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.
Status of Application
The amended list of claims 1-30 is pending in this application. In the claim set filed 11/07/2025:
Claim(s) 4, 9, 15, 18, 22 and 26-28 has/have been indicated as originally presented.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19-21, 23-25, 29 and 30 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 1, 25, 29 and 30 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the application.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 11/07/2025; the Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. The Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has/have been withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered, but are not found persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “Amended independent claims 1, 25, 29, and 30 recites, among other features, "wherein the platoon and the first vehicle are configured to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon." Applicant respectfully submits that such a feature provides elements that cannot be performed in the mind and does not fall under "mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the above claim limitation does not positively recite a control step in which movement of vehicles in the platoon is being controlled to perform certain movements. Rather, due to the “configured to” language, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the above claim limitation may comprise setting a condition for movement. One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret setting a condition for movement as, patentably distinct from positively controlling vehicle movement, such that the proposed amendment does not provided elements that cannot be performed in the mind and therefore still falls under the category of a mental process.
Therefore the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has/have been maintained.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-15, 17-19, 21 and 23-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 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, 21 and 23-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 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 Final Office Action below.
Final Office Action
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 25, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) using a generic memory and processor to perform steps of: identifying a set if non-malicious vehicles, transmitting a request message to a vehicle, receiving a response message from the vehicle, and transmitting a signal to configure a platoon.
The limitations of identifying a set if non-malicious vehicles, transmitting a request message to a vehicle, receiving a response message from the vehicle, and transmitting a signal to configure a platoon, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “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,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “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,” language, in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of identifying from a known database, non-malicious vehicles and formulating a message to send them. The subsequent steps of receiving a message from the vehicle and transmitting a signal to configure a platoon amount to no more than mere data gathering(using a wireless transceiver to receive a signal from the vehicle) and transferring data(using a wireless transceiver to send a signal to the vehicle). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Examiner’s Note: With respect to the limitation reciting: “wherein the platoon and the first vehicle are configured to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon.” The nature of the claim language does not render the cited limitation a positively recited control step. Namely, the claimed invention does not positively a control step in which movement of vehicles in the platoon is being controlled to perform certain movements. Rather, due to the “configured to” language, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the above claim limitation may comprise setting a condition for movement. In view of this interpretation, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the cited limitation as a tangential action to the claimed invention and as a result constitutes Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity as defined in MPEP § 2106.05(g). As a result, this limitation is not satisfactory to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – “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,” to perform identifying a set if non-malicious vehicles, transmitting a request message to a vehicle, receiving a response message from the vehicle, and transmitting a signal to configure a platoon. The processor and memory in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of generating, transmitting, receiving and outputting data using a network) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “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,” to perform identifying a set if non-malicious vehicles, transmitting a request message to a vehicle, receiving a response message from the vehicle, and transmitting a signal to configure a platoon amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-24 and 26-28 when analyzed as a whole, is/are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional element(s), if any, in the dependent claim(s) is/are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim(s) 1, 25, 29 and 30.
Examiner’s Note: With regards to the dependent claims, in particular, claims 10 and 19, which recite “moving” the first vehicle, these limitation do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as they are still directed towards using generic sensors to receive data and transmitting a signal back to the vehicle based on evaluation of sensor data, wherein, type of signal changes based on the evaluation. However, as claimed, the invention does not comprise positive recitation of the vehicle, nor positive recitation controlling movement of the vehicle due to use of the “configured to” language. Based on this assessment, the Examiner asserts that this limitation from claims 10 and 19 as currently presented does not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
With regards, to dependent claims 16, 20 and 23, the recitations of registering or deregistering a cryptographic certificate associated with the at least one vehicle do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Examiner has interpreted the term “cryptographic certificate” as referring to a digital certificate(a type of document) that contains cryptographic information. This is based on the known definitions of the terms in the art. Therefore, based on the known definitions in the art, the Examiner has interpreted registering/deregistering the cryptographic certificate as either adding (i.e. registering) the digital document ID to a list of vehicles configured to operate in the formed platoon using pen and paper; or removing/deleting (i.e. deregistering) the digital document from the list of vehicles configured to operate in the formed platoon using pen and paper. Put another way, the limitations of registering and/or deregistering a cryptographic key may be interpreted as managing a database of vehicles that are allowed to drive in a particular platoon based on a previously generated digital document. The Examiner asserts that these limitations may be performed in the human mind or by using pen and paper, and therefore are not satisfactory to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In order to overcome the rejections under 101, the Examiner suggests amending independent claims 1, 25, 29 and 30 to positively recite a vehicle control step, for example as follows in the exemplary amendment to claim 1: “wherein the processor further controls the platoon and the first vehicle
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, 13, 21, 24, 25, 29 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak (United States Patent Publication 2022/0284818 A1) in view of Sujan et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0171227 A1), referenced as Kwak and Sujan, respectively, moving forward
With respect to claim 1, Kwak 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)” [Kwak; "Referring to FIG. 14, a first PL PL #1 for a first PG may transmit a platooning information message from a second PL PL #2 for a second PG (S51). The first PL may determine whether to merge with the second PG on the basis of the platooning information message, and upon determining that merging with the second PG will be performed, transmit a first merge request message to the second PL (S52). The first PL may receive a first merge response message from the second PL and determine whether to maintain the status of the first PL with respect to the first PG or change the status to a PM of the second PG on the basis of the received first merge response message (S53). For example, the first PL belongs to the second PG as a PM of the second PG if the first merge response message includes acceptance, whereas the first PL may maintain the PL status with respect to the first PG if the first merge response message includes rejection;" Fig. 14; ¶: 0247];
“transmit a request message to the set of non-malicious vehicles; receive an acceptance message from at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles; and configure a platoon with the at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Kwak; "The first merge response message may be transmitted only at the time of accepting the first merge request message, or may be transmitted at the time of accepting or rejecting while indicating whether to accept/reject through an additional field;" ¶: 0256;
"Thereafter, a PL and PM(s) belonging to a PG merged into a new PG update platooning group information into new PL and PG information;" ¶: 0262];
Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein the platoon and the first vehicle are configured to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon.”
Sujan, which is in the same field of invention of control systems/methods for vehicle platooning, teaches: “wherein the platoon and the first vehicle are configured to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon” [Sujan; "In some embodiments, platoons broadcast information descriptive of their characteristics (the “platoon datasets”) in sufficient detail to enable the foregoing determinations to join, form new, or separate. Exemplary information includes lead vehicle identification (e.g. license plate number or VIN), location (e.g. current GPS coordinates or road/mile indicator or triangulated position based on cell towers), heading (e.g. N/S/E/W, or compass direction to within some prescribed resolution), average current group velocity, average group mass, average group inter-vehicle separation distance, last vehicle expected distance till break-away from platoon, average propulsion power of platoon powertrains, number of vehicles in platoon, average effectiveness (e.g. average increase in fuel economy, or Cd & A of each vehicle in platoon, or Cd×A of platoon, which may be determined by the optimization controller (onboard or offboard), current route, and current health of the platoon. In addition to platoon averages, individual vehicle data may also be broadcasted. Other statistical descriptors may also be used such as minimum or maximum;" ¶: 0036].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding broadcasting information pertaining to an average platoon velocity and average inter-vehicle distance to control vehicles to join platoons based on this information accordingly as taught by Sujan 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 optimize platoon formation, joining and leaving operations in order to maximize fuel efficiency by further reducing the fuel required to form or join a platoon [Sujan; ¶: 0004, 0017, 0019, 0021].
With respect to claim 8, Kwak 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” [Kwak; "VehicleID in PlatooningJoinRequest is the ID of a request message sender, and PlatooningGroupID is the ID of a PG that the request message sender wants to join;" ¶: 0209].
With respect to claim 13, Kwak 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” [Kwak; "Referring to FIG. 14, a first PL PL #1 for a first PG may transmit a platooning information message from a second PL PL #2 for a second PG (S51). The first PL may determine whether to merge with the second PG on the basis of the platooning information message, and upon determining that merging with the second PG will be performed, transmit a first merge request message to the second PL (S52). The first PL may receive a first merge response message from the second PL and determine whether to maintain the status of the first PL with respect to the first PG or change the status to a PM of the second PG on the basis of the received first merge response message (S53). For example, the first PL belongs to the second PG as a PM of the second PG if the first merge response message includes acceptance, whereas the first PL may maintain the PL status with respect to the first PG if the first merge response message includes rejection;" Fig. 14; ¶: 0247].
With respect to claim 21, Kwak discloses: “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].
With respect to claim 24, Kwak 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” [Kwak; See one or more antennas, 108/208, and one or more transceivers, 106 and 206, disclosed at least in Fig. 38 and accompanying ¶: 0450].
With respect to claim 25, Kwak 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)” [Kwak; "Referring to FIG. 14, a first PL PL #1 for a first PG may transmit a platooning information message from a second PL PL #2 for a second PG (S51). The first PL may determine whether to merge with the second PG on the basis of the platooning information message, and upon determining that merging with the second PG will be performed, transmit a first merge request message to the second PL (S52). The first PL may receive a first merge response message from the second PL and determine whether to maintain the status of the first PL with respect to the first PG or change the status to a PM of the second PG on the basis of the received first merge response message (S53). For example, the first PL belongs to the second PG as a PM of the second PG if the first merge response message includes acceptance, whereas the first PL may maintain the PL status with respect to the first PG if the first merge response message includes rejection;" Fig. 14; ¶: 0247];
“transmitting a request message to the set of non-malicious vehicles; receiving an acceptance message from at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles; and configuring a platoon with the at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Kwak; "The first merge response message may be transmitted only at the time of accepting the first merge request message, or may be transmitted at the time of accepting or rejecting while indicating whether to accept/reject through an additional field;" ¶: 0256;
"Thereafter, a PL and PM(s) belonging to a PG merged into a new PG update platooning group information into new PL and PG information;" ¶: 0262];
Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein the platoon and the first vehicle are configured to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon.”
Sujan teaches: “wherein the platoon and the first vehicle are configured to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon” [Sujan; "In some embodiments, platoons broadcast information descriptive of their characteristics (the “platoon datasets”) in sufficient detail to enable the foregoing determinations to join, form new, or separate. Exemplary information includes lead vehicle identification (e.g. license plate number or VIN), location (e.g. current GPS coordinates or road/mile indicator or triangulated position based on cell towers), heading (e.g. N/S/E/W, or compass direction to within some prescribed resolution), average current group velocity, average group mass, average group inter-vehicle separation distance, last vehicle expected distance till break-away from platoon, average propulsion power of platoon powertrains, number of vehicles in platoon, average effectiveness (e.g. average increase in fuel economy, or Cd & A of each vehicle in platoon, or Cd×A of platoon, which may be determined by the optimization controller (onboard or offboard), current route, and current health of the platoon. In addition to platoon averages, individual vehicle data may also be broadcasted. Other statistical descriptors may also be used such as minimum or maximum;" ¶: 0036].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding broadcasting information pertaining to an average platoon velocity and average inter-vehicle distance to control vehicles to join platoons based on this information accordingly as taught by Sujan 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 optimize platoon formation, joining and leaving operations in order to maximize fuel efficiency by further reducing the fuel required to form or join a platoon [Sujan; ¶: 0004, 0017, 0019, 0021].
With respect to claim 29, Kwak 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); means for transmitting a request message to the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Kwak; "Referring to FIG. 14, a first PL PL #1 for a first PG may transmit a platooning information message from a second PL PL #2 for a second PG (S51). The first PL may determine whether to merge with the second PG on the basis of the platooning information message, and upon determining that merging with the second PG will be performed, transmit a first merge request message to the second PL (S52). The first PL may receive a first merge response message from the second PL and determine whether to maintain the status of the first PL with respect to the first PG or change the status to a PM of the second PG on the basis of the received first merge response message (S53). For example, the first PL belongs to the second PG as a PM of the second PG if the first merge response message includes acceptance, whereas the first PL may maintain the PL status with respect to the first PG if the first merge response message includes rejection;" Fig. 14; ¶: 0247];
“means for receiving an acceptance message from at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles; and means for configuring a platoon with the at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Kwak; "The first merge response message may be transmitted only at the time of accepting the first merge request message, or may be transmitted at the time of accepting or rejecting while indicating whether to accept/reject through an additional field;" ¶: 0256;
"Thereafter, a PL and PM(s) belonging to a PG merged into a new PG update platooning group information into new PL and PG information;" ¶: 0262];
Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein the platoon and the first vehicle are configured to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon.”
Sujan teaches: “wherein the platoon and the first vehicle are configured to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon” [Sujan; "In some embodiments, platoons broadcast information descriptive of their characteristics (the “platoon datasets”) in sufficient detail to enable the foregoing determinations to join, form new, or separate. Exemplary information includes lead vehicle identification (e.g. license plate number or VIN), location (e.g. current GPS coordinates or road/mile indicator or triangulated position based on cell towers), heading (e.g. N/S/E/W, or compass direction to within some prescribed resolution), average current group velocity, average group mass, average group inter-vehicle separation distance, last vehicle expected distance till break-away from platoon, average propulsion power of platoon powertrains, number of vehicles in platoon, average effectiveness (e.g. average increase in fuel economy, or Cd & A of each vehicle in platoon, or Cd×A of platoon, which may be determined by the optimization controller (onboard or offboard), current route, and current health of the platoon. In addition to platoon averages, individual vehicle data may also be broadcasted. Other statistical descriptors may also be used such as minimum or maximum;" ¶: 0036].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding broadcasting information pertaining to an average platoon velocity and average inter-vehicle distance to control vehicles to join platoons based on this information accordingly as taught by Sujan 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 optimize platoon formation, joining and leaving operations in order to maximize fuel efficiency by further reducing the fuel required to form or join a platoon [Sujan; ¶: 0004, 0017, 0019, 0021].
With respect to claim 30, Kwak 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)” [Kwak; "Referring to FIG. 14, a first PL PL #1 for a first PG may transmit a platooning information message from a second PL PL #2 for a second PG (S51). The first PL may determine whether to merge with the second PG on the basis of the platooning information message, and upon determining that merging with the second PG will be performed, transmit a first merge request message to the second PL (S52). The first PL may receive a first merge response message from the second PL and determine whether to maintain the status of the first PL with respect to the first PG or change the status to a PM of the second PG on the basis of the received first merge response message (S53). For example, the first PL belongs to the second PG as a PM of the second PG if the first merge response message includes acceptance, whereas the first PL may maintain the PL status with respect to the first PG if the first merge response message includes rejection;" Fig. 14; ¶: 0247];
“transmit a request message to the set of non-malicious vehicles; receive an acceptance message from at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles; and configure a platoon with the at least one vehicle of the set of non-malicious vehicles.” [Kwak; "The first merge response message may be transmitted only at the time of accepting the first merge request message, or may be transmitted at the time of accepting or rejecting while indicating whether to accept/reject through an additional field;" ¶: 0256;
"Thereafter, a PL and PM(s) belonging to a PG merged into a new PG update platooning group information into new PL and PG information;" ¶: 0262];
Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein the platoon and a first vehicle are configured to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon.”
Sujan teaches: “wherein the platoon and a first vehicle are configured to move based on an average speed associated with the platoon and an inter-vehicle distance associated with the platoon” [Sujan; "In some embodiments, platoons broadcast information descriptive of their characteristics (the “platoon datasets”) in sufficient detail to enable the foregoing determinations to join, form new, or separate. Exemplary information includes lead vehicle identification (e.g. license plate number or VIN), location (e.g. current GPS coordinates or road/mile indicator or triangulated position based on cell towers), heading (e.g. N/S/E/W, or compass direction to within some prescribed resolution), average current group velocity, average group mass, average group inter-vehicle separation distance, last vehicle expected distance till break-away from platoon, average propulsion power of platoon powertrains, number of vehicles in platoon, average effectiveness (e.g. average increase in fuel economy, or Cd & A of each vehicle in platoon, or Cd×A of platoon, which may be determined by the optimization controller (onboard or offboard), current route, and current health of the platoon. In addition to platoon averages, individual vehicle data may also be broadcasted. Other statistical descriptors may also be used such as minimum or maximum;" ¶: 0036].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding broadcasting information pertaining to an average platoon velocity and average inter-vehicle distance to control vehicles to join platoons based on this information accordingly as taught by Sujan 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 optimize platoon formation, joining and leaving operations in order to maximize fuel efficiency by further reducing the fuel required to form or join a platoon [Sujan; ¶: 0004, 0017, 0019, 0021].
Claim(s) 2-4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 23, 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Sujan and CAO et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0134159 A1), referenced as Cao moving forward.
With respect to claim 2, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein to identify the set of non-malicious vehicles, the at least one processor is configured to: monitor kinematics data associated with a set of vehicles including the set of non-malicious vehicles, wherein the kinematics data is associated with the set of vehicles for a period of time; and identify the set of non-malicious vehicles based on the kinematics data.”
Cao, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for vehicle control, teaches: “wherein to identify the set of non-malicious vehicles, the at least one processor is configured to: monitor kinematics data associated with a set of vehicles including the set of non-malicious vehicles, wherein the kinematics data is associated with the set of vehicles for a period of time; and identify the set of non-malicious vehicles based on the kinematics data” [Cao; "The private portion of the announcement message 408 may include private information regarding the group (e.g., such as individual group member IDs, a number of group members, traveling routes, etc.) that may be accessed by the allowed set of UEs. For example, the allowed set of UEs may include members of the group 401, and one or more UEs that may be allowed to join the platoon 401 and may have secure information (e.g., such as a private ID or key) corresponding to the platoon 401 (e.g., which may be preconfigured or previously communicated based on a relation or interest between the platoon 401 and the one or more allowed UEs). The private portion of the announcement message 408 may be generated by the head UE 400 by scrambling the private information with a private ID known to the set of allowed UEs for the platooning group 401. Thus, based on the knowledge of the private ID/key, the allowed set of UEs may decode the private portion of the announcement message 408;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0065].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding separating the request broadcast for vehicles to join the platoon into public and private portions such that particular information is encrypted within the private portion and accessible only to certain predetermined vehicles as taught by Cao 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 perform platoon forming operations while simultaneously addressing concerns such security of private information [Cao; ¶: 0060].
With respect to claim 3, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein to monitor the kinematics data, the at least one processor is configured to: monitor the kinematics data based on a set of basic safety messages or a collective perception service, wherein the communication from the second vehicle or the RSU corresponds to a basic safety message of the set of basic safety messages or a message for the collective perception service.”
Cao teaches: “wherein to monitor the kinematics data, the at least one processor is configured to: monitor the kinematics data based on a set of basic safety messages or a collective perception service, wherein the communication from the second vehicle or the RSU corresponds to a basic safety message of the set of basic safety messages or a message for the collective perception service” [Cao; "The private portion of the announcement message 408 may include private information regarding the group (e.g., such as individual group member IDs, a number of group members, traveling routes, etc.) that may be accessed by the allowed set of UEs. For example, the allowed set of UEs may include members of the group 401, and one or more UEs that may be allowed to join the platoon 401 and may have secure information (e.g., such as a private ID or key) corresponding to the platoon 401 (e.g., which may be preconfigured or previously communicated based on a relation or interest between the platoon 401 and the one or more allowed UEs). The private portion of the announcement message 408 may be generated by the head UE 400 by scrambling the private information with a private ID known to the set of allowed UEs for the platooning group 401. Thus, based on the knowledge of the private ID/key, the allowed set of UEs may decode the private portion of the announcement message 408;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0065].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding separating the request broadcast for vehicles to join the platoon into public and private portions such that particular information is encrypted within the private portion and accessible only to certain predetermined vehicles as taught by Cao 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 perform platoon forming operations while simultaneously addressing concerns such security of private information [Cao; ¶: 0060].
With respect to claim 4, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein the kinematics data comprises at least one of: a speed associated with a respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, an acceleration associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, a heading direction associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, a vehicle type associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, a set of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) coordinates associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, a vehicle identifier (ID) associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, a destination address associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, a fuel or battery status associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, or a trust level associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles.”
Cao teaches: “wherein the kinematics data comprises at least one of: a speed associated with a respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, an acceleration associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, a heading direction associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, a vehicle type associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, a set of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) coordinates associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, a vehicle identifier (ID) associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, a destination address associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, a fuel or battery status associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles, or a trust level associated with the respective vehicle of the set of vehicles” [Cao; "The private portion of the announcement message 408 may include private information regarding the group (e.g., such as individual group member IDs, a number of group members, traveling routes, etc.) that may be accessed by the allowed set of UEs. For example, the allowed set of UEs may include members of the group 401, and one or more UEs that may be allowed to join the platoon 401 and may have secure information (e.g., such as a private ID or key) corresponding to the platoon 401 (e.g., which may be preconfigured or previously communicated based on a relation or interest between the platoon 401 and the one or more allowed UEs). The private portion of the announcement message 408 may be generated by the head UE 400 by scrambling the private information with a private ID known to the set of allowed UEs for the platooning group 401. Thus, based on the knowledge of the private ID/key, the allowed set of UEs may decode the private portion of the announcement message 408;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0065].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding separating the request broadcast for vehicles to join the platoon into public and private portions such that particular information is encrypted within the private portion and accessible only to certain predetermined vehicles as taught by Cao 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 perform platoon forming operations while simultaneously addressing concerns such security of private information [Cao; ¶: 0060].
With respect to claim 7, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein to identify the set of non-malicious vehicles, the at least one processor is configured to: receive the communication from the RSU, wherein the communication comprises a request to configure the platoon and at least one of: an identifier (ID) associated with the RSU, a set of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) coordinates associated with the RSU, a set of positioning related signaling parameters, or a set of cryptographic certificates associated with the RSU or the set of non-malicious vehicles.”
Cao teaches: “wherein to identify the set of non-malicious vehicles, the at least one processor is configured to: receive the communication from the RSU, wherein the communication comprises a request to configure the platoon and at least one of: an identifier (ID) associated with the RSU, a set of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) coordinates associated with the RSU, a set of positioning related signaling parameters, or a set of cryptographic certificates associated with the RSU or the set of non-malicious vehicles” [Cao; "The private portion of the announcement message 408 may include private information regarding the group (e.g., such as individual group member IDs, a number of group members, traveling routes, etc.) that may be accessed by the allowed set of UEs. For example, the allowed set of UEs may include members of the group 401, and one or more UEs that may be allowed to join the platoon 401 and may have secure information (e.g., such as a private ID or key) corresponding to the platoon 401 (e.g., which may be preconfigured or previously communicated based on a relation or interest between the platoon 401 and the one or more allowed UEs). The private portion of the announcement message 408 may be generated by the head UE 400 by scrambling the private information with a private ID known to the set of allowed UEs for the platooning group 401. Thus, based on the knowledge of the private ID/key, the allowed set of UEs may decode the private portion of the announcement message 408;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0065].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding separating the request broadcast for vehicles to join the platoon into public and private portions such that particular information is encrypted within the private portion and accessible only to certain predetermined vehicles as taught by Cao 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 perform platoon forming operations while simultaneously addressing concerns such security of private information [Cao; ¶: 0060].
With respect to claim 9, Kwak does not specifically state: “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 teaches: “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].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding separating the request broadcast for vehicles to join the platoon into public and private portions such that particular information is encrypted within the private portion and accessible only to certain predetermined vehicles as taught by Cao 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 perform platoon forming operations while simultaneously addressing concerns such security of private information [Cao; ¶: 0060].
With respect to claim 10, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein to configure the platoon, the at least one processor is configured to: move the first vehicle to a position on the platoon formation lane; and configure a communication key for the platoon with the at least one vehicle.”
Cao teaches: “wherein to configure the platoon, the at least one processor is configured to: move the first vehicle to a position on the platoon formation lane; and configure a communication key for the platoon with the at least one vehicle” [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].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding separating the request broadcast for vehicles to join the platoon into public and private portions such that particular information is encrypted within the private portion and accessible only to certain predetermined vehicles as taught by Cao 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 perform platoon forming operations while simultaneously addressing concerns such security of private information [Cao; ¶: 0060].
With respect to claim 12, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify a second set of non-malicious vehicles; communicate, with the at least one vehicle, trust information regarding the second set of non-malicious vehicles; communicate, with the at least one vehicle, whether to invite the second set of non-malicious vehicles to the platoon; and transmit a second request message to the second set of non-malicious vehicles or refrain from transmitting the second request message to the second set of non-malicious vehicles based on whether to invite the second set of non-malicious vehicles to the platoon.”
Cao teaches: “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify a second set of non-malicious vehicles; communicate, with the at least one vehicle, trust information regarding the second set of non-malicious vehicles; communicate, with the at least one vehicle, whether to invite the second set of non-malicious vehicles to the platoon; and transmit a second request message to the second set of non-malicious vehicles or refrain from transmitting the second request message to the second set of non-malicious vehicles based on whether to invite the second set of non-malicious vehicles to the platoon” [Cao; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cao discloses a second UE vehicle sending a request to join a platoon subsequent to a first UE vehicle sending a request to join the platoon. The leading vehicle, "group head," hay then determine whether to allow the first or second vehicle to join upon receiving their respective requests. The group head may send either an approval message, an explicit denial message or an implicit indication of denial by refraining from sending an approval. The determination to approve or deny the respective first and second UE vehicles is based at least whether the first and second UE vehicle private identifiers (IDs) match the IDs approved for the platooning group. At least in view of this disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonably to interpret the disclosed "second UE vehicle" as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "at least one vehicle." The further request and response messages that are sent between the second UE vehicle and group head may be interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "second request message" and "second response message," respectively; Fig. 4, 5A & 5B; ¶: 0066-0074].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding separating the request broadcast for vehicles to join the platoon into public and private portions such that particular information is encrypted within the private portion and accessible only to certain predetermined vehicles as taught by Cao 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 perform platoon forming operations while simultaneously addressing concerns such security of private information [Cao; ¶: 0060].
With respect to claim 14, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from a third vehicle, a second request message to join the platoon; identify whether the third vehicle is malicious; communicate, with the at least one vehicle, whether to invite a second set of non-malicious vehicles to the platoon based on the identification of whether the third vehicle is malicious; and transmit a second response message to the third vehicle to allow the third vehicle to join the platoon or refrain from transmitting the second response message to the third vehicle based on the communication of whether to invite the third vehicle to the platoon.”
Cao teaches: “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from a third vehicle, a second request message to join the platoon; identify whether the third vehicle is malicious; communicate, with the at least one vehicle, whether to invite a second set of non-malicious vehicles to the platoon based on the identification of whether the third vehicle is malicious; and transmit a second response message to the third vehicle to allow the third vehicle to join the platoon or refrain from transmitting the second response message to the third vehicle based on the communication of whether to invite the third vehicle to the platoon” [Cao; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Cao discloses a second UE vehicle sending a request to join a platoon subsequent to a first UE vehicle sending a request to join the platoon. The leading vehicle, "group head," hay then determine whether to allow the first or second vehicle to join upon receiving their respective requests. The group head may send either an approval message, an explicit denial message or an implicit indication of denial by refraining from sending an approval. The determination to approve or deny the respective first and second UE vehicles is based at least whether the first and second UE vehicle private identifiers (IDs) match the IDs approved for the platooning group. At least in view of this disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonably to interpret the disclosed "second UE vehicle" as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "third vehicle." The further request and response messages that are sent between the second UE vehicle and group head may be interpreted as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited "second request message" and "second response message," respectively; Fig. 4, 5A & 5B; ¶: 0066-0074].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding separating the request broadcast for vehicles to join the platoon into public and private portions such that particular information is encrypted within the private portion and accessible only to certain predetermined vehicles as taught by Cao 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 perform platoon forming operations while simultaneously addressing concerns such security of private information [Cao; ¶: 0060].
With respect to claim 15, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein the second response message comprises a position in the platoon associated with the third vehicle and a speed associated with the platoon.”
Cao teaches: “wherein the second response message comprises a position in the platoon associated with the third vehicle and a speed associated with 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].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding separating the request broadcast for vehicles to join the platoon into public and private portions such that particular information is encrypted within the private portion and accessible only to certain predetermined vehicles as taught by Cao 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 perform platoon forming operations while simultaneously addressing concerns such security of private information [Cao; ¶: 0060].
With respect to claim 23, Kwak does not specifically state: “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 teaches: “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].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding separating the request broadcast for vehicles to join the platoon into public and private portions such that particular information is encrypted within the private portion and accessible only to certain predetermined vehicles as taught by Cao 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 perform platoon forming operations while simultaneously addressing concerns such security of private information [Cao; ¶: 0060].
With respect to claim 26, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein identifying the set of non-malicious vehicles further comprises: monitoring kinematics data associated with a set of vehicles including the set of non-malicious vehicles, wherein the kinematics data is associated with the set of vehicles for a period of time; and identifying the set of non-malicious vehicles based on the kinematics data.”
Cao teaches: “wherein identifying the set of non-malicious vehicles further comprises: monitoring kinematics data associated with a set of vehicles including the set of non-malicious vehicles, wherein the kinematics data is associated with the set of vehicles for a period of time; and identifying the set of non-malicious vehicles based on the kinematics data” [Cao; "The private portion of the announcement message 408 may include private information regarding the group (e.g., such as individual group member IDs, a number of group members, traveling routes, etc.) that may be accessed by the allowed set of UEs. For example, the allowed set of UEs may include members of the group 401, and one or more UEs that may be allowed to join the platoon 401 and may have secure information (e.g., such as a private ID or key) corresponding to the platoon 401 (e.g., which may be preconfigured or previously communicated based on a relation or interest between the platoon 401 and the one or more allowed UEs). The private portion of the announcement message 408 may be generated by the head UE 400 by scrambling the private information with a private ID known to the set of allowed UEs for the platooning group 401. Thus, based on the knowledge of the private ID/key, the allowed set of UEs may decode the private portion of the announcement message 408;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0065].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding separating the request broadcast for vehicles to join the platoon into public and private portions such that particular information is encrypted within the private portion and accessible only to certain predetermined vehicles as taught by Cao 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 perform platoon forming operations while simultaneously addressing concerns such security of private information [Cao; ¶: 0060].
With respect to claim 27, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein monitoring the kinematics data further comprises: monitoring the kinematics data based on a set of basic safety messages or a collective perception service, wherein the communication from the second vehicle or the RSU corresponds to a basic safety message of the set of basic safety messages or a message for the collective perception service.”
Cao teaches: “wherein monitoring the kinematics data further comprises: monitoring the kinematics data based on a set of basic safety messages or a collective perception service, wherein the communication from the second vehicle or the RSU corresponds to a basic safety message of the set of basic safety messages or a message for the collective perception service” [Cao; "The private portion of the announcement message 408 may include private information regarding the group (e.g., such as individual group member IDs, a number of group members, traveling routes, etc.) that may be accessed by the allowed set of UEs. For example, the allowed set of UEs may include members of the group 401, and one or more UEs that may be allowed to join the platoon 401 and may have secure information (e.g., such as a private ID or key) corresponding to the platoon 401 (e.g., which may be preconfigured or previously communicated based on a relation or interest between the platoon 401 and the one or more allowed UEs). The private portion of the announcement message 408 may be generated by the head UE 400 by scrambling the private information with a private ID known to the set of allowed UEs for the platooning group 401. Thus, based on the knowledge of the private ID/key, the allowed set of UEs may decode the private portion of the announcement message 408;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0065].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding separating the request broadcast for vehicles to join the platoon into public and private portions such that particular information is encrypted within the private portion and accessible only to certain predetermined vehicles as taught by Cao 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 perform platoon forming operations while simultaneously addressing concerns such security of private information [Cao; ¶: 0060].
Claim(s) 5, 6 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Sujan, Cao and GYLLENHAMMAR et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0221403 A1), referenced as Gyllenhammar moving forward.
With respect to claim 5, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein to identify the set of non-malicious vehicles based on the kinematics data, the at least one processor is configured to: verify the kinematics data associated with a subset of vehicles of the set of vehicles based on at least one camera, at least one light detection and ranging (Lidar) sensor, at least one radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor, or at least one vehicle to everything (V2X) sensor associated with the first vehicle, wherein the subset of vehicles is within a line of sight (LoS) of the first vehicle.”
Gyllenhammar, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for vehicle control, teaches: “wherein to identify the set of non-malicious vehicles based on the kinematics data, the at least one processor is configured to: verify the kinematics data associated with a subset of vehicles of the set of vehicles based on at least one camera, at least one light detection and ranging (Lidar) sensor, at least one radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor, or at least one vehicle to everything (V2X) sensor associated with the first vehicle, wherein the subset of vehicles is within a line of sight (LoS) of the first vehicle” [Gyllenhammar; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Gyllenhammar discloses determining potential discrepancies in vehicle perception systems by comparing the output from the respective perception systems of two vehicles in which the discrepancy is calculated based on an alignment of an overlapping region between the two perception systems. Gyllenhammar further discloses establishing communication between the vehicles when the second vehicle is within a potential range of the sensors of the ego vehicle (Fig. 5, action 1001; ¶: 0068. Gyllenhammar further discloses: "Such exemplifying sensory information may for instance be derived from one or more exemplifying surrounding detecting sensors 23 comprised in and/or provided on-board the vehicle 2. The surrounding detecting sensors 23 may be represented by any arbitrary sensors adapted to sense and/or perceive the vehicle's 2 surroundings and/or whereabouts, and may e.g., refer to one or a combination of one or more of radar, LIDAR, sonar, camera, navigation or positioning system e.g., GPS, odometer and/or inertial measurement units;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0028; See also: Fig. 3a-3c; ¶: 0047-0054].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding comparing output from multiple vehicle sensors in order to identify potential discrepancies as taught by Gyllenhammar 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 if one or more perception systems of the vehicles may be experiencing a failure impacting the output of their sensors [Gyllenhammar; ¶: 0038].
With respect to claim 6, while Kwak discloses: “wherein to verify the kinematics data associated with the subset of vehicles, the at least one processor is configured to: store the kinematics data” [Kwak; "Referring to FIG. 33, a platooning management center may be a database server that stores and manages information related to platooning (e.g., the ID of each platooning group, movement routes, final destinations, vehicle IDs of PLs, etc.), and a platooning generation message may be a message exchanged for platooning group generation;" Fig. 33; ¶: 0400; See also: ¶: 0467], Kwak does not specifically state: “generate second kinematics data associated with the subset of vehicles for a second period of time based on the at least one camera, the at least one Lidar sensor, the at least one radar sensor, or the at least one V2X sensor; and compare the kinematics data with the second kinematics data to verify the kinematics data associated with the subset of vehicles in an overlapping portion of the period of time and the second period of time.”
Gyllenhammar teaches: “generate second kinematics data associated with the subset of vehicles for a second period of time based on the at least one camera, the at least one Lidar sensor, the at least one radar sensor, or the at least one V2X sensor; and compare the kinematics data with the second kinematics data to verify the kinematics data associated with the subset of vehicles in an overlapping portion of the period of time and the second period of time” [Gyllenhammar; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Gyllenhammar discloses determining potential discrepancies in vehicle perception systems by comparing the output from the respective perception systems of two vehicles in which the discrepancy is calculated based on an alignment of an overlapping region between the two perception systems. Gyllenhammar further discloses establishing communication between the vehicles when the second vehicle is within a potential range of the sensors of the ego vehicle (Fig. 5, action 1001; ¶: 0068. Gyllenhammar further discloses: "Such exemplifying sensory information may for instance be derived from one or more exemplifying surrounding detecting sensors 23 comprised in and/or provided on-board the vehicle 2. The surrounding detecting sensors 23 may be represented by any arbitrary sensors adapted to sense and/or perceive the vehicle's 2 surroundings and/or whereabouts, and may e.g., refer to one or a combination of one or more of radar, LIDAR, sonar, camera, navigation or positioning system e.g., GPS, odometer and/or inertial measurement units;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0028; See also: Fig. 3a-3c; ¶: 0047-0054].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding comparing output from multiple vehicle sensors in order to identify potential discrepancies as taught by Gyllenhammar 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 if one or more perception systems of the vehicles may be experiencing a failure impacting the output of their sensors [Gyllenhammar; ¶: 0038].
With respect to claim 28 Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein identifying the set of non-malicious vehicles based on the kinematics data further comprises: verifying the kinematics data associated with a subset of vehicles of the set of vehicles based on at least one camera, at least one light detection and ranging (Lidar) sensor, at least one radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor, or at least one vehicle to everything (V2X) sensor associated with the first vehicle, wherein the subset of vehicles is within a line of sight (LoS) of the first vehicle.”
Gyllenhammar teaches: “wherein identifying the set of non-malicious vehicles based on the kinematics data further comprises: verifying the kinematics data associated with a subset of vehicles of the set of vehicles based on at least one camera, at least one light detection and ranging (Lidar) sensor, at least one radio detection and ranging (radar) sensor, or at least one vehicle to everything (V2X) sensor associated with the first vehicle, wherein the subset of vehicles is within a line of sight (LoS) of the first vehicle” [Gyllenhammar; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Gyllenhammar discloses determining potential discrepancies in vehicle perception systems by comparing the output from the respective perception systems of two vehicles in which the discrepancy is calculated based on an alignment of an overlapping region between the two perception systems. Gyllenhammar further discloses establishing communication between the vehicles when the second vehicle is within a potential range of the sensors of the ego vehicle (Fig. 5, action 1001; ¶: 0068. Gyllenhammar further discloses: "Such exemplifying sensory information may for instance be derived from one or more exemplifying surrounding detecting sensors 23 comprised in and/or provided on-board the vehicle 2. The surrounding detecting sensors 23 may be represented by any arbitrary sensors adapted to sense and/or perceive the vehicle's 2 surroundings and/or whereabouts, and may e.g., refer to one or a combination of one or more of radar, LIDAR, sonar, camera, navigation or positioning system e.g., GPS, odometer and/or inertial measurement units;" Fig. 4; ¶: 0028; See also: Fig. 3a-3c; ¶: 0047-0054].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding comparing output from multiple vehicle sensors in order to identify potential discrepancies as taught by Gyllenhammar 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 if one or more perception systems of the vehicles may be experiencing a failure impacting the output of their sensors [Gyllenhammar; ¶: 0038].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Sujan, Cao and Gundavelli et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0342766 A1), referenced as Gundavelli moving forward.
With respect to claim 11, while Kwak discloses: “wherein to configure the platoon, the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from the at least one vehicle, an approximate destination” [Kwak; "Referring to FIG. 33, a platooning management center may be a database server that stores and manages information related to platooning (e.g., the ID of each platooning group, movement routes, final destinations, vehicle IDs of PLs, etc.), and a platooning generation message may be a message exchanged for platooning group generation;" Fig. 3; ¶: 0400], Kwak does not specifically state: “and a proposal regarding the platoon leader; and transmit a vote for the platoon leader to the at least one vehicle.”
Gundavelli, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for vehicle control, teaches: “and a proposal regarding the platoon leader; and transmit a vote for the platoon leader to the at least one vehicle” [Gundavelli; "At 450, PM 350 identifies the appropriate platoon for vehicles 310(1) and 310(2). PM 350 may determine the platoon for vehicles 310(1) and 310(2) based on certain criteria such as current location, direction, destination, etc. PM 350 may also consider handover patterns, location updates, and UE group information. Based on this criteria, PM 350 may identify an existing platoon suitable for vehicles 310(1) and 310(2), or create a new platoon for vehicles 310(1) and 310(2);" Fig. 4A & 4B; ¶: 0048;
"In one example, platoon leader selection may be performed. A platoon leader may be designated by the network (e.g., PM 350) based on configuration and criteria in AS 340 and the capabilities of vehicles 310(1) and 310(2). Alternatively, vehicles 310(1) and 310(2) (and any other vehicles in the platoon) may select a platoon leader based on voting or round robin;" Fig. 3; ¶: 0051; See also: ¶: 0042].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding dynamically managing platoon members to enable optimal platooning, including adding or removing members from the platoon based on a plurality of conditions as taught by Gundavelli 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 enable a platoon control system to optimize the platoon configuration based on a plurality of desirable conditions such as communication capabilities or the respective destinations of the vehicles, for example [Gundavelli; ¶: 0033-0036, 0051].
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Sujan and CALMETTES et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0269845 A1), referenced as Calmettes moving forward.
With respect to claim 17, while Kwak discloses: “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], Kwak does not specifically state: “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, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for vehicle control, 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 Kwak 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 18, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein the second request message is a maneuver sharing and coordination message (MSCM) request, wherein the third request message is a second MSCM request, and wherein the second response message is a MSCM response.”
Calmettes teaches: “wherein the second request message is a maneuver sharing and coordination message (MSCM) request, wherein the third request message is a second MSCM request, and wherein the second response message is a MSCM response” [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 Kwak 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].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Sujan, Calmettes and OKAMOTO (United States Patent Publication 2014/0316865 A1), referenced as Okamoto moving forward.
With respect to claim 19, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein the second response from each of the one or more other vehicles in the platoon indicates agreement with the second request message to depart from the platoon,”
Or: “and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: move the first vehicle based on a departure of the one particular vehicle”
Calmettes teaches: “wherein the second response from each of the one or more other vehicles in the platoon indicates agreement 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 Kwak 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].
Okamoto, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for vehicle control, teaches: “and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: move the first vehicle based on a departure of the one particular vehicle” [Okamoto; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Okamoto discloses a system/method for controlling vehicles operating in a platoon, in particular how to control specific vehicles based on a space forming in the vehicle platoon after a vehicle leaves the platoon (see post-departure space, 220, in Fig. 18, for example); See also: ¶: 0214-0216].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding controlling vehicles operating in a platoon to reduce a gap that is created in the platoon upon a vehicle leaving the platoon as taught by Okamoto 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 reduce travel resistance that occurs due to gaps forming in a platoon that result in a deterioration of energy consumption, which is undesirable [Okamoto; ¶: 0215].
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Sujan and BURKE et al. (United States Patent Publication 2014/0282093 A1), referenced as Burke moving forward.
With respect to claim 22, Kwak does not specifically state: “wherein the communication of whether to remove the particular vehicle from the platoon based on the particular vehicle being associated with the malicious behavior is based on the kinematics data associated with the particular vehicle compared with a standard deviation associated with the kinematics data regarding the at least one vehicle and the first vehicle.”
Burke, which is in the same field of invention of systems/methods for controlling vehicle platooning, teaches: “wherein the communication of whether to remove the particular vehicle from the platoon based on the particular vehicle being associated with the malicious behavior is based on the kinematics data associated with the particular vehicle compared with a standard deviation associated with the kinematics data regarding the at least one vehicle and the first vehicle” [Burke; In at least the paragraphs and figures cited, Burke teaches determining if one vehicle operating in a caravan ends up at a distance "substantially further away from the other vehicles in the caravan in terms of distance," that vehicle may be considered an "outlier," and "it may be determined that such “outlier” vehicle may not, at least for a period of time, be deemed to be part of the caravan;" ¶: 0061.
The term "outlier" has a known definition in the art related to standard deviation of data sets that as indicated in the following excerpt from an Introductory Statistics Textbook: "As a rough rule of thumb, we can flag any point that is located further than two standard deviations above or below the best-fit line as an outlier. The standard deviation used is the standard deviation of the residuals or errors;" (https://stats.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Statistics/Introductory_Statistics_1e_(OpenStax)/12%3A_Linear_Regression_and_Correlation/12.07%3A_Outliers);
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the known definition of the term "outlier" in the art, would interpret the disclosed determination that a vehicle is no longer part of a caravan when it exceeds a distance of two standard deviations such that it may be considered a statistical outlier as patentably indistinct from the Applicant's broadly recited determining a vehicle is "malicious" "based on the kinematics data associated with the particular vehicle compared with a standard deviation associated with the kinematics data regarding the at least one vehicle and the first vehicle;" See also: Fig. 3; ¶: 0060, 0062, 0063].
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 Kwak to incorporate the teachings regarding determining that vehicles that have ended up substantially further away from other vehicles operating in a caravan are no longer part of the caravan as taught by Burke 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 enable vehicles performing cooperative travel to “to more easily monitor and/or communicate with one another while en route to the common destination, for example in facilitating stops for such vehicles” [Burke; ¶: 0003, 0032].
Examiner’s Note on Potential Allowable Subject Matter: The Applicant will note that the above Non-Final rejection does not provide prior art rejections for claims 16 and 20, as the Examiner was unable to find a combination of references to reasonably formulate prior art rejections of the claims. However, the Examiner, is not able to object to these claims and indicate them as containing allowable matter, as claims 16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 USC § 101. However, if the Applicant is able re-formulate the independent claims such that they are patent eligible in view of 35 USC § 101, further amendment to the independent claims comprising the limitations presented in any of claims 16 and 20 (and all intermediate claims from which they depend) would result in the Examiner finding the claims in condition for allowance, pending final search and consideration.
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.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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 - 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.
/R.N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666