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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 05/15/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1, 3, 5, 11-15, 17, and 19 have been amended; claims 4, 6-10, 16, 18, and 20 have been canceled; claim 21 has been added; no claims have been withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 5, 11-15, 17, 19, and 21 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous rejections of claims 1-3, 5, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to claims 1, 5, 11-15, 17, and 19, and in light of the cancellation of claims 16, 18, and 20.
The previous rejections of claims 16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been withdrawn, in light of the cancellation of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-10 of the remarks with respect to the prior art rejections of independent claims 1, 5, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0314258 to Brew et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0402494 to Krutsch have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts on pages 10-11 of the remarks that Brew and Krutsch, alone and in combination, fail to teach or render obvious the last nine lines of amended claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., predicting a deterioration status of a tire based on a determined offset) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner acknowledges that amended claim 1 now requires “predict the deterioration status of the tire when the specific vehicle travels in the lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel, by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating a deterioration progress of the tire in response to the acquired input information” and “acquire input information comprising a traveling distribution with the first offset”; however, “in response to the acquired input information” in modification of “predict the deterioration status of the tire…” does not require the “deterioration status of the tire” to be predicted based on the “traveling distribution” and/or the “first offset,” especially because the “acquired input information” is broader than the “traveling distribution” included by the “acquired input information” (e.g., see claims 15, 17, and 19), and especially because Applicant unmistakably removed “based on” from the relevant portion of claim 1 via the most recent amendments to the claim.
The examiner acknowledges that neither Brew nor Krutsch uses the term “second offset,” as alleged by Applicant on page 10 of the remarks; however, as discussed in detail below, Brew fully teaches determination of another offset, definable as a “second offset” under a broadest reasonable interpretation.
Brew teaches that the apparent system and network is structured to perform functions to set a definable first tire path for the SDV that is laterally offset from other SDV(s) [or from another tire path (e.g., rutted tire path 212)], at times including a definable first time when the SDV travels in a road lane (e.g., lane 214) (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4, 6 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0004-0008, 0017-0019, 0027-0030, 0033, 0043, 0048, 0050-0051 & 0056-0066 of Brew). Therefore, Brew teaches to “set a first offset in a lateral direction of the lane with respect to a reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in a lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel,” as recited by amended claim 1, under a broadest reasonable interpretation.”
Brew further teaches that the apparent system and network is structured to perform functions to acquire roadway conditions including road type information (e.g., “input information,” “traveling information”) and acquire the definable first tire path (e.g., “input information,” “traveling distribution”) for inclusion as part of a determined pattern of tire path usage by vehicles along the road lane (as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 3, 4 & 6 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0004-0008, 0018, 0031-0032, 0042, 0047-0052, 0057-0058 & 0065 of Brew). Therefore, Brew teaches to “acquire input information comprising a traveling distribution with the first offset,” as recited by amended claim 1, under a broadest reasonable interpretation.”
Brew further teaches that 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) the road lane (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4, 6 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0004-0008, 0017-0019, 0027-0030, 0033, 0043, 0048, 0050-0051 & 0056-0066 of Brew). Therefore, while 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 when the specific vehicle travels in the lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel, by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating a deterioration progress of the tire in response to the acquired input information, Brew teaches to determine a deterioration status of the tire of the specific vehicle when the specific vehicle travels in the lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel.
Brew additionally teaches that the apparent system and network is structured to perform functions to determine a definable second tire path for the SDV that is laterally offset from other SDV(s) [or from another tire path (e.g., rutted tire path 212)] (and different from the definable first tire path) 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 a definable second time (after the definable first time) when the SDV travels in the road lane, and control traveling of the SDV based on the definable second tire path for the SDV (as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4, 6 & 7 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0004-0008, 0017-0019, 0027-0030, 0033, 0043, 0048, 0050-0051 & 0056-0066 of Brew). Therefore, while Brew further 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 determine a second offset in the lateral direction of the lane with respect to the reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in the lane, based on the predicted deterioration status of the tire, Brew teaches to determine a second offset in the lateral direction of the lane with respect to the reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in the lane, based on the determined deterioration status of the tire; and control traveling of the specific vehicle based on the second offset.
