DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 02/26/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 5, and 11 have been amended; claims 4 and 6-10 have been canceled; no claims have been added or withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-20 are now pending and under consideration.
Page 7 of Applicant’s remarks assert with respect to the Applicant-initiated interview conducted 01/23/2026 that “[the] parties tentatively agreed that the proposed amendments appear to overcome the 102 rejection.” Although agreement was reached during the interview that Brew does not appear to fully teach or suggest proposed claim 1 under a broadest reasonable interpretation (see the Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary mailed 01/27/2026), the examiner notes that the amendments to independent claim 1 proposed during the interview are not the same as the amendments to claim 1 filed 02/26/2026. Even so, Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 of the remarks with respect to the prior art rejections of independent claims 1, 5, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0314258 to Brew et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, amended claims 1, 5, and 11 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brew in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0402494 to Krutsch.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, as amended, now recites “acquire input information comprising at least one of traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset, or a weight of the specific vehicle” (emphasis added) in lines 16-17, such that claim 1 alternatively includes acquiring a “traveling distribution with the offset” as “input information,” such that the acquired “input information” is based on the “offset” in one alternative-recited instance. Claim 1, as amended, also now recites each of “predict a deterioration status of a tire of the specific vehicle when the specific vehicle travels in a lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel” in lines 7-9, “determine an offset in a lateral direction of the lane with respect to a reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in the lane, based on the deterioration status of the tire” in lines 10-12, and “predict the deterioration status of the tire by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating the deterioration progress of the tire based on the acquired input information” in lines 19-21, such that the “deterioration status of the tire” is predicted based on the acquired “input information” and the “offset” is determined based on the “deterioration status of the tire.” Specifically, in an alternative case where the acquired “input information” is or includes the “traveling distribution with the offset,” it is unclear how the “deterioration status of the tire” would be predicted based on the acquired “input information” given that the “offset” is determined based on the “deterioration status of the tire,” as the “deterioration status of the tire” would also be predicted based on the “offset.” In other words, claim 1 now includes a circular relationship which renders indefinite the intended scope of the claim.
Claim 1, as amended, refers to “the deterioration progress of the tire” in line 21; however, claim 1 does not previously introduce “a deterioration progress of the tire,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the deterioration progress of the tire” in line 21. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 3, 12, 15, and 16 depend from claim 1, such that claims 2, 3, 12, 15, and 16 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 5, as amended, now recites “acquiring input information comprising at least one of traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset, or a weight of the specific vehicle” (emphasis added) in lines 19-20, such that claim 5 alternatively includes acquiring a “traveling distribution with the offset” as “input information,” such that the acquired “input information” is based on the “offset” in one alternative-recited instance. Claim 5, as amended, also now recites each of “predicting a deterioration status of a tire of the specific vehicle when the specific vehicle travels in a lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel” in lines 9-11, “determining an offset in a lateral direction of the lane with respect to a reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in the lane, based on the predicted deterioration status of the tire of the specific vehicle” in lines 12-15, and “predicting the deterioration status of the tire by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating the deterioration progress of the tire based on the acquired input information” in lines 22-24, such that the “deterioration status of the tire” is predicted based on the acquired “input information” and the “offset” is determined based on the “deterioration status of the tire.” Specifically, in an alternative case where the acquired “input information” is or includes the “traveling distribution with the offset,” it is unclear how the “deterioration status of the tire” would be predicted based on the acquired “input information” given that the “offset” is determined based on the “deterioration status of the tire,” as the “deterioration status of the tire” would also be predicted based on the “offset.” In other words, claim 5 now includes a circular relationship which renders indefinite the intended scope of the claim.
Claim 5, as amended, refers to “the deterioration progress of the tire” in line 23; however, claim 5 does not previously introduce “a deterioration progress of the tire,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the deterioration progress of the tire” in line 23. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 13, 17, and 18 depend from claim 5, such that claims 13, 17, and 18 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 5 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 5 is rejected.
Claim 11, as amended, now recites “acquiring input information comprising at least one of traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset, or a weight of the specific vehicle” (emphasis added) in lines 12-13, such that claim 11 alternatively includes acquiring a “traveling distribution with the offset” as “input information,” such that the acquired “input information” is based on the “offset” in one alternative-recited instance. Claim 11, as amended, also now recites each of “predicting a deterioration status of a tire of the specific vehicle when the specific vehicle travels in a lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel” in lines 3-5, “determining an offset in a lateral direction of the lane with respect to a reference position of the traveling position of the specific vehicle based on the deterioration status of the tire” in lines 6-8, and “predicting the deterioration status of the tire by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating the deterioration progress of the tire based on the acquired input information” in lines 15-17, such that the “deterioration status of the tire” is predicted based on the acquired “input information” and the “offset” is determined based on the “deterioration status of the tire.” Specifically, in an alternative case where the acquired “input information” is or includes the “traveling distribution with the offset,” it is unclear how the “deterioration status of the tire” would be predicted based on the acquired “input information” given that the “offset” is determined based on the “deterioration status of the tire,” as the “deterioration status of the tire” would also be predicted based on the “offset.” In other words, claim 11 now includes a circular relationship which renders indefinite the intended scope of the claim.
Claim 11, as amended, refers to “the deterioration progress of the tire” in line 16; however, claim 11 does not previously introduce “a deterioration progress of the tire,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the deterioration progress of the tire” in line 16. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 14, 19, and 20 depend from claim 11, such that claims 14, 19, and 20 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 11 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 11 is rejected.
Claim 12 refers to “the replacement schedule” in line 3. Claim 12 is dependent from claim 1; however, neither claim previously introduces “a replacement schedule,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the replacement schedule” in line 3 of claim 12. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 refers to “the degree of the deterioration progress” in line 4. Claim 12 is dependent from claim 1; however, neither claim previously introduces “a degree of the deterioration progress,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the degree of the deterioration progress” in line 4 of claim 12. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 refers to “the replacement schedule” in line 3. Claim 13 is dependent from claim 5; however, neither claim previously introduces “a replacement schedule,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the replacement schedule” in line 3 of claim 13. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 refers to “the degree of the deterioration progress” in line 4. Claim 13 is dependent from claim 5; however, neither claim previously introduces “a degree of the deterioration progress,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the degree of the deterioration progress” in line 4 of claim 13. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 refers to “the replacement schedule” in line 2. Claim 14 is dependent from claim 11; however, neither claim previously introduces “a replacement schedule,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the replacement schedule” in line 2 of claim 14. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 refers to “the degree of the deterioration progress” in line 3. Claim 14 is dependent from claim 11; however, neither claim previously introduces “a degree of the deterioration progress,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the degree of the deterioration progress” in line 3 of claim 14. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 introduces “traveling information of the specific vehicle” in line 3. Claim 15 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 previously introduces “traveling information of the specific vehicle” in lines 16-17. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “traveling information of the specific vehicle” introduced in line 3 of claim 15 is intended to be the same as or different from the “traveling information of the specific vehicle” previously introduced in lines 16-17 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 introduces “traveling information of the specific vehicle” in line 3. Claim 16 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 previously introduces “traveling information of the specific vehicle” in lines 16-17. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “traveling information of the specific vehicle” introduced in line 3 of claim 16 is intended to be the same as or different from the “traveling information of the specific vehicle” previously introduced in lines 16-17 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 introduces “a traveling distribution with the offset that is temporarily set” in line 4. Claim 16 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 previously introduces “a traveling distribution with the offset” in line 17. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “traveling distribution with the offset that is temporarily set” introduced in line 4 of claim 16 is intended to be the same as or different from the “traveling distribution with the offset” previously introduced in line 17 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 introduces “traveling information of the specific vehicle” in line 3. Claim 17 is dependent from claim 5, and claim 5 previously introduces “traveling information of the specific vehicle” in lines 19-20. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “traveling information of the specific vehicle” introduced in line 3 of claim 17 is intended to be the same as or different from the “traveling information of the specific vehicle” previously introduced in lines 19-20 of claim 5. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 introduces “traveling information of the specific vehicle” in lines 3-4. Claim 18 is dependent from claim 5, and claim 5 previously introduces “traveling information of the specific vehicle” in lines 19-20. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “traveling information of the specific vehicle” introduced in lines 3-4 of claim 18 is intended to be the same as or different from the “traveling information of the specific vehicle” previously introduced in lines 19-20 of claim 5. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 introduces “a traveling distribution with the offset that is temporarily set” in line 4. Claim 18 is dependent from claim 5, and claim 5 previously introduces “a traveling distribution with the offset” in line 20. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “traveling distribution with the offset that is temporarily set” introduced in line 4 of claim 18 is intended to be the same as or different from the “traveling distribution with the offset” previously introduced in line 20 of claim 5. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 introduces “traveling information of the specific vehicle” in line 2. Claim 19 is dependent from claim 11, and claim 11 previously introduces “traveling information of the specific vehicle” in lines 12-13. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “traveling information of the specific vehicle” introduced in line 2 of claim 19 is intended to be the same as or different from the “traveling information of the specific vehicle” previously introduced in lines 12-13 of claim 11. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 introduces “traveling information of the specific vehicle” in line 2. Claim 20 is dependent from claim 11, and claim 11 previously introduces “traveling information of the specific vehicle” in lines 12-13. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “traveling information of the specific vehicle” introduced in line 2 of claim 20 is intended to be the same as or different from the “traveling information of the specific vehicle” previously introduced in lines 12-13 of claim 11. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 introduces “a traveling distribution with the offset that is temporarily set” in line 3. Claim 20 is dependent from claim 11, and claim 11 previously introduces “a traveling distribution with the offset” in line 13. Specifically, it is unclear whether the “traveling distribution with the offset that is temporarily set” introduced in line 3 of claim 20 is intended to be the same as or different from the “traveling distribution with the offset” previously introduced in line 13 of claim 11. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the input information comprises at least one of traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset that is temporarily set, or the weight of the specific vehicle” in lines 2-4. Claim 16 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1, as amended, now recites “acquire input information comprising at least one of traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset, or a weight of the specific vehicle” in lines 16-17. Specifically, claim 16 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1, such that claim 16 is of improper dependent form. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant cancel claim 16.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the input information comprises at least one of traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset that is temporarily set, or the weight of the specific vehicle” in lines 2-5. Claim 18 is dependent from claim 5, and claim 5, as amended, now recites “acquiring input information comprising at least one of traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset, or a weight of the specific vehicle” in lines 19-20. Specifically, claim 18 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 5, such that claim 18 is of improper dependent form. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant cancel claim 18.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the input information comprises at least one of traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset that is temporarily set, or the weight of the specific vehicle” in lines 1-3. Claim 20 is dependent from claim 11, and claim 11, as amended, now recites “acquiring input information comprising at least one of traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset, or a weight of the specific vehicle” in lines 12-13. Specifically, claim 20 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 11, such that claim 20 is of improper dependent form. To overcome the rejection, it is suggested that Applicant cancel claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0314258 to Brew et al. (hereinafter: “Brew”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0402494 to Krutsch (hereinafter: “Krutsch”).
With respect to claim 1, Brew teaches a traveling position determination device configured to determine a traveling position of a specific vehicle capable of performing automated driving {as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4 & 7 in view of at least ¶ 0001-0008, 0017-0019, 0027-0030, 0033 & 0035-0039, an apparent system and network [e.g., a computer 101 (or the computer 101 together with a network 127; or the computer 101 together with a software deploying server and/or other systems 155 and/or a monitoring system 301 and/or self-driving vehicle (SDV) on-board computer 401; or the computer 101 and the network 127 together with the software deploying server and/or the other systems 155 and/or the monitoring system 301 and/or the SDV on-board computer 401)] is structured to perform functions to determine a position (e.g., “traveling position”) of an SDV (e.g., SDV 202) (e.g., “specific vehicle”) (e.g., “capable of performing automated driving”)}, the traveling position determination device comprising: at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor (as discussed by at least ¶ 0017-0026, and as discussed in detail above), the at least one of (i) the circuit and (ii) the processor configured to: determine a deterioration status of a tire of the specific vehicle when the specific vehicle travels in a lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4, 6 & 7 in view of at least ¶ 0004-0008, 0017-0019, 0027-0030, 0033, 0043, 0048, 0050-0051 & 0056-0066 (especially ¶ 0043), the apparent system and network is structured to perform functions to determine an amount of tread left (e.g., “deterioration status”) on a tire of the SDV at times including when the SDV travels in (and is set to at least temporarily continue traveling along) a road lane (e.g., lane 214)]; determine an offset in a lateral direction of the lane with respect to a reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in the lane, based on the deterioration status of the tire {as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4, 6 & 7 in view of at least ¶ 0004-0008, 0017-0019, 0027-0030, 0033, 0043, 0048, 0050-0051 & 0056-0066, the apparent system and network is structured to perform functions to determine a tire path for the SDV that is laterally offset from other SDV(s) [or from another tire path (e.g., rutted tire path 212)] based on a current condition of the SDV including the amount of tread left on the tire, as well as based on an amount of wear (or a road wear pattern) existing on the road at times including when the SDV travels in the road lane; because based on the deterioration status of the road surface and based on the deterioration status of the tire are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives}; control traveling of the specific vehicle based on the offset (apparent from at least Fig. 6 in view of at least ¶ 0056-0066); and acquire input information comprising at least one of traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset, or a weight of the specific vehicle [as depicted by at least Fig. 4 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0035-0039, a speed of the SDV (e.g., “traveling information”) is measured; because traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset, and a weight of the specific vehicle are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives].
Brew appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the at least one of (i) the circuit and (ii) the processor is configured to predict the deterioration status of the tire. Therefore, Brew also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the at least one of (i) the circuit and (ii) the processor is further configured to predict the deterioration status of the tire by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating the deterioration progress of the tire based on the acquired input information.
Krutsch teaches at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor is configured to predict a deterioration status of a tire of a vehicle by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating a deterioration progress of the tire based on the acquired input information (apparent from at least Figs. 5, 9, 10 & 13 in view of at least ¶ 0030, 0088, 0100-0106, 0121 & 0123).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the traveling position determination device of Brew with the teachings of Krutsch such that the at least one of (i) the circuit and (ii) the processor is configured to predict the deterioration status of the tire by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating the deterioration progress of the tire based on the acquired input information to beneficially reduce manufacturing cost and/or manufacturing complexity by replacing the cameras-based tire tread deterioration status detection process of Brew with the model-based tire tread deterioration status prediction process of Krutsch, as implementation of the tire deterioration model of Krutsch via the at least one of (i) the circuit and (ii) the processor would be achievable via use of additional programming of the at least one of (i) the circuit and (ii) the processor without requiring inclusion of the cameras aimed at the tires of the SDV 202 in Brew, and implementation of the tire deterioration model of Krutsch in place of the use of the cameras of Brew would simply provide the at least one of (i) the circuit and (ii) the processor with the deterioration status of the tire via an alternative technique and would not be reasonably expected by one having ordinary skill in the art to destroy operability of the traveling position determination device of Brew in such a substitution. Therefore, such a modification would also amount to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (e.g., see: MPEP 2143_I_B).
With respect to claim 2, Brew modified supra teaches the traveling position determination device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one of (i) the circuit and (ii) the processor further configured to deliver a traveling route of the specific vehicle among a plurality of vehicles {e.g., 202 & 303 [or 202, 303 & 305, or 202, 303, 305 & other SDV(s)]}, wherein the traveling route includes the traveling position {as depicted by at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0007, 0030, 0048-0050 & 0063 of Brew, the apparent system and network is structured to perform functions to share (e.g., “deliver”) data (including data related to positioning of the SDVs along a section of the road) between the SDVs 202 & 303 [or the SDVs 202, 303 & 305, or the SDVs 202, 303, 305 & other SDV(s)], including to share the data from the SDV 303 to the SDV 202 [or from the SDV 305 to the SDVs 202 & 303, or from the SDV 303 to the SDVs 202 & 305, or from another SDV of the other SDV(s) to the SDVs 202, 303 & 305]}.
With respect to claim 3, Brew modified supra teaches the traveling position determination device according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of vehicles include the specific vehicle (e.g., 303), a preceding vehicle (e.g., 305) that precedes the specific vehicle, and a rear vehicle (e.g., 202) positioned behind the specific vehicle (apparent from at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0030 & 0048-0050 of Brew), the at least one of (i) the circuit and (ii) the processor further cause the traveling position determination device to: determine an offset of the traveling position of the specific vehicle with respect to the preceding vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1); and deliver the traveling position to the rear vehicle [as depicted by at least Fig. 3 in view of at least ¶ 0007, 0030, 0048-0050 & 0063 of Brew, the apparent system and network is structured to perform functions to share (e.g., “deliver”) data (including data related to positioning of the SDVs) between the SDVs 202, 303 & 305, including to share the data from the SDV 303 to the SDV 202].
With respect to claim 5, Brew modified supra teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a map data structure including a traveling position of a specific vehicle capable of performing automated driving, the map data structure comprising: lane information regarding a lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel; and the traveling position which is a target set for traveling of the specific vehicle in the lane {when a claim limitation is directed to printed matter [including data stored on a computer-readable medium (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.05_III)], the printed matter is owed no patentable weight when the printer is not functionally or structurally related to an associated physical substrate (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.05), and no functional relationship exists where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.05_I_B) [such as when a computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.05_III)], and “[a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a map data structure including a traveling position of a specific vehicle capable of performing automated driving, the map data structure comprising: lane information regarding a lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel; and the traveling position which is a target set for traveling of the specific vehicle in the lane” only necessarily sets forth a product [i.e., a computer-readable medium (i.e., “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”)] that serves as a support for (i.e., “storing”) printed matter [i.e., information or data (i.e., “a map data structure including a traveling position of a specific vehicle capable of performing automated driving, the map data structure comprising: lane information regarding a lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel; and the traveling position which is a target set for traveling of the specific vehicle in the lane”)], such that “a map data structure including a traveling position of a specific vehicle capable of performing automated driving, the map data structure comprising: lane information regarding a lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel; and the traveling position which is a target set for traveling of the specific vehicle in the lane” is owed no patentable weight; even so, as discussed by at least ¶ 0065-0066, a road wear expectancy map includes road wear information regarding a road lane (e.g., lane 214) existing on a section of a road (e.g., roadway 204) in which a self-driving vehicle (SDV) is set to travel along, and lane position data in which the SDV is set to travel along the road lane}, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores a program for causing a computer to execute a process, the process comprising: predicting a deterioration status of a tire of the specific vehicle when the specific vehicle travels in the lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel; determining an offset of the traveling position in a lateral direction of the lane with respect to a reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in the lane based on the predicted deterioration status of the tire of the specific vehicle; controlling traveling of the specific vehicle based on the offset; and acquiring input information comprising at least one of traveling information, a traveling distribution with the offset, or a weight of the specific vehicle, wherein the process further comprises predicting the deterioration status of the tire by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating the deterioration progress of the tire based on the acquired input information (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1).
With respect to claim 11, Brew modified supra teaches a method for determining a traveling position of a specific vehicle capable of performing automated driving, the method comprising: predicting a deterioration status of a tire of the specific vehicle when the specific vehicle travels in a lane in which the vehicle is scheduled to travel; determining an offset in a lateral direction of the lane with respect to a reference position of the traveling position of the specific vehicle based on the deterioration status of the tire; controlling traveling of the specific vehicle based on the offset; and acquiring input information comprising at least one of traveling information, a traveling distribution with the offset, or a weight of the specific vehicle, wherein the method further comprises predicting the deterioration status of the tire by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating the deterioration progress of the tire based on the acquired input information (as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 1 and 5).
With respect to claim 12, Brew modified supra teaches the traveling position determination device according to claim 1, wherein the deterioration progress is compatible with the replacement schedule when a numerical number of timings at which the degree of the deterioration progress reaches a degree that requires replacement of the tire is less than or equal to a predetermined number within a predetermined period [apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, and a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2114_II), and claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I), and no part of “wherein the deterioration progress is compatible with the replacement schedule when a numerical number of timings at which the degree of the deterioration progress reaches a degree that requires replacement of the tire is less than or equal to a predetermined number within a predetermined period” is necessarily performed by (or further defines structure of) the claimed “traveling position determination device” (or an element thereof), and, instead, “wherein the deterioration progress is compatible with the replacement schedule when a numerical number of timings at which the degree of the deterioration progress reaches a degree that requires replacement of the tire is less than or equal to a predetermined number within a predetermined period” merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “traveling position determination device” is intended to be employed without limiting the claimed “traveling position determination device” to a particular structure, such that “wherein the deterioration progress is compatible with the replacement schedule when a numerical number of timings at which the degree of the deterioration progress reaches a degree that requires replacement of the tire is less than or equal to a predetermined number within a predetermined period” does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim and is owed no patentable weight; even so, for example, the amount of tread left on the tire of the SDV would, at least at times, not be incompatible with the definable “replacement schedule” of the tire including when the amount of tread left on the tire of the SDV fails to reach [e.g., “equal to a predetermined number” (e.g., zero)] a replacement-requiring-amount of tread (e.g., “degree that requires replacement of the tire”) within, for example, a definable smallest possible duration (e.g., “predetermined period”), especially in view of the term “replacement schedule” being both subjective and lacking any limitation in scope].
With respect to claim 13, Brew modified supra teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 5, wherein the deterioration progress is compatible with the replacement schedule when a numerical number of timings at which the degree of the deterioration progress reaches a degree that requires replacement of the tire is less than or equal to a predetermined number within a predetermined period [no part of “wherein the deterioration progress is compatible with the replacement schedule when a numerical number of timings at which the degree of the deterioration progress reaches a degree that requires replacement of the tire is less than or equal to a predetermined number within a predetermined period” is necessarily performed by (or further defines structure of) the claimed “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” (or an element thereof), and “wherein the deterioration progress is compatible with the replacement schedule when a numerical number of timings at which the degree of the deterioration progress reaches a degree that requires replacement of the tire is less than or equal to a predetermined number within a predetermined period neither recites a step to be performed as part of the claimed “process” nor necessarily further defines a previously introduced step of the claimed “process,” and, instead, “wherein the deterioration progress is compatible with the replacement schedule when a numerical number of timings at which the degree of the deterioration progress reaches a degree that requires replacement of the tire is less than or equal to a predetermined number within a predetermined period” merely sets forth the manner in which the claimed “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is intended to be employed without limiting the claimed “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” to a particular structure and without requiring steps to be performed, such that “wherein the deterioration progress is compatible with the replacement schedule when a numerical number of timings at which the degree of the deterioration progress reaches a degree that requires replacement of the tire is less than or equal to a predetermined number within a predetermined period” does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim and is owed no patentable weight (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I & 2114_II, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 12); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 12].
With respect to claim 14, Brew modified supra teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the deterioration progress is compatible with the replacement schedule when a numerical number of timings at which the degree of the deterioration progress reaches a degree that requires replacement of the tire is less than or equal to a predetermined number within a predetermined period [no part of “wherein the deterioration progress is compatible with the replacement schedule when a numerical number of timings at which the degree of the deterioration progress reaches a degree that requires replacement of the tire is less than or equal to a predetermined number within a predetermined period” recites a step to be performed as part of the claimed method or necessarily further defines a previously introduced step of the claimed method, and, instead, “wherein the deterioration progress is compatible with the replacement schedule when a numerical number of timings at which the degree of the deterioration progress reaches a degree that requires replacement of the tire is less than or equal to a predetermined number within a predetermined period” merely sets forth intended use or purpose for the “offset” without requiring further steps to be performed and without further defining steps of the method, such that “wherein the deterioration progress is compatible with the replacement schedule when a numerical number of timings at which the degree of the deterioration progress reaches a degree that requires replacement of the tire is less than or equal to a predetermined number within a predetermined period” does not necessarily further limit the scope of the claim and is owed no patentable weight (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.04_I, as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 12); even so, as discussed in detail above with respect to claims 12 and 13].
With respect to claim 15, Brew modified supra teaches the traveling position determination device according to claim 1, wherein the input information comprises traveling information of the specific vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 16, Brew modified supra teaches the traveling position determination device according to claim 1, wherein the input information comprises at least one of traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset that is temporarily set, or the weight of the specific vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 17, Brew modified supra teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 5, wherein the input information comprises traveling information of the specific vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 5).
With respect to claim 18, Brew modified supra teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 5, wherein the input information comprises at least one of traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset that is temporarily set, or the weight of the specific vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 5).
With respect to claim 19, Brew modified supra teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the input information comprises traveling information of the specific vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 11).
With respect to claim 20, Brew modified supra teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the input information comprises at least one of traveling information of the specific vehicle, a traveling distribution with the offset that is temporarily set, or the weight of the specific vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 11).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747