ¶: 0067; See also: Fig. 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0066].
With respect to claim 23, Cao discloses: “wherein to configure the platoon, the at least one processor is configured to: register a cryptographic certificate associated with the at least one vehicle; and configure a communication key for the platoon” [Cao; "The private portion 604 of the announcement message 600 may include private information regarding the group including, for example, member IDs corresponding to one or more members, a number of group members, traveling routes, inter-vehicle distance information (e.g., distance between adjacent members), individual vehicle control information (e.g., proposed speed for each group member, position, proposed transmission power for each group member), etc., as illustrated by box 608. As discussed earlier, the private portion 604 may be decoded by the allowed set of UEs that may include members of the private platooning group and one or more UEs that may be allowed to join the private platoon and may have secure information (e.g., such as a private ID or key) corresponding to the private group. The UEs possessing the private ID/key for the private platooning group may descramble the private information in the private portion 604 using the private/key. In some configurations, the private ID/key may be preconfigured in the allowed set of UEs, or distributed by a network node (e.g., base station 180/310 or another node) via scheduling, or sent to the allowed set of UEs via application layer messaging;" Fig. 6A & 6B; ¶: 0077].
With respect to claim 24, Cao discloses: “further comprising at least one of a transceiver or an antenna coupled to the at least one processor, wherein to transmit the request message, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit the request message via at least one of the transceiver or the antenna” [Cao; "The processing system 1114 may be coupled to a transceiver 1110. The transceiver 1110 is coupled to one or more antennas 1120. The transceiver 1110 provides a means for communicating with various other apparatus over a transmission medium;" Fig. 11; ¶: 0127].
With respect to claim 25, Cao discloses:
“A method for platoon formation performed by a first vehicle, comprising: identifying a set of non-malicious vehicles based on at least one of data associated with the set of non-malicious vehicles or communication from a second vehicle or a road side unit (RSU)” [Cao; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cao discloses a second user equipment (UE) identifying a vehicle group to join based on an announcement message (denoted 408 in Fig. 4) from a head UE (denoted 406 in Fig. 4). In view of at least the above, the Examiner has interpreted the disclosed second UE as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "first vehicle," the disclosed first UE as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "second vehicle," and the disclosed announcement message as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "data associated with the set of non-malicious vehicles;" Fig. 4, 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0067];
“transmitting a request message to the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Cao; "the UE may send a request message 414 as a joining application/request to the head UE 406 to join the platooning group 401;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0066; See also: Fig. 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0065, 0067];
“receiving an acceptance message from at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Cao; "Upon receiving the request message 414, the head UE 406 may determine (at 416) whether to allow the UE 410 to join the group 401 or deny the request;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0067;
"For example, in one configuration, the head UE 406 may send an ACK in a response message 418 as a confirmation/approval for the U 410 to join the platoon 401;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0067; See also: Fig. 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0066];
“and configuring a platoon with the at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Cao; "the third message comprising an ACK may be considered a confirmation (e.g., from the group head) that the first UE is permitted to join the group. Having received a confirmation to join, next at 938 the first UE may join the group and may become a member of the platooning group;" Fig. 9B; ¶: 0112; See also: ¶: 0107-0111].
Cao does not specifically state:
“wherein the acceptance message comprises a verifiable digitally signed vote;”
“and controlling the first vehicle to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon.”
Calmettes teaches: “wherein the acceptance message comprises a verifiable digitally signed vote” [Calmettes; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Calmettes teaches allowing one or more vehicles traveling in a convoy to vote to accept or reject another vehicle requesting to join the convoy. Calmettes further teaches that communication between vehicles comprises use of security certificates in order to prove authenticity of the communication, wherein the disclosed security certificates, which are included in the vehicle voting process, that are verified to determine their authenticity have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "verifiable digitally signed vote;" ¶: 0061-0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon as disclosed by Cao to incorporate the teachings regarding considering a vote from all vehicles operating in a platoon before allowing a prospective vehicle to join or leave the platoon, based on a plurality of parameters such as the sensor capabilities of the prospective joining vehicle as taught by Calmettes with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon that is more robust in its ability to potentially accommodate vehicles that do not possess all of the ideal instruments, based on the result of a vote in which all of the vehicles may consider the instrumentation available in the requesting vehicle [Calmettes; ¶: 0060-0062].
Behringer teaches: “and controlling the first vehicle to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon” [Behringer; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Behringer teaches controlling the speed of a vehicle joining a platoon, referred to as vehicle EGO, to match the speed of vehicles 1, 2, 3 and 4 already traveling in the platoon, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "average speed associated with the platoon" as well as to adjust a distance of vehicle EGO d0,ego to a distance needed to join the platoon, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon;" Fig. 1, 2; ¶: 0059-0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon as disclosed by Cao to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a vehicle that is joining a platoon to match the speed and appropriate following distances of current members of the platoon as taught by Behringer with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon that is more robust in its ability to determine at least one control profile portion for a vehicle based on time optimal, wear optimal and/or energy optimal aspects [Behringer; ¶: 0025-0029].
With respect to claim 29, Cao discloses:
“An apparatus for platoon formation at a first vehicle, comprising: means for identifying a set of non-malicious vehicles based on at least one of data associated with the set of non-malicious vehicles or communication from a second vehicle or a road side unit (RSU)” [Cao; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cao discloses a second user equipment (UE) identifying a vehicle group to join based on an announcement message (denoted 408 in Fig. 4) from a head UE (denoted 406 in Fig. 4). In view of at least the above, the Examiner has interpreted the disclosed second UE as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "first vehicle," the disclosed first UE as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "second vehicle," and the disclosed announcement message as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "data associated with the set of non-malicious vehicles;" Fig. 4, 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0067];
“means for transmitting a request message to the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Cao; "the UE may send a request message 414 as a joining application/request to the head UE 406 to join the platooning group 401;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0066; See also: Fig. 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0065, 0067];
“means for receiving an acceptance message from at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Cao; "Upon receiving the request message 414, the head UE 406 may determine (at 416) whether to allow the UE 410 to join the group 401 or deny the request;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0067;
"For example, in one configuration, the head UE 406 may send an ACK in a response message 418 as a confirmation/approval for the U 410 to join the platoon 401;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0067; See also: Fig. 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0066];
“and means for configuring a platoon with the at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Cao; "the third message comprising an ACK may be considered a confirmation (e.g., from the group head) that the first UE is permitted to join the group. Having received a confirmation to join, next at 938 the first UE may join the group and may become a member of the platooning group;" Fig. 9B; ¶: 0112; See also: ¶: 0107-0111].
Cao does not specifically state:
“wherein the acceptance message comprises a verifiable digitally signed vote;”
“and controlling the first vehicle to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon.”
Calmettes teaches: “wherein the acceptance message comprises a verifiable digitally signed vote” [Calmettes; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Calmettes teaches allowing one or more vehicles traveling in a convoy to vote to accept or reject another vehicle requesting to join the convoy. Calmettes further teaches that communication between vehicles comprises use of security certificates in order to prove authenticity of the communication, wherein the disclosed security certificates, which are included in the vehicle voting process, that are verified to determine their authenticity have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "verifiable digitally signed vote;" ¶: 0061-0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon as disclosed by Cao to incorporate the teachings regarding considering a vote from all vehicles operating in a platoon before allowing a prospective vehicle to join or leave the platoon, based on a plurality of parameters such as the sensor capabilities of the prospective joining vehicle as taught by Calmettes with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon that is more robust in its ability to potentially accommodate vehicles that do not possess all of the ideal instruments, based on the result of a vote in which all of the vehicles may consider the instrumentation available in the requesting vehicle [Calmettes; ¶: 0060-0062].
Behringer teaches: “and controlling the first vehicle to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon” [Behringer; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Behringer teaches controlling the speed of a vehicle joining a platoon, referred to as vehicle EGO, to match the speed of vehicles 1, 2, 3 and 4 already traveling in the platoon, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "average speed associated with the platoon" as well as to adjust a distance of vehicle EGO d0,ego to a distance needed to join the platoon, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon;" Fig. 1, 2; ¶: 0059-0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon as disclosed by Cao to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a vehicle that is joining a platoon to match the speed and appropriate following distances of current members of the platoon as taught by Behringer with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon that is more robust in its ability to determine at least one control profile portion for a vehicle based on time optimal, wear optimal and/or energy optimal aspects [Behringer; ¶: 0025-0029].
With respect to claim 30, Cao discloses:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer executable code, the code when executed by at least one processor causes the at least one processor to: identify a set of non-malicious vehicles based on at least one of data associated with the set of non-malicious vehicles or communication from a second vehicle or a road side unit (RSU)” [Cao; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cao discloses a second user equipment (UE) identifying a vehicle group to join based on an announcement message (denoted 408 in Fig. 4) from a head UE (denoted 406 in Fig. 4). Cao further discloses the disclosed UE's operate using a non-transitory computer readable medium(¶:0155). In view of at least the above, the Examiner has interpreted the disclosed second UE as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "first vehicle," the disclosed first UE as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "second vehicle," and the disclosed announcement message as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "data associated with the set of non-malicious vehicles;" See also: Fig. 4, 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0067];
“transmit a request message to the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Cao; "the UE may send a request message 414 as a joining application/request to the head UE 406 to join the platooning group 401;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0066; See also: Fig. 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0065, 0067];
“receive an acceptance message from at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Cao; "Upon receiving the request message 414, the head UE 406 may determine (at 416) whether to allow the UE 410 to join the group 401 or deny the request;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0067;
"For example, in one configuration, the head UE 406 may send an ACK in a response message 418 as a confirmation/approval for the U 410 to join the platoon 401;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0067; See also: Fig. 5A, 5B, 11; ¶: 0062-0066];
“and configure a platoon with the at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Cao; "the third message comprising an ACK may be considered a confirmation (e.g., from the group head) that the first UE is permitted to join the group. Having received a confirmation to join, next at 938 the first UE may join the group and may become a member of the platooning group;" Fig. 9B; ¶: 0112; See also: ¶: 0107-0111].
Cao does not specifically state:
“wherein the acceptance message comprises a verifiable digitally signed vote;”
“and control a first vehicle to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon.”
Calmettes teaches: “wherein the acceptance message comprises a verifiable digitally signed vote” [Calmettes; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Calmettes teaches allowing one or more vehicles traveling in a convoy to vote to accept or reject another vehicle requesting to join the convoy. Calmettes further teaches that communication between vehicles comprises use of security certificates in order to prove authenticity of the communication, wherein the disclosed security certificates, which are included in the vehicle voting process, that are verified to determine their authenticity have been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "verifiable digitally signed vote;" ¶: 0061-0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon as disclosed by Cao to incorporate the teachings regarding considering a vote from all vehicles operating in a platoon before allowing a prospective vehicle to join or leave the platoon, based on a plurality of parameters such as the sensor capabilities of the prospective joining vehicle as taught by Calmettes with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon that is more robust in its ability to potentially accommodate vehicles that do not possess all of the ideal instruments, based on the result of a vote in which all of the vehicles may consider the instrumentation available in the requesting vehicle [Calmettes; ¶: 0060-0062].
Behringer teaches: “and control a first vehicle to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon” [Behringer; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Behringer teaches controlling the speed of a vehicle joining a platoon, referred to as vehicle EGO, to match the speed of vehicles 1, 2, 3 and 4 already traveling in the platoon, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "average speed associated with the platoon" as well as to adjust a distance of vehicle EGO d0,ego to a distance needed to join the platoon, which has been interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon;" Fig. 1, 2; ¶: 0059-0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon as disclosed by Cao to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling a vehicle that is joining a platoon to match the speed and appropriate following distances of current members of the platoon as taught by Behringer with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon that is more robust in its ability to determine at least one control profile portion for a vehicle based on time optimal, wear optimal and/or energy optimal aspects [Behringer; ¶: 0025-0029].
Claim(s) 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao in view of Calmettes, Behringer and Kwak (United States Patent Publication 2022/0284818 A1), referenced as Kwak moving forward.
With respect to claim 17, Cao does not specifically state:
“wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from one particular vehicle in the platoon, a second request message to depart from the platoon; transmit, to one or more other vehicles in the platoon, a third request message comprising information regarding the second request message to depart from the platoon;”
“and receive, from each of the one or more other vehicles in the platoon, a second response message indicating agreement or disagreement with the second request message to depart from the platoon.”
Kwak, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for vehicle platooning, teaches: “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from one particular vehicle in the platoon, a second request message to depart from the platoon; transmit, to one or more other vehicles in the platoon, a third request message comprising information regarding the second request message to depart from the platoon” [Kwak; "When a PM leaves a PG, the PM may generate a leave notification message and transmit the generated leave message to a PL of the PG to which it belongs. The PM may receive a response message in response to the leave notification message from the PL. The PM may terminate a platooning state, perform discovery for discovering a new PG, or disable the platooning state on the basis of reception of the response message;" ¶: 0220].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon as disclosed by Cao to incorporate the teachings regarding as taught by Kwak with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon that is more robust in its ability to manage “formation of a group of arbitrary vehicles, joining a group, leaving a group, merging between groups,” which was a problem known in the art [Kwak; ¶: 0399].
Calmettes teaches: “and receive, from each of the one or more other vehicles in the platoon, a second response message indicating agreement or disagreement with the second request message to depart from the platoon” [Calmettes; "In one development, a vehicle is authorized to join or leave the convoy of vehicles.
The authorization to join or leave the convoy can comprise different sub-steps. For example, initially, the requesting vehicle can—for example and optionally—be authenticated (exchange of security certificates for example) with one or more vehicles of the convoy, which can vote to accept or reject the requesting vehicle. The criteria used can comprise taking into account the instrumentation available in the requesting vehicle (in itself or according to an overview of the system, that is to say according to what the requesting vehicle brings in terms of instrumentation);" ¶: 0061, 0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon as disclosed by Cao to incorporate the teachings regarding considering a vote from all vehicles operating in a platoon before allowing a prospective vehicle to join or leave the platoon, based on a plurality of parameters such as the sensor capabilities of the prospective joining vehicle as taught by Calmettes with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon that is more robust in its ability to potentially accommodate vehicles that do not possess all of the ideal instruments, based on the result of a vote in which all of the vehicles may consider the instrumentation available in the requesting vehicle [Calmettes; ¶: 0060-0062].
With respect to claim 21, Cao does not specifically state: “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: communicate, with the at least one vehicle, kinematics data regarding the at least one vehicle and the first vehicle to identify malicious behavior associated with the at least one vehicle or the first vehicle; and communicate, with the at least one vehicle, whether to remove a particular vehicle from the platoon based on the particular vehicle being associated with the malicious behavior.”
Kwak teaches: “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: communicate, with the at least one vehicle, kinematics data regarding the at least one vehicle and the first vehicle to identify malicious behavior associated with the at least one vehicle or the first vehicle; and communicate, with the at least one vehicle, whether to remove a particular vehicle from the platoon based on the particular vehicle being associated with the malicious behavior” [Kwak; "Here, the pre-configured separation conditions may include a case in which a communication range of the second PG merged with the first PG deviates from a communication range of the second PL PL #2, a case in which a movement route related to the first PG is planned to deviate from a movement route related to the second PG, and the like. Alternatively, the pre-configured separation conditions may include a case in which the second PL dissolves the second PG, a case in which the second PL executes a function that is not supported by the first PL (e.g., a case in which the second PL changes lanes although a Platooning with Lane Change function is not supported), a case of moving to an unwanted route (a case in which the second PL moves to a route that the first PL does not want), a case of misbehavior (a case in which the second PL does not follow a traffic signal or a speed limit), and/or a case in which connection is lost (a case in which a V2V signal of a PL can no longer be received);" ¶: 0304].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon as disclosed by Cao to incorporate the teachings regarding as taught by Kwak with a reasonable expectation of success. By combining these inventions, the outcome is a system/method for controlling vehicles operating as a platoon that is more robust in its ability to manage “formation of a group of arbitrary vehicles, joining a group, leaving a group, merging between groups,” which was a problem known in the art [Kwak; ¶: 0399].
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Burke et al. (United States Patent Publication 2014/0282093 A1) discloses: Methods and systems are provided for facilitating stops for vehicles en route to a common destination. A request is received from a first vehicle, the request pertaining to a desire to make a particular type of stop en route to a destination. Information pertaining to the request is transmitted to one or more additional vehicles that are also en route to the destination. Feedback is obtained from the first vehicle, the second vehicle, or both, as to a desired location for the stop.
OKAMOTO (United States Patent Publication 2014/0316671 A1) discloses: A platoon travel system organizes a platoon having plural platoon vehicles traveling in two vehicle groups, in which a preset inter-vehicle distance is reserved between each of the platoon vehicles. When a new vehicle joins in the platoon, the platoon travel system adjusts the inter-vehicle distance by decelerating, among all platoon vehicles, deceleration target vehicles that are the platoon vehicles behind a join position in the platoon, which are included in a latter one of the two vehicle groups.
Felip Leon et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0051158 A1) discloses: Various systems and methods for implementing intelligent traffic management for vehicle platoons are described herein. A road controller system includes A road controller system comprising: a data store to store an active traffic policy; a processor subsystem to: determine a speed or platoon size of a vehicle platoon traveling on an area controlled by the road controller system; and determine a change to the speed or platoon size of the vehicle platoon, the change based on the active traffic policy; and a transceiver to transmit a control message to the vehicle platoon to implement the change to the speed or platoon size of the vehicle platoon.
Vladimerou et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0220037 A1) discloses: The systems and methods described herein generally relate to semi-autonomous driving in a vehicular platoon. The lead vehicle initiates the platoon and identifies one or more trailing vehicle positions. Formation information is transmitted to at least one platoon-capable vehicle. A request for joining the platoon is received from the at least one platoon-capable vehicle, the request including acceptance of an agreement from the at least one platoon-capable vehicle, the agreement including lead vehicle responsibilities and trailing vehicle responsibilities. The lead vehicle then controls the platoon based on the lead vehicle responsibilities and delegates control based on the trailing vehicle responsibilities.
FEHRENBACH et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0092685 A1) discloses: The present invention concerns a novel form of communication within a cellular wireless communication network. One aspect of the invention concerns a User Equipment for a cellular network, wherein the UE inter alia includes a first interface for UE-to-Basestation communication configured to communicate with a base station of the cellular network and a second interface for UE-to-UE communication configured to communicate with one or more other UEs of a UE-Group to which the UE belongs. According to the invention the UE is configured to receive via its first interface configuration data for configuring its second interface, and to coordinate, via the second interface, a communication within the UE Group.
Mondello et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0312154 A1) discloses: Techniques for managing a platoon of autonomous vehicles. In one embodiment, a method is disclosed comprising establishing a network connection between a plurality of autonomous vehicles, the plurality of autonomous vehicles operating as a platoon; receiving a request from a first autonomous vehicle to deviate from the platoon, the request comprising a digitally signed message from the first autonomous vehicle; assigning the first autonomous vehicle as a second master autonomous vehicle; permanently recording the assignment in a blockchain data structure; instantiating a new platoon path using the first autonomous vehicle as a head of the new platoon path; and disconnecting one or more autonomous vehicles associated with the new platoon path upon determining that the new platoon path is stable, the disconnecting causing the second master autonomous vehicle to manage the one or more autonomous vehicles using a second blockchain stored on the second master autonomous vehicle.
Gundavelli et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0342766 A1) discloses: Techniques are described herein for dynamic platoon management. The techniques may include obtaining dynamic location data of a vehicle, where the dynamic location data indicates a current or predicted location of the vehicle. Based on the dynamic location data, a platoon of vehicles that is optimal for the vehicle to join may be identified. The vehicle may be dynamically joined to the platoon.
Kim (United States Patent Publication 2021/0031767 A1) discloses: A platooning controller, a vehicle system including the same, and a method thereof perform control during platooning. The platooning controller includes a processor that, when an outside vehicle cuts in a platooning line, performs platooning control depending on an intention of a user to perform the platooning control and a driving situation with the cut-in vehicle that cuts in the platooning line. The platooning controller also includes a storage that stores the result of performing the platooning control performed by the processor and information about the driving situation.
Sambale et al. (United States Patent Publication 20210192960 A1) discloses: A method is provided for operating a first on-board control unit for a first motor vehicle of a group of motor vehicles. The method includes: ascertaining a braking point in time for a time-synchronized brake application of at least a portion of the motor vehicles of the group, sending a message indicating the braking point in time in the direction of a second control unit of a second motor vehicle, selecting the ascertained braking point in time as a valid braking point in time, and initiating a brake application of the first motor vehicle only when the valid braking point in time is reached.
GYLLENHAMMAR et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0221403 A1) discloses: An apparatus and method performed by a perception comparing system of a vehicle for perception performance evaluation of an ADAS or ADS. The perception comparing system establishes communication with a secondary vehicle determined and/or estimated to be positioned within a potential range of surrounding detecting sensors on-board the vehicle. The system derives perception data from a perception system of the ADAS or ADS. The system receives secondary perception data from a secondary perception system of a secondary ADAS or ADS of the secondary vehicle and determines a discrepancy output based on comparison of at least a portion of the both of perception data and the secondary perception data. The system communicates acknowledgement data when at least a portion of the discrepancy output fulfils discrepancy exceedance criteria and/or when the vehicle is perceivable in the secondary perception data but the secondary vehicle not is locatable in the perception data.
HAGA et al. (United States Patent Publication 2023/0089171 A1) discloses: An anomaly handling method using a device installed outside of a vehicle is disclosed. The method includes receiving, from the vehicle, an anomaly detection notification, which includes level information indicating a level affecting safety, and a location of the vehicle. The method also includes obtaining a location of another vehicle and determining whether a distance between the location of the vehicle and the location of the other vehicle is within a predetermined range. When the distance is within the predetermined range and is shorter than a first predetermined distance, not changing the level information and transmitting the received anomaly detection information to the other vehicle. When the distance is within the predetermined range and is longer than or equal to the first predetermined distance, changing to decrement a level indicated by the level information, and transmitting changed anomaly detection information to the other vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMI NABIH BEDEWI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights