DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The examiner failed to properly address claims 5, 15 and 20 in the Office Action filed February 17, 2026. As such, that Office Action, and the finality mentioned therein, is hereby withdrawn and this instant Office Action is made Final.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on December 3, 2026 and April 13, 2026. Claims 1, 11 and 16 have been amended, and no claims were added or canceled . Thus, claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of reference(s) used in the current rejection.
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 – 4, 6, 9, 11 – 14 and 16 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0048768 A1 to Taguchi (herein after “Taguchi publication") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0041850 A1 to Chase et al. (herein after “Chase et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 11 and 16,
the Taguchi publication discloses a system (1) comprising:
at least one processor (20)(FIG. 1 and ¶40 – ¶41); and
a memory (20) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (FIG. 1 and ¶40 – ¶41), cause the system to perform operations comprising:
based on sensors (10) disposed with an unmanned vehicle (leading vehicle VF), capturing sensor data associated with an environment surrounding a vehicle (following vehicle VM) associated with the unmanned vehicle (leading vehicle VF)(see ¶41, where “four perimeter monitoring sensors 10 are arranged in the front, rear, and left and right sides of the vehicle, so as to detect the other vehicles existing in the front, rear, and left and right sides of the vehicle”; see also FIG. 4 and ¶62, where perimeter monitoring sensors 10 of the leading vehicle VF is configured to capture sensor data associated with detectable regions D or an environment surrounding following vehicle VM);
sending the sensor data to the vehicle (see FIG. 1 and ¶40 for “a communication device 14 for exchanging information by wireless communication between the own vehicle and the other vehicles forming a vehicle group”); and
navigating the unmanned vehicle to a target location in the environment surrounding the vehicle determined based on the sensor data (see ¶40 for “an actuator 30 for causing each of the devices of the vehicle to act according to an instruction from the ECU 20, so as to drive the vehicle in conformity to the driving schedule”).
The Taguchi publication, however, fails to specifically disclose the vehicle being operable in a manual driving mode and an autonomous driving mode having at least one level of autonomy.
Vehicles operable both in manual and autonomous driving modes and have at least one level of autonomy are old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Chase et al. publication who discloses “an autonomous vehicle [with a] mode regulator system [100] . . . Referring to FIG. 3, the autonomous vehicle mode regulator system 100 is adapted to receive a variety of mode commands for enabling or disabling levels of autonomous operation for a vehicle 110 equipped with appropriate systems and hardware for autonomous, quasi-autonomous, selective autonomous, and manual-driven operation, including, as illustrated, signals received from autonomous driving infrastructure 112 (such as, implicit infrastructure autonomous mode commands, infrastructure autonomous mode usage allowance and ambient condition mode override), or from the vehicle 110 (such as, critical vehicle system failure detection, or vehicle operator autonomous mode request).” (See ¶37.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the vehicle being operable in a manual driving mode and an autonomous driving mode having at least one level of autonomy.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Taguchi publication so that the vehicle is operable in a manual driving mode and an autonomous driving mode where it has at least one level of autonomy, as suggested by the Chase et al. publication, in order to provide flexibility, allowing for optimal performance in different driving conditions..
As to claims 2, 12 and 17,
the Taguchi publication discloses the sensors (10) disposed with the unmanned vehicle (leading vehicle VF) function as backup to sensors (10) disposed with the vehicle (following vehicle VM). (See FIG. 4 and ¶40 – ¶41.)
As to claims 3, 13 and 18,
the Taguchi publication discloses images of the environment surrounding the vehicle are captured by the sensors (10) disposed with the unmanned vehicle and provided to the vehicle to determine the target location. (See ¶41, where “the perimeter monitoring sensors 10 are image sensors such as millimeter-wave radars, laser radars, and stereo cameras and ultrasonic sensors.”)
As to claims 4, 14 and 19,
the Taguchi publication discloses the images of the environment surrounding the vehicle (following vehicle VM) captured by the sensors (10) disposed with the unmanned vehicle (leading vehicle VF) and provided to the vehicle (following vehicle VM) further support navigation of the vehicle (following vehicle VM). (See FIG. 4 and ¶40 – ¶41 and ¶62.)
As to claims 6,
the Taguchi publication discloses a predefined area surrounding the vehicle (following vehicle VM) includes the target location and a second target location to which a second unmanned vehicle (trailing vehicle VB) is navigated. (See FIG. 4.)
As to claims 9,
the Taguchi publication discloses after navigation of the unmanned vehicle to the target location, navigating the unmanned vehicle to be disposed with the vehicle. (See FIG. 4 and ¶40 – ¶41.)
Claims 5, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Taguchi publication in view of the Chase et al. publication, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0050402 A1 to Keski-Valkam (herein after “Keski-Valkam publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 5, 15 and 20,
the modified Taguchi publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the unmanned vehicle being navigated to a plurality of target locations including the target location to dispatch a sign at each target location.
Dispatching a sign at target locations to facilitate navigation for an unmanned vehicle is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Keski-Valkam publication who discloses “[a] method, apparatus and computer program product . . . for the automatic generation of maps, and more particularly, to a system for learning to generate maps from raw geospatial observations from sensors traveling within an environment. Autonomous vehicles leverage sensor information relating to roads and objects and features proximate the roads to determine safe regions of a road to drive and to evaluate their surroundings as they traverse a road segment. Further, autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles use high-definition map information to facilitate autonomous driving and to plan autonomous driving routes. These high-definition maps or HD maps are specifically designed and configured to facilitate autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle control and may be able to replicate road segments virtually with the inclusion of accurately placed signs and other features or objects proximate a roadway.” (See ¶24.)(Emphasis added.) Such disclosure suggests the unmanned vehicle being navigated to a plurality of target locations including the target location to dispatch a sign at each target location.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Taguchi publication so that the unmanned vehicle is navigated to a plurality of target locations including the target location to dispatch a sign at each target location, as suggested by the Keski-Valkam publication, in order to facilitate navigating a plurality of vehicles forming a vehicle group.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Taguchi publication in view of the Chase et al. publication, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0349458 A1 to Pu et al. (herein after “Pu et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 8,
the modified Taguchi publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the target location and the second target location are determined in compliance with governmental rules.
The Pu et al. publication, however, discloses “the navigation of the UAV through the designated area may be based on government policy, air traffic control policies/guidelines, and/or public safety guidelines, among other policies and/or guidelines.” (See ¶166.) Such disclosure suggests the target location and the second target location being determined in compliance with governmental rules.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Taguchi publication so that the target location and the second target location are determined in compliance with governmental rules, as suggested by the Pu et al. publication, in order to facilitate navigating a plurality of vehicles forming a vehicle group.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Taguchi publication in view of the Chase et al. publication, and further in view of the Taguchi publication.
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 10,
the modified Taguchi publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
a status of the vehicle being associated with a stop of the vehicle without a user request.
The Taguchi publication, however, discloses “an actuator 30 for causing each of the devices of the vehicle to act according to an instruction from the ECU 20, so as to drive the vehicle in conformity to the driving schedule.” (See ¶40.)(Emphasis added.) “The actuator 30, specific examples of which include accelerator actuators for adjusting the degree of throttle opening, brake actuators for adjusting the amount of braking, and steering actuators for driving steering, is used for driving the vehicle in conformity to the driving schedule created by the driving schedule creating part 26.” (See ¶56.)(Emphasis added.) Based on instructions from the ECU 20 and with each vehicle having brake actuators for adjusting the amount of braking, a status of the vehicle can be associated with a stop of the vehicle without a user request.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Taguchi publication so that a status of the vehicle can be associated with a stop of the vehicle without a user request, as suggested by the Taguchi publication, in order to facilitate navigating a plurality of vehicles forming a vehicle group.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights