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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 06/04/2026. Claim 5 has been amended. Claims 8-10 have been newly added. No claims have been newly cancelled. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-10 are currently presented for examination.
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: an absolute position calculation unit, a reception determination unit, a relative position calculation unit, a communication unit, and a correction position calculation unit in claims 1, 2, 4, and 8.
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.
Support for the limitation(s) are as follows:
Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0052-0053: As illustrated in FIG. 5 , from the viewpoint of functions, the vehicle travel control device 1 includes, as main components, a storage unit 100 that stores various programs and various data, an environment information acquisition unit 101, a position information acquisition unit 102 (a position specification unit), a driving control unit 103 (a travel control unit), a vehicle detection unit 104, a communication unit 105 (a first communication unit), a mode change unit 106, a travel speed acquisition unit 107, and a video processing unit 108.These components are implemented by a CPU, a ROM, a RAM, an HDD, a communication interface, various programs, and the like.
If the 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As per claim 6, the claim limitation recites “A computer-readable recording medium”. However, the usage of the phrase “A computer-readable recording medium” is broad enough to include both “non-transitory” and “transitory” (moving electrons, etc) media. Paragraph 0396 of the specification recites that the recording medium readable by the vehicle travel control device 1 and the vehicle management device 80 is a magnetic disk, a magneto-optical disk, a CD-ROM, a DVD-ROM, a semi-conductor memory, or the like. Accordingly, the specification does not clearly limit the utilization of a non-transitory computer readable medium and, thus does not constitute functional descriptive material. Therefore, when the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Dependent claim 10 is included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of its parent claim and has not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, claim is rejected based on the same rationale as applied to parent claim 6 above.
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, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calmettes et al. (US Publication Number US20150269845A1; hereinafter Calmettes) in view of Kim (US Publication Number US20210354722A1; hereinafter Kim) and Satomura et al. (JP Publication Number JPH11183593A; citations will refer to English translation attached by the examiner on 10/01/2025, hereinafter Satomura).
Regarding Claims 1, 5 and 6, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Calmettes discloses managing a vehicle convoy (see at least Abstract) comprising:
a vehicle travel control device configured to control traveling of a target vehicle based on position information of a plurality of vehicles, including the target vehicle and a host vehicle (Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0099-0102 describe a control device (see “Navigator 111” and “The driving aid system 210”) configured to control traveling based on position information about an ego vehicle (e.g. “Absolute and differential GNSS location” on Figure 3) and a neighboring vehicle (e.g. “Neighbouring truck DGPS data” on Figure 3));
(from claim 5) a method for acquiring vehicle position information executed by a computer mounted on a target vehicle and configured to control traveling of a the target vehicle based on position information of a plurality of vehicles, including the target vehicle and a host vehicle / (from claim 6) a computer-readable recording medium storing a program for acquiring vehicle position information, the program causing a computer, the computer serving as a vehicle travel control device mounted on a target vehicle and configured to control traveling of the target vehicle based on position information of a plurality of vehicles, including the target vehicle and a host vehicle (Paragraph 0069, “One, several or all of the steps of the method can be implemented by computer. A computer program product comprising code instructions makes it possible to perform any one of the steps of the method when the program is run on a computer”; Paragraph 0072 describes the equipment (e.g. “Navigator 111” and “The driving aid system 210”) as being reasonably mounted onto the vehicle (“FIG. 2 illustrates an example of equipment embedded in a vehicle of the convoy and instrumented according to the invention”));
the vehicle travel control device being mounted on the target vehicle [configured to operate the traveling of the target vehicle through communication via a network] (Paragraph 0030, “The method described is suitable for the management of a convoy, generally. A vehicle can have a drive system (automatic driving, remote guidance, driving by a driver, assisted driving, etc.); Paragraph 0072 describes equipment (e.g. “Navigator 111” and “The driving aid system 210”) as being mounted onto the vehicle (“FIG. 2 illustrates an example of equipment embedded in a vehicle of the convoy and instrumented according to the invention”); Examiner notes that remote driving functionality necessarily requires features for communicating via a network); the vehicle travel control device comprising:
an absolute position calculation unit configured to acquire GNSS information from a GNSS receiver mounted on the target vehicle and calculate an absolute position of the target vehicle using the GNSS information (Paragraph 0082, “In one embodiment, a GPS in a standard mode is used”; Paragraphs 0014 and 0041 describe the standard mode as absolute positioning (“The absolute location can be obtained by means of the various GNSS coordinates received by the GPS vehicles”))
a relative position calculation unit configured to calculate a relative position of the target vehicle with respect to the host vehicle using the GNSS correction information (Paragraph 0082, “In another embodiment, the GPS is used in differential mode (“DGNSS”)”; Paragraphs 0045-0046 describe differential mode as being a relative position based on correction information (e.g. information received from a fixed/known location) (“In one development, the satellite positioning means are satellite positioning means operating in differential or relative mode… the location is performed by means of receivers, some of which are fixed (fixed receivers associated with the infrastructure for example)…The fixed references can therefore be non-vehicle references (pedestrian, infrastructure reference such as bridge, mast, building, differential GPS station, etc.)”); Paragraph 0040 describes position information as being with respect to other vehicles (“In addition to the relative positioning of the vehicles relative to one another, the method can predict the absolute location of one or more vehicles forming the convoy”)).
While Calmettes further discloses features for remote driving (Paragraph 0030, “remote guidance”) and communicating position information (Paragraph 0032, “sharing or by communicating or by transmitting or by broadcasting”), Calmettes does not explicitly recite a control device [connected to a remote control device]; a reception determination unit configured to determine whether GNSS correction information can be received from an external reference station; a communication unit configured to transmit position information of the target vehicle to the remote control device; wherein the communication unit is configured to: transmit the position information based on the relative position in a case in which the GNSS correction information can be received; and transmit position information based on the absolute position in a case in which the GNSS correction information cannot be received.
Nevertheless, Kim teaches features for remotely controlling a vehicle (see at least Abstract) comprising:
a control device [connected to a remote control device] (Paragraph 0110, “The vehicle 100 may be remotely controlled by an external device”; Paragraph 0182 describes the vehicle travel control device as being connected (via “communication device 400”) to the external device (“The communication device 400 is configured to perform communication with an external device. Here, the external device may be a nearby vehicle, a user's terminal, or a server”));
a communication unit configured to transmit position information of the target vehicle to the remote control device (Paragraph 0266 describes transmitting position information to the external device (“The vehicle information transmission module transmits current position (starting point), destination, and driving route information of the vehicle to the server 2000”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Calmettes invention to expand the features for remote driving (Paragraph 0030) to include an explicit connection to a remote control device, as taught by Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of further establishing a communication pathway for the vehicle during remote driving in order to control the vehicle remotely when the remote control server may determine whether the remote control is required in the vehicle 100 based on information sent by the vehicle (Kim, Paragraph 0194).
However, Calmettes as currently modified still does not explicitly teach: a reception determination unit configured to determine whether GNSS correction information can be received from an external reference station; wherein the communication unit is configured to: transmit the position information based on the relative position in a case in which the GNSS correction information can be received; and transmit position information based on the absolute position in a case in which the GNSS correction information cannot be received.
Nevertheless, Satomura teaches a vehicle configured to acquire correction information (see at least Paragraph 0001 and Paragraph 0018 of the previously attached English translation, “As shown in FIG. 2, the differential GPS device includes a central control unit 1 that controls the entire device. This centralized control unit 1 comprises an arithmetic processing unit 2, a control unit 3, a RAM 4, a ROM 5, and a timer 6, and as will be described later, receives GPS signals and error correction data to determine or correct current location information, and performs wireless communication with other mobile bodies”) comprising:
a reception determination unit configured to determine whether GNSS correction information can be received from an external reference station (Paragraph 0016 of the previously attached English translation describes receiving correction data from an external reference station (“First, as shown in FIG. 2…error correction data for correcting positioning errors contained in the GPS signals is created at this reference station 31, and this error correction data is distributed as an FM multiplex signal via an FM transmitting station 32 to mobile units 33 and 34 equipped with car navigation devices, portable navigation devices, etc”); Paragraph 0073 describes determining whether the correction information can be received (“In step S112, the control unit 3 determines that the error correction data cannot be received because the mobile unit is in a location with low electric field strength”));
wherein the communication unit is configured to: transmit the position information based on the relative position in a case in which the GNSS correction information can be received (Paragraph 0096 of the previously attached English translation describes determining whether correction information can be received before outputting position information (“In step S142, the control unit 3 determines whether or not the error correction data can be received over a predetermined time period…If the determination in step S142 is YES, the flow proceeds to step S144, where the error correction data is fetched and stored in RAM 4, and in step S146 the current position information is corrected using the error correction data, after which the flow returns to the above-mentioned step S130”)); and transmit position information based on the absolute position in a case in which the GNSS correction information cannot be received (Paragraph 0097 of the previously attached English translation, “On the other hand, if the determination in step S142 is NO, the process proceeds to step S146, where the current position information is calculated using only the GPS signal, and then the process returns to the above-mentioned step S130”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Calmettes invention to expand the features for acquiring absolute and relative positioning information (Paragraph 0082) to include logic for choosing between types of positioning information based on availability, as taught by Satomura, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of improving the real-time accuracy of a current position (see at least Satomura, Paragraph 0004).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calmettes, Kim, Satomura and further in view of Jordan et al. (US Publication Number US20160313450A1; hereinafter Jordan) and Vollbracht et al. (US Publication Number US20230115602A1; hereinafter Vollbracht).
Regarding Claim 2, Calmettes as currently modified teaches claim 1. While Calmettes further discloses a correction position calculation unit configured to acquire [inertial information] (Paragraph 0016, “…it is also possible to instrument the vehicles (i.e. all or some of the vehicles of the convoy) by means of inertial systems (odometers for example), useful when the convoy passes through physical tunnels and/or areas in which the GPS reception is temporarily interrupted (in an urban traffic situation, reception of the GPS signal being prevented by the buildings and/or the vegetation, bad weather conditions, etc.)”), Calmettes does not explicitly recite that the inertial information includes [acceleration and angular velocity information of the target vehicle from an inertial measurement unit mounted on the target vehicle] and calculate a corrected relative position obtained by correcting the relative position of the target vehicle based on the GNSS correction information [and the acceleration and angular velocity information], wherein in a case in which the GNSS correction information can be received, the position information of the target vehicle is position information specified using the corrected relative position obtained by correcting the relative position.
Nevertheless, Jordan teaches a vehicle configured to correct positional information (see at least Abstract) comprising:
calculate a corrected relative position obtained by correcting the relative position of the target vehicle based on the GNSS correction information [and the inertial information] (Figure 4 and Paragraphs 0041-0044 describe calculating a relative position based on correction information (e.g. Steps 208-212 describe using correction information from reference stations) and dead reckoning (e.g. Step 216 describes determining a position based on dead reckoning data); Paragraph 0034 describes dead reckoning data as including inertial information (“In some embodiments, the dead reckoning data 120 e may be determined based on data from sensors of the vehicle 52 a (e.g., an on-board gyroscope and/or wheel click messages”));
wherein in a case in which the GNSS correction information can be received, the position information of the target vehicle is position information specified using the corrected relative position obtained by correcting the relative position (Figure 4 and Paragraphs 0041-0044 describe using the correction information from external reference stations and inertial information (e.g. Steps 210-216) when the correction information can be received from external reference stations (e.g. YES to Step 208)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Calmettes invention to expand the features for acquiring absolute and relative position information (Paragraph 0082) and inertial information (Paragraph 0016) to determine a position based on a combination of the acquired information, as taught by Jordan, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of providing more precise positioning (Jordan, see at least Paragraph 0005).
While Calmettes teaches features that reasonably allow for acquiring and implementing inertial information (Paragraph 0016), Calmettes as currently modified still does not explicitly recite that the inertial information includes [acceleration and angular velocity information of the target vehicle from an inertial measurement unit mounted on the target vehicle].
Nevertheless, Vollbracht teaches a vehicle configured to acquire correction information (see at least Paragraph 0015) capable of further acquiring:
[acceleration and angular velocity information of the target vehicle from an inertial measurement unit mounted on the target vehicle] (Paragraph 0054 describes an IMU configured to determine acceleration and angular velocity information (“FIG. 3 shows a block diagram of a dGPS system 300. The dGPS system may include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 302, a GNSS card 304, a CPU board 306 with intermediate electronics, and an output interface 308. The IMU 302 may include very precise accelerometers and gyroscopes to estimate the acceleration and yaw rate in three dimensions…”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Calmettes invention to expand the features for acquiring location information (Paragraph 0082) and inertial information (Paragraph 0016) to include acquiring and implementing inertial information such as acceleration and angular velocity, as taught by Vollbracht, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of allowing correction information to be implemented even in areas without reception (see at least Vollbracht, Paragraph 0054).
Regarding Claim 4, Calmettes as currently modified teaches claim 2. Calmettes does not explicitly recite: wherein the reception determination unit is further configured to determine whether the GNSS information can be received and determine in response to determining that the GNSS information can be received, whether the GNSS correction information can be subsequently received, and wherein in response to determining that the GNSS information cannot be received, a position specification unit specifies the position of the target vehicle using an estimated position of the target vehicle calculated based on received latest GNSS information and the acceleration and angular velocity information.
Nevertheless, Satomura further teaches:
wherein the reception determination unit is further configured to determine whether the GNSS information can be received (Paragraph 0113 of the previously attached English translation describes determining whether a GPS signal can be received (“First, as shown in FIG. 18, when the process starts, in step S150, the control unit 3 determines whether or not a GPS signal can be received for a predetermined time period. If the determination in step S150 is YES, the process proceeds to step S152…”)); and
determine in response to determining that the GNSS information can be received, whether the GNSS correction information can be subsequently received (Paragraph 0114 of the previously attached English translation describes determining whether correction information can be received after determining the GPS signal can be received (“…In step S156, the control unit 3 determines whether or not the error correction data can be received over a predetermined time period”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Calmettes invention to expand the features for acquiring location information (Paragraph 0082) to include determining whether GNSS information and GNSS correction information can be received, as taught by Satomura, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of distinguishing different types of insufficient reception (Satomura, see at least Paragraphs 0113-0114).
However, Calmettes does not explicitly recite: wherein in response to determining that the GNSS information cannot be received, a position specification unit specifies the position of the target vehicle using an estimated position of the target vehicle calculated based on received latest GNSS information and the acceleration and angular velocity information.
Nevertheless, Vollbracht further teaches:
wherein in response to determining that the GNSS information cannot be received, a position specification unit specifies the position of the target vehicle using an estimated position of the target vehicle calculated based on received latest GNSS information and the acceleration and angular velocity information (Paragraph 0054 describes an IMU configured to determine acceleration and angular velocity information (“FIG. 3 shows a block diagram of a dGPS system 300. The dGPS system may include an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 302, a GNSS card 304, a CPU board 306 with intermediate electronics, and an output interface 308. The IMU 302 may include very precise accelerometers and gyroscopes to estimate the acceleration and yaw rate in three dimensions…”) and determining a relative position based on latest GNSS information and IMU information when GNSS information cannot be received (“…if the vehicle may enter GNSS-denied areas such as tunnels, it may be the IMU unit 302 that may deliver the data to keep track of the vehicle’s movement”); Examiner notes that keeping track of the vehicle’s movement with IMU data when GNSS information cannot be received reasonably indicates using the latest GNSS information with IMU information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Calmettes invention to expand features for acquiring location information (Paragraph 0082) and inertial measurements (Paragraph 0016) to include capabilities for acquiring and implementing IMU information such as acceleration and angular velocity, as taught by Vollbracht, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the benefit of allowing correction information to be implemented even in areas without reception (see at least Vollbracht, Paragraph 0054).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are 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.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and/or remarks, filed on 06/04/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 1, 5, and 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Kim doesn’t teach or suggest remote control of the "traveling of a target vehicle based on position information of a plurality of vehicles, including the target vehicle and a host vehicle,", the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., remote control of the traveling of a target vehicle based on position information of a plurality of vehicles, including the target vehicle and a host vehicle) 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 claim recite a generic remote control of the target vehicle and Kim discloses that as recited above.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Calmettes does teach or suggest “remote control device that provides remote control of platooning based on position information of a plurality of vehicles, including the target vehicle and a host vehicle”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement for the same reason recited above. The recited argument is not recited in the rejected claim(s). The examiner relies on Kim to show that remote control of a lead vehicle could be performed remotely based on information received from said lead vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