Even so, 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 when the vehicle travels in a lane in which the vehicle is scheduled to travel, by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating a deterioration progress of the tire in response to acquired input information, the acquired input information including traveling information, the traveling information including road type information (apparent from at least Figs. 5, 9, 10 & 13 in view of at least ¶ 0030, 0088, 0100-0106, 0121 & 0123).
The examiner respectfully notes that 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 when the specific vehicle travels in the lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel, by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating a deterioration progress of the tire in response to the acquired input information, and to determine a second offset in the lateral direction of the lane with respect to the reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in the lane, based on the predicted deterioration status of the tire, 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).
Therefore, the rejections have been maintained and updated in order to address the amendments to the claims.
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, 11-15, 17, 19, and 21 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, refers to “the lane” in line 8; however, claim 1 does not previously introduce “a lane,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the lane” in line 8. Claim 1 does, however, subsequently introduce “a lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel” in line 9, and it is unclear whether the “lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel” subsequently introduced in line 9 is intended to be the same as or different from the “lane” previously referred to in line 8. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, as amended, refers to “the tire” in line 18; however, claim 1 does not previously introduce “a tire,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the tire” in line 18. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 3, 12, 15, and 21 depend from claim 1, such that claims 2, 3, 12, 15, and 21 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, refers to “the tire” in line 20; however, claim 5 does not previously introduce “a tire,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the tire” in line 20. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 13 and 17 depend from claim 5, such that claims 13 and 17 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, refers to “the lane” in line 4; however, claim 11 does not previously introduce “a lane,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the lane” in line 4. Claim 11 does, however, subsequently introduce “a lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel” in line 5, and it is unclear whether the “lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel” subsequently introduced in line 5 is intended to be the same as or different from the “lane” previously referred to in line 4. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, as amended, refers to “the tire” in line 14; however, claim 11 does not previously introduce “a tire,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the tire” in line 14. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 14 and 19 depend from claim 11, such that claims 14 and 19 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 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, 11-15, 17, and 19 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 and as discussed by 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: set a first offset in a lateral direction of the lane with respect to a reference position of the traveling position 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 and as discussed by 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 set a definable first tire path for the SDV that is laterally offset from other SDV(s) [or from another tire path (e.g., rutted tire path 212)], at times including a definable first time when the SDV travels in a road lane (e.g., lane 214)}; acquire input information comprising a traveling distribution with the first offset [as depicted by at least Figs. 1, 3, 4 & 6 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0004-0008, 0018, 0031-0032, 0042, 0047-0052, 0057-0058 & 0065, the apparent system and network is structured to perform functions to acquire roadway conditions including road type information (e.g., “input information,” “traveling information”) and acquire the definable first tire path (e.g., “input information,” “traveling distribution”) for inclusion as part of a determined pattern of tire path usage by vehicles along the road lane]; determine a deterioration status of the tire of the specific vehicle when the specific vehicle travels in the lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4, 6 & 7 and as discussed by 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) the road lane]; determine a second offset in the lateral direction of the lane with respect to the reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in the lane, based on the determined deterioration status of the tire {as depicted by at least Figs. 1-4, 6 & 7 and as discussed by 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 definable second tire path for the SDV that is laterally offset from other SDV(s) [or from another tire path (e.g., rutted tire path 212)] (and different from the definable first tire path) 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 a definable second time (after the definable first time) when the SDV travels in the road lane}; control traveling of the specific vehicle based on the second offset (as depicted by at least Fig. 6 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0056-0066, the apparent system and network is structured to perform functions to control traveling of the SDV based on the definable second tire path for the SDV).
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 when the specific vehicle travels in the lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel. 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 when the specific vehicle travels in the lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel, by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating a deterioration progress of the tire in response to the acquired input information. Thus, Brew further 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 determine a second offset in the lateral direction of the lane with respect to the reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in the lane, based on the predicted deterioration status of the tire.
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 when the vehicle travels in a lane in which the vehicle is scheduled to travel, by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating a deterioration progress of the tire in response to acquired input information, the acquired input information including traveling information, the traveling information including road type 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 when the specific vehicle travels in the lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel, by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating a deterioration progress of the tire in response to the acquired input information, and to determine a second offset in the lateral direction of the lane with respect to the reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in the lane, based on the predicted deterioration status of the tire, 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 the second 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: setting a first 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 in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel; acquiring input information comprising a traveling distribution with the first offset; predicting a deterioration status of the tire when the specific vehicle travels in the lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel, by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating a deterioration progress of the tire in response to the acquired input information; determining a second offset in the lateral direction of the lane with respect to the reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in the lane, based on the predicted deterioration status of the tire; and controlling traveling of the specific vehicle based on the second offset (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: setting a first offset in a lateral direction of the lane with respect to a reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in a lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel; acquiring input information comprising a traveling distribution with the first offset; predicting a deterioration status of the tire when the specific vehicle travels in the lane in which the specific vehicle is scheduled to travel, by using a tire deterioration model that outputs a parameter indicating a deterioration progress of the tire in response to the acquired input information; determining a second offset in the lateral direction of the lane with respect to the reference position of the traveling position when the specific vehicle travels in the lane, based on the predicted deterioration status of the tire; and controlling traveling of the specific vehicle based on the second offset (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 a replacement schedule of the tire when a numerical number of timings at which a 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 a replacement schedule of the tire when a numerical number of timings at which a 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 a replacement schedule of the tire when a numerical number of timings at which a 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 a replacement schedule of the tire when a numerical number of timings at which a 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 a replacement schedule of the tire when a numerical number of timings at which a 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 a replacement schedule of the tire when a numerical number of timings at which a 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 a replacement schedule of the tire when a numerical number of timings at which a 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 a replacement schedule of the tire when a numerical number of timings at which a 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 a replacement schedule of the tire when a numerical number of timings at which a 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 a replacement schedule of the tire when a numerical number of timings at which a 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 a replacement schedule of the tire when a numerical number of timings at which a 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 a replacement schedule of the tire when a numerical number of timings at which a 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 a replacement schedule of the tire when a numerical number of timings at which a 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 further comprises traveling information 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 further comprises traveling information 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 further comprises traveling information of the specific vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 11).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brew in view of Krutsch, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0181816 to Katsuno (hereinafter: “Katsuno”).
With respect to claim 21, Brew modified supra teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one of (i) the circuit and (ii) the processor is further configured to adjust the first offset {as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1; for example, when the apparent system and network performs the functions to determine the definable second tire path for the SDV, or when the apparent system and network performs functions to determine a definable third tire path for the SDV that is laterally offset from other SDV(s) [or from another tire path (e.g., rutted tire path 212)] (and different from the definable first tire path)}; however, Brew modified supra 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 repeat predicting of the deterioration status until the predicted deterioration status of the tire is in a prescribed state.
Katsuno teaches repeating predicting of a deterioration status of a tire of a vehicle until the predicted deterioration status of the tire is in a prescribed state (apparent from at least Fig. 6 in view of at least ¶ 0028, 0031, 0035, 0037, 0043 & 0045-0050).
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 modified supra with the teachings of Katsuno such that the at least one of (i) the circuit and (ii) the processor is configured to repeating predicting of a deterioration status of a tire of a vehicle until the predicted deterioration status of the tire is in a prescribed state, to beneficially update the prediction of the deterioration status of the tire at a regular interval based on driving data over a previous period to provide information to a driver to enable the driver to understand how driving over the previous period impacted the deterioration status of the tire such that the driver can improve driving over a future period.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights