DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 12/11/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-11, 14-17, 19-25, and 27-28 have been amended and claims 5 and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-28 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Pilkington “avoids the need to control vehicle distance in a manner consistent with the virtual linking of groups of vehicles behind that pair[q]” and that “Pilkington ‘teaches away from’ Applicant’s configuration which distinguishes vehicles in a group” in page 18 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is that the teaching of Pilkington would “teach away from” Applicant’s invention because Pilkington teaches controlling distances between pairs of vehicles in a platoon. However, Applicant’s claims recite “a group of at least two vehicles” which Pilkington reads on as the pair is a couple (two) of vehicles. Furthermore, the control of distances is not solely relied upon in Pilkington. Uchiyama discloses reducing inter-vehicle distances between vehicles in a platoon. Pilkington was brought in to teach that there could be a minimum distance to be maintained between vehicles in a platoon. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are found not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC §103 is maintained as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §112, amendments made to the claims have overcome some rejections while some rejections remain. The remaining rejections are outlined below.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims fail to overcome the prior art. The rejection under 35 USC §103 is maintained as outlined below.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control and evaluation unit” in claims 1, 14, and 27-28. Applicant’s specification discloses “the control and evaluation unit 3, for example an RTLS (real time location system) server that is connected to all the radio stations or anchor stations 5 via a wireless or wired data link” in page 21, lines 27-30. Therefore, the “control and evaluation unit” is interpreted as a server.
“watchdog circuit” in claims 10 and 23. Applicant’s specification does not provide structure on what a “watchdog circuit” is and the issue will be further discussed under 35 USC §112.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-11 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 10 and 23 recite the limitation “watchdog circuit” which invokes an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the specification fails to disclose what the structure of a “watchdog circuit” is. Claims 11 and 24 are dependent on claims 10 and 23 and inherit the deficiencies above. Therefore, claims 11 and 24 are also rejected on similar grounds to claims 10 and 23.
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 1-28 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 4, “at least one device having at least one radio transponder arranged at each vehicle” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear how “one device” can be arranged at each vehicle. If the device has a transponder, and such device is arranged at each vehicle, the claim should read “at least one device, having at least one radio transponder, arranged at each vehicle” for clarity. As written, the claim reads as though the device encompasses at least one transponder which is arranged in multiple vehicles.
Claims 2-13 are dependent on claim 1 and inherit the deficiencies above. Therefore, claims 2-13 are also rejected on similar grounds to claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, this limitation renders the claim indefinite and unclear because it is unclear whether this is a new vehicle or is one of the vehicles in the group of “at least two vehicles.”
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “a vehicle” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear whether this is a new vehicle or is one of the vehicles in the group of “at least two vehicles.”
Regarding claim 14, line 4, “at least one device having at least one radio transponder arranged at each vehicle” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear how “one device” can be arranged at each vehicle. If the device has a transponder, and such device is arranged at each vehicle, the claim should read “at least one device, having at least one radio transponder, arranged at each vehicle” for clarity. As written, the claim reads as though the device encompasses at least one transponder which is arranged in multiple vehicles.
Claims 15-26 are dependent on claim 14 and inherit the deficiencies above. Therefore, claims 15-26 are also rejected on similar grounds to claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, this limitation renders the claim indefinite and unclear because it is unclear whether this is a new vehicle or is one of the vehicles in the group of “at least two vehicles.”
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a vehicle” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear whether this is a new vehicle or is one of the vehicles in the group of “at least two vehicles.”
Regarding claim 27, line 4, “at least one device having at least one radio transponder arranged at each vehicle” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. It is unclear how “one device” can be arranged at each vehicle. If the device has a transponder, and such device is arranged at each vehicle, the claim should read “at least one device, having at least one radio transponder, arranged at each vehicle” for clarity. As written, the claim reads as though the device encompasses at least one transponder which is arranged in multiple vehicles.
Further regarding claim 27, line 11, “the radio station” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. Claim 27 recites “three arranged radio stations” in line 6. Therefore, it is unclear which radio station out of the three would be used or whether this is a new radio station that is not part of the radio location system including the “at least three arranged radio stations.”
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the vehicle" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, this limitation renders the claim indefinite and unclear because it is unclear whether this is a new vehicle or is one of the vehicles in the group of “at least two vehicles.”
Further regarding claim 28, in lines 10, 13, 15, and 17, the limitation “the control and evaluation unit” renders the claim indefinite and unclear. Claim 28 recites “at least one control and evaluation unit per vehicle” wherein the system has “at least two vehicles” in lines 1-2. However, “the control and evaluation unit” would refer to just one as opposed to two (one on each vehicle). Therefore, it is unclear which vehicle’s “control and evaluation unit” is being referred to in this recitation or whether the recitation is to refer to both “control and evaluation unit[s].”
Claim limitation “watchdog circuit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose a specific structure for performing the claimed functions for the limitation “watchdog circuit.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-10, 14-16, 19, 22-23, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0266715 A1; hereinafter Uchiyama) in view of Hammes et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0227372 A1; hereinafter Hammes) and further in view of Pilkington (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0188745 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Uchiyama discloses:
A safety system for the localization of a group of at least two vehicles (vehicles 11-11 to 11-13, see at least [0063] and Fig. 2), the safety system having at least one control and evaluation unit (network 13 includes V2X control server 32, see at least [0064]-[0065]), and at least one radio location system, comprising: (base stations 31-1 and 31-2 for communication, see at last [0067]; and RSU 12, see at least [0069]-[0070])
at least one device arranged at each vehicle in the group for initiation of group travel or convoy travel (each terminal of vehicles 11-11 to 11-13, see at least [0066]; terminal to terminal link formed between vehicle and each vehicles 11-32 to 11-34, see at least [0099])
wherein the radio location system has at least three arranged radio stations (base stations 31-1 and 31-2 and RSU 12 having similar function to base station, see at least [0067], [0070], and Fig. 2);
wherein the radio location system is configured to determine position data of the radio transponder and thus position data of the vehicles in the group (communication unit 103 receives radio waves or electromagnetic waves transmitted from a wireless station or the like installed on the road, and acquires information such as the current position, see at least [0133]);
wherein the position data can be transmitted from at least one of the arranged radio stations to the control and evaluation unit, and/or wherein the position data can be transmitted from the radio transponder to the control and evaluation unit (vehicle transmits its own position information and acquires position information of other vehicles and RSUs and RSU transmits its own position information to the vehicle and other RSUs and RSU 12 relays communication between the vehicle 11 and the network 13, see at least [0118]),
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to control the vehicles in the group (controlling the platooning, see at least [0089]);
and wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to combine the vehicles driving in a same direction as said group based on the position data of the vehicles (a plurality of vehicles form a platoon and travels in the same direction, see at least [0089]), and wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to reduce the distances between the vehicles in the group (reduce the inter-vehicle distance of the platooning, see at least [0089])
Uchiyama does not disclose:
transponder
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cyclically detect the position data of the radio transponder;
wherein the radio transponder has an identification;
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to distinguish the vehicles;
minimal distance
However, Hammes teaches:
wherein the radio location system has at least three arranged radio stations (radio stations 5, see at least [0102] and Fig. 5 showing three rectangles labeled with number 5)
at least one device having at least one radio transponder arranged at each vehicle in the group for initiation of group travel or convoy travel, (radio transponder 6 is arranged at the object, see at least [0093]; moveable machine 11 can be a guideless vehicle, see at least [0115]; see also Fig. 5 where object 8 and moveable machine 11 refer to the same rectangle)
wherein the radio location system is configured to determine position data of the radio transponder and thus position data of the vehicles (radio based localization system by which positions of radio transponders 6 can be determined, see at least [0099]; radio station receives signals from radio transponders to determine position of object 8 or person 2, see at least [0101])
wherein the position data can be transmitted from the radio station of the radio location system to the control and evaluation unit; and/or wherein the position data can be transmitted from the radio transponder to the control and evaluation unit (position data are transmitted from radio station 5 of radio system 4 to the control and evaluation unit 3, see at least [0102])
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cyclically detect the position data of the radio transponder (position or location of movable machine is continuously processed in the control and evaluation unit, see at least [0084]);
wherein the radio transponder has an identification (radio transponder identification, see at least [0020] and [0099]);
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to distinguish the vehicles (deliver classification information in addition to the position of the object 8 or person 2 with the aid of radio transponder identification, see at least [0099] and [0112])
Although the system taught by Hammes is for an object and person, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama by adding the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “a high quality optimization of processes with a constant ensuring of occupational safety” (see [0040]).
Furthermore, Pilkington teaches:
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to set and to monitor minimal distance between the vehicles in the group (select an optimized minimum distance or spacing between vehicle pairs traveling as a platoon, see at least [0008])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles and reduction of inter-vehicle distance of platooning disclosed by Uchiyama and the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes by adding the minimum distance taught by Pilkington with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “allow enhanced flexibility in the platooning control to follow at different distances providing for maximized safety while yet maintaining an overall fuel economy benefit of the platoon” (see [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above and Uchiyama further discloses:
the vehicles each have at least one local safety sensor at the front side in the direction of travel (data acquisition unit 102 includes surrounding information sensor for detecting a surrounding of own car and environment sensor for detecting weather, see at least [0128])
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above and Uchiyama further discloses:
the safety sensor detects the position of a preceding vehicle with respect to the position of the vehicle at which the safety sensor is arranged (surrounding information detection sensor includes ultrasonic, radar, light detection and ranging, LiDAR, sonar, and the like, see at least [0128]; vehicle outside information detection unit 141 detects distance to object such as other vehicle, see at least [0144])
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above and Uchiyama further discloses:
the control and evaluation unit is configured to synchronize vehicle actions between the vehicles (each vehicle can adjust trajectory and operation of vehicle in synchronization and cooperation by sharing the acknowledgement/recognition information obtained, see at least [0091])
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but Uchiyama does not disclose:
the control and evaluation unit is configured to evaluate and to compare odometry data of a vehicle within the group
However, Hammes teaches:
the control and evaluation unit is configured to evaluate and to compare odometry data of a vehicle within the group (control and evaluation unit compares position data of radio location system and position data of sensor, see at least [0012])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication of sensor data disclosed by Uchiyama by adding the comparison of data taught by Hammes with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so position “can thus be mutually validated by the two diverse information channels and can thus be checked for a safety technical application” (see [0035]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but Uchiyama does not disclose:
a watchdog circuit is provided in addition to the control and evaluation unit, with the watchdog circuit being configured to check the control and evaluation unit
However, Hammes teaches:
a watchdog circuit is provided in addition to the control and evaluation unit, with the watchdog circuit being configured to check the control and evaluation unit (check for plausibility by comparing classification data of radio station with contour data of spatially resolving sensor, see at least [0011])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication of sensor data disclosed by Uchiyama by adding the comparison of data check taught by Hammes with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for validation and so for a technical safety use” (see [0028]).
Regarding claim 14, Uchiyama discloses:
A safety system for the localization of at least two vehicles (vehicles 11-11 to 11-13, see at least [0063] and Fig. 2), the safety system having at least one control and evaluation unit per vehicle (network 13 includes V2X control server 32, see at least [0064]-[0065]; application management server 33 manages application programs installed on each terminal of vehicles, see at least [0066]), and at least one radio location system, comprising:
at least one device arranged at each vehicle in the group for initiation of group travel or convoy travel (each terminal of vehicles 11-11 to 11-13, see at least [0066]; terminal to terminal link formed between vehicle and each vehicles 11-32 to 11-34, see at least [0099])
wherein the radio location system has at least one arranged radio transceiver at the vehicle, (vehicle control system 100 includes communication unit 103, see at least [0123]; communication unit 103 includes a beacon receiving unit and receives radio waves, see at least [0133])
wherein the data can be transmitted from the radio transceiver of the radio location system to the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle (vehicle transmits its own position information and acquires position information of other vehicles and RSUs and RSU transmits its own position information to the vehicle and other RSUs and RSU 12 relays communication between the vehicle 11 and the network 13, see at least [0118]),
wherein the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to control at least that vehicle, (controlling the platooning, see at least [0089])
wherein the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to set and to monitor minimal distance between the vehicles in the group,
and wherein the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to combine the vehicles driving in a same direction as said group based on the distance data of the vehicles in the group (a plurality of vehicles form a platoon and travels in the same direction, see at least [0089]), and wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to reduce the distances between the vehicles in the group (reduce the inter-vehicle distance of the platooning, see at least [0089])
Uchiyama does not disclose:
distance data
wherein the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to cyclically detect the distance data of the radio transceiver;
wherein the radio transceiver has an identification;
wherein the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to distinguish the vehicles in the group,
minimum distance
However, Hammes teaches:
at least one device having at least one radio transponder arranged at each vehicle in the group for initiation of group travel or convoy travel, (radio transponder 6 is arranged at the object, see at least [0093]; moveable machine 11 can be a guideless vehicle, see at least [0115]; see also Fig. 5 where object 8 and moveable machine 11 refer to the same rectangle)
wherein the radio location system is configured to determine distance data of the radio transceiver and thus distance data of the vehicles (position information can be acquired from received waves from person or object and distance from person or object can be determined from time shift between transmission and reception of the signal, see at least [0061])
wherein the distance data can be transmitted from the radio transceiver of the radio location system to the control and evaluation unit (position data are transmitted from radio station 5 of radio system 4 to the control and evaluation unit 3, see at least [0102])
wherein the data can be transmitted from the radio transceiver of the radio location system to the control and evaluation unit (position data are transmitted from radio station 5 of radio system 4 to the control and evaluation unit 3, see at least [0102])
wherein the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to cyclically detect the distance data of the radio transceiver (position or location of movable machine is continuously processed in the control and evaluation unit, see at least [0084]);
wherein the radio transceiver has an identification (radio transponder identification, see at least [0020] and [0099])
wherein the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to distinguish the vehicles in the group, (deliver classification information in addition to the position of the object 8 or person 2 with the aid of radio transponder identification, see at least [0099] and [0112])
Although the system taught by Hammes is for an object and person, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama by adding the distance and radio system taught by Hammes with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “a high quality optimization of processes with a constant ensuring of occupational safety” (see [0040]).
Furthermore, Pilkington teaches:
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to set and to monitor minimal distance between the vehicles in the group (select an optimized minimum distance or spacing between vehicle pairs traveling as a platoon, see at least [0008])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles and reduction of inter-vehicle distance of platooning disclosed by Uchiyama and the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes by adding the minimum distance taught by Pilkington with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “allow enhanced flexibility in the platooning control to follow at different distances providing for maximized safety while yet maintaining an overall fuel economy benefit of the platoon” (see [0008])
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above and Uchiyama further discloses:
the vehicles in the group each have at least one local safety sensor at the front side in the direction of travel (data acquisition unit 102 includes surrounding information sensor for detecting a surrounding of own car and environment sensor for detecting weather, see at least [0128])
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above and Uchiyama further discloses:
the safety sensor detects the position of a preceding vehicle with respect to the position of the vehicle at which the safety sensor is arranged (surrounding information detection sensor includes ultrasonic, radar, light detection and ranging, LiDAR, sonar, and the like, see at least [0128]; vehicle outside information detection unit 141 detects distance to object such as other vehicle, see at least [0144])
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above and Uchiyama further discloses:
the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to synchronize vehicle actions between the vehicles in the group (each vehicle can adjust trajectory and operation of vehicle in synchronization and cooperation by sharing the acknowledgement/recognition information obtained, see at least [0091])
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but Uchiyama does not disclose:
the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to evaluate and to compare odometry data of a vehicle within the group.
However, Hammes teaches:
the control and evaluation unit is configured to evaluate and to compare odometry data of a vehicle within the group (control and evaluation unit compares position data of radio location system and position data of sensor, see at least [0012])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication of sensor data disclosed by Uchiyama by adding the comparison of data taught by Hammes with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so position “can thus be mutually validated by the two diverse information channels and can thus be checked for a safety technical application” (see [0035]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but Uchiyama does not disclose:
a watchdog circuit is provided in addition to the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle, with the watchdog circuit being configured to check the control and evaluation unit.
However, Hammes teaches:
a watchdog circuit is provided in addition to the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle, with the watchdog circuit being configured to check the control and evaluation unit (check for plausibility by comparing classification data of radio station with contour data of spatially resolving sensor, see at least [0011])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication of sensor data disclosed by Uchiyama by adding the comparison of data check taught by Hammes with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “for validation and so for a technical safety use” (see [0028]).
Regarding claim 27, Uchiyama discloses:
A method of localizing a group of at least two vehicles (vehicles 11-11 to 11-13, see at least [0063] and Fig. 2; vehicle position estimation, see at least [0094]), having at least one control and evaluation unit (network 13 includes V2X control server 32, see at least [0064]-[0065]), having at least one radio location system, the method comprising: (base stations 31-1 and 31-2 for communication, see at last [0067]; and RSU 12, see at least [0069]-[0070])
providing at least one device arranged at each vehicle in the group for initiation of group travel or convoy travel (each terminal of vehicles 11-11 to 11-13, see at least [0066]; terminal to terminal link formed between vehicle and each vehicles 11-32 to 11-34, see at least [0099])
wherein the radio location system has at least three arranged radio stations, (base stations 31-1 and 31-2 and RSU 12 having similar function to base station, see at least [0067], [0070], and Fig. 2)
(base stations 31-1 and 31-2 and RSU 12 having similar function to base station, see at least [0067], [0070], and Fig. 2);
wherein position data of the radio transponder and thus position data of the vehicles in the group can be determined by means of the radio location system, (communication unit 103 receives radio waves or electromagnetic waves transmitted from a wireless station or the like installed on the road, and acquires information such as the current position, see at least [0133])
wherein the position data can be transmitted from the radio station of the radio location system to the control and evaluation unit, and/or wherein the position data can be transmitted from the radio transponder to the control and evaluation unit (vehicle transmits its own position information and acquires position information of other vehicles and RSUs and RSU transmits its own position information to the vehicle and other RSUs and RSU 12 relays communication between the vehicle 11 and the network 13, see at least [0118]),
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to control the vehicles in the group (controlling the platooning, see at least [0089])
and wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to combine the vehicles driving in a same direction as said group based on the position data distance data of the vehicles (a plurality of vehicles form a platoon and travels in the same direction, see at least [0089]), and wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to reduce the distances between the vehicles in the group (reduce the inter-vehicle distance of the platooning, see at least [0089])
Uchiyama does not disclose:
transponder
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cyclically detect the position data of the radio transponder
wherein the radio transponder has an identification
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to distinguish the vehicles in the group
minimum distance
However, Hammes teaches:
at least one device having at least one radio transponder arranged at each vehicle in the group for initiation of group travel or convoy travel, (radio transponder 6 is arranged at the object, see at least [0093]; moveable machine 11 can be a guideless vehicle, see at least [0115]; see also Fig. 5 where object 8 and moveable machine 11 refer to the same rectangle)
wherein the radio location system has at least three arranged radio stations (radio stations 5, see at least [0102] and Fig. 5 showing three rectangles labeled with number 5)
wherein at least one device having at least one radio transponder is arranged at the vehicles (radio transponder 6 is arranged at the object, see at least [0093]; moveable machine 11 can be a guideless vehicle, see at least [0115]; see also Fig. 5 where object 8 and moveable machine 11 refer to the same rectangle)
wherein the radio location system is configured to determine position data of the radio transponder and thus position data of the vehicles (radio based localization system by which positions of radio transponders 6 can be determined, see at least [0099]; radio station receives signals from radio transponders to determine position of object 8 or person 2, see at least [0101])
wherein the position data can be transmitted from the radio station of the radio location system to the control and evaluation unit, and/or wherein the position data can be transmitted from the radio transponder to the control and evaluation unit (position data are transmitted from radio station 5 of radio system 4 to the control and evaluation unit 3, see at least [0102])
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cyclically detect the position data of the radio transponder (position or location of movable machine is continuously processed in the control and evaluation unit, see at least [0084]);
wherein the radio transponder has an identification (radio transponder identification, see at least [0020] and [0099])
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to distinguish the vehicles in the group (deliver classification information in addition to the position of the object 8 or person 2 with the aid of radio transponder identification, see at least [0099] and [0112])
Although the system taught by Hammes is for an object and person, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama by adding the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “a high quality optimization of processes with a constant ensuring of occupational safety” (see [0040]).
Furthermore, Pilkington teaches:
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to set and to monitor minimal distance between the vehicles in the group (select an optimized minimum distance or spacing between vehicle pairs traveling as a platoon, see at least [0008])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles and reduction of inter-vehicle distance of platooning disclosed by Uchiyama and the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes by adding the minimum distance taught by Pilkington with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “allow enhanced flexibility in the platooning control to follow at different distances providing for maximized safety while yet maintaining an overall fuel economy benefit of the platoon” (see [0008]).
Regarding claim 28, Uchiyama discloses:
A method of localizing a group of at least two vehicles (vehicles 11-11 to 11-13, see at least [0063] and Fig. 2; vehicle position estimation, see at least [0094]), having at least one control and evaluation unit per vehicle, having at least one radio location system, the method comprising: (network 13 includes V2X control server 32, see at least [0064]-[0065]; application management server 33 manages application programs installed on each terminal of vehicles, see at least [0066]), at least one arranged radio transceiver at the vehicle (vehicle control system 100 includes communication unit 103, see at least [0123]; communication unit 103 includes a beacon receiving unit and receives radio waves, see at least [0133]);
wherein the radio location system is configured to determine data of the radio transceiver and thus distance data of the vehicles (communication unit 103 receives radio waves or electromagnetic waves transmitted from a wireless station or the like installed on the road, and acquires information such as the current position, see at least [0133]);
wherein the data can be transmitted from the radio transceiver of the radio location system to the control and evaluation unit (vehicle transmits its own position information and acquires position information of other vehicles and RSUs and RSU transmits its own position information to the vehicle and other RSUs and RSU 12 relays communication between the vehicle 11 and the network 13, see at least [0118]),
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to control at least the vehicles in the group (controlling the platooning, see at least [0089]);
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to combine the vehicles into groups driving in a same direction as said group based on the distance data of the vehicles (a plurality of vehicles form a platoon and travels in the same direction, see at least [0089]),
and wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to reduce the distances between the vehicles in the group (reduce the inter-vehicle distance of the platooning, see at least [0089])
Uchiyama does not disclose:
distance data
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cyclically detect the distance data of the radio transceiver
wherein the radio transceiver has an identification
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to distinguish the vehicles in the group
minimum distance
However, Hammes teaches:
wherein the radio location system is configured to determine distance data of the radio transceiver and thus distance data of the vehicles (position information can be acquired from received waves from person or object and distance from person or object can be determined from time shift between transmission and reception of the signal, see at least [0061])
wherein the distance data can be transmitted from the radio transceiver of the radio location system to the control and evaluation unit (position data are transmitted from radio station 5 of radio system 4 to the control and evaluation unit 3, see at least [0102])
wherein the data can be transmitted from the radio transceiver of the radio location system to the control and evaluation unit (position data are transmitted from radio station 5 of radio system 4 to the control and evaluation unit 3, see at least [0102])
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to cyclically detect the distance data of the radio transceiver (position or location of movable machine is continuously processed in the control and evaluation unit, see at least [0084])
wherein the radio transceiver has an identification (radio transponder identification, see at least [0020] and [0099])
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to distinguish the vehicles in the group (deliver classification information in addition to the position of the object 8 or person 2 with the aid of radio transponder identification, see at least [0099] and [0112])
Although the system taught by Hammes is for an object and person, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama by adding the distance and radio system taught by Hammes with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “a high quality optimization of processes with a constant ensuring of occupational safety” (see [0040]).
Furthermore, Pilkington teaches:
wherein the control and evaluation unit is configured to set and to monitor minimal distance between the vehicles in the group (select an optimized minimum distance or spacing between vehicle pairs traveling as a platoon, see at least [0008])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles and reduction of inter-vehicle distance of platooning disclosed by Uchiyama and the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes by adding the minimum distance taught by Pilkington with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “allow enhanced flexibility in the platooning control to follow at different distances providing for maximized safety while yet maintaining an overall fuel economy benefit of the platoon” (see [0008]).
Claims 4, 7, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama in view of Hammes and Pilkington as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Okamoto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0316671 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the control and evaluation unit is configured to associate a vehicle with one of different vehicle classes
However, Okamoto teaches:
the control and evaluation unit is configured to associate a vehicle with one of different vehicle classes (weight according to vehicle types such as large sized vehicles, small sized vehicles, and medium size vehicle groups, see at least [0249])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama, the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes, and the minimum distance taught by Pilkington by adding the vehicle type taught by Okamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to arrange vehicles by vehicle size to prevent “deterioration of the energy consumption” (see [0269]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the control and evaluation unit is configured to vary the order of the vehicles in the group
However, Okamoto teaches:
the control and evaluation unit is configured to vary the order of the vehicles in the group (platoon travel system positions vehicles in ascending order of depart point distances, see at least [0186])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama, the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes, and the minimum distance taught by Pilkington by adding the vehicle order taught by Okamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent “the deterioration of whole platoon energy consumption” (see [0186]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to associate the vehicle with one of different vehicle classes
However, Okamoto teaches:
the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to associate the vehicle with one of different vehicle classes (weight according to vehicle types such as large sized vehicles, small sized vehicles, and medium size vehicle groups, see at least [0249])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama, the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes, and the minimum distance taught by Pilkington by adding the vehicle type taught by Okamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to arrange vehicles by vehicle size to prevent “deterioration of the energy consumption” (see [0269]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to vary the order of the vehicles in the group
However, Okamoto teaches:
the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to vary the order of the vehicles in the group (platoon travel system positions vehicles in ascending order of depart point distances, see at least [0186])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama, the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes, and the minimum distance taught by Pilkington by adding the vehicle order taught by Okamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to prevent “the deterioration of whole platoon energy consumption” (see [0186]).
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama in view of Hammes and Pilkington as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chae et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0239035 A1; hereinafter Chae).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the control and evaluation unit is configured to grant priority to the group of vehicles over an individual vehicle or a group of vehicles having a lower number of vehicles
However, Chae teaches:
the control and evaluation unit is configured to grant priority to the group of vehicles over an individual vehicle or a group of vehicles having a lower number of vehicles (resource used by a group may have priority higher than a priority of a resource used by a specific individual terminal, see at least [0109])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama, the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes, and the minimum distance taught by Pilkington by adding the priority taught by Chae with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “When a plurality of terminals perform transmission at the same time in a single resource, if a resource collision or interference occurs, system performance can be more degraded compared to a case that a single terminal performs transmission in a single resource” (see [0109]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but does not teach:
the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to grant priority to the group of vehicles in the group over an individual vehicle or a group of vehicles having a lower number of vehicles.
However, Chae teaches:
the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle is configured to grant priority to the group of vehicles in the group over an individual vehicle or a group of vehicles having a lower number of vehicles (resource used by a group may have priority higher than a priority of a resource used by a specific individual terminal, see at least [0109])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama, the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes, and the minimum distance taught by Pilkington by adding the priority taught by Chae with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “When a plurality of terminals perform transmission at the same time in a single resource, if a resource collision or interference occurs, system performance can be more degraded compared to a case that a single terminal performs transmission in a single resource” (see [0109]).
Claims 11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama in view of Hammes and Pilkington as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Atanasiu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0150429 A1; hereinafter Atanasiu).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but does not teach:
a group signal is cyclically transmitted to the watchdog circuit by the control and evaluation unit.
However, Atanasiu teaches:
a group signal is cyclically transmitted to the watchdog circuit by the control and evaluation unit (continuously or periodically monitor status of vehicles as to location, speed, heading and compare status with planned status of platoon plan, see at least [0066])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama, the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes, and the minimum distance taught by Pilkington by adding the continuous monitoring taught by Atanasiu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “improvement in efficiency through symbiotic planning of vehicles in a fleet or a community in order to benefit the whole of the fleet or community through cooperation among vehicles” (see [0067]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but does not teach:
a group signal is cyclically transmitted to the watchdog circuit by the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle.
However, Atanasiu teaches:
a group signal is cyclically transmitted to the watchdog circuit by the control and evaluation unit in each vehicle (continuously or periodically monitor status of vehicles as to location, speed, heading and compare status with planned status of platoon plan, see at least [0066])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama, the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes, and the minimum distance taught by Pilkington by adding the continuous monitoring taught by Atanasiu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “improvement in efficiency through symbiotic planning of vehicles in a fleet or a community in order to benefit the whole of the fleet or community through cooperation among vehicles” (see [0067]).
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama in view of Hammes and Pilkington as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of So et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0120126 A1; hereinafter So).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but does not teach:
vehicles of a group transport a common load.
However, So teaches:
vehicles of a group transport a common load (multiple land vehicles carry or transport a common payload, see at least [0078])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama, the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes, and the minimum distance taught by Pilkington by adding the transport of a common payload taught by So with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to be able to carry a large work load (see [0078]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but does not teach:
vehicles in the group transport a common load.
However, So teaches:
vehicles in the group transport a common load (multiple land vehicles carry or transport a common payload, see at least [0078])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama, the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes, and the minimum distance taught by Pilkington by adding the transport of a common payload taught by So with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to be able to carry a large work load (see [0078]).
Claims 13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchiyama in view of Hammes and Pilkington as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Boydstun, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0275096 A1; hereinafter Boydstun).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but does not teach:
one vehicle transports a plurality of vehicles of a common group
However, Boydstun teaches:
one vehicle transports a plurality of vehicles of a common group (truck and trailer 82 adapted to carry a plurality of automobiles, see at least [0029])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama, the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes, and the minimum distance taught by Pilkington by adding the truck and trailer taught by Boydstun with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to transport cargo vehicles (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Uchiyama, Hammes, and Pilkington teaches the elements above but does not teach:
one vehicle transports a plurality of vehicles of a common group
However, Boydstun teaches:
one vehicle transports a plurality of vehicles of a common group (truck and trailer 82 adapted to carry a plurality of automobiles, see at least [0029])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the communication control for platooning of vehicles disclosed by Uchiyama, the transponder and radio system taught by Hammes, and the minimum distance taught by Pilkington by adding the truck and trailer taught by Boydstun with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to transport cargo vehicles (see [0003]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662