DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 received on 06/13/2024 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/13/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the phrase "based on the updated type of communication messages for the vehicle" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is part of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the processor selects an updated transmission rate or an updated type of communication messages, and when “an updated transmission rate” is selected, there is no antecedent basis for the updated type.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are dependent on claim 1 and 13, respectively, and fail to cure the deficiencies thereof, thus are rejected on the same basis.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitation " the cooperative vehicle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
Additional claim limitation of “executing autonomous actions to maneuver the vehicle based on the updated type of communication messages for the vehicle” applies or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, thus integrating the judicial exception into a practical application as supported by para. [0027] of the specification, which is reproduced below:
[0027] As previously described, intent MMs provide information that is predictive, such as future trajectories of other vehicles in the platoon, which can enable vehicles to analyze and determine which actions can be taken to improve the damping properties of the platoon so that the disturbance can be mitigated.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (KR 20210058326 A), in view of Avedisov (US20220116820A1).
Espacenet English translation of LEE cited by the Examiner is attached.
Avedisov is cited in the IDS received on 06/13/2024.
Regarding claim 1, LEE teaches a system (FIG. 4), comprising:
a processor device (FIG. 4 determination unit 420) analyzing data associated with a driving environment of a vehicle and selecting an updated transmission rate (FIG. 1; para. [0046]-[0047]: “determination unit 420 determines whether vehicles are congested in the downtown area […] The controller 430 changes the BSM transmission period according to the congestion situation”),
wherein the data comprises communication messages of an initial type transmitted at an initial transmission rate by a plurality of communicatively connected vehicles in the driving environment (para. [0046]: “The determination unit 420 determines whether vehicles are congested in the downtown area using the vehicle speed and GPS. The determination unit 420 checks the state of the V2V channel through which the BSM is currently transmitting and receiving, and determines whether the vehicle is congested based on the number of received BSMs and the number of packets received from the communication physical layer”), but fails to specifically teach a controller device executing autonomous actions to maneuver the vehicle based on the updated type of communication messages for the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Avedisov teaches an updated type of communication messages for the vehicle (FIG. 8; para. [0289]: “the intent message is similar to the status sharing message with the exception that the intent message describes the future driving intention of the transmitter whereas the status sharing message does not describe the future driving intention of the transmitter”; para. [0280]: “select which cooperation message species class of V2X message to transmit to the receiver based on the conflict factor.”) and a controller device executing autonomous actions to maneuver the vehicle based on the updated type of communication messages for the vehicle (para. [0289]: “intent message describes the future driving intention of the transmitter”; para. [0224]: “the ego vehicle 123 includes a vehicle control system. A vehicle control system includes one or more ADAS systems or an autonomous driving system.”, wherein ADAS will perform according to intent).
LEE and Avedisov are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of vehicle maneuver based on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LEE to incorporate the teachings of Avedisov and change message type based on traffic situation. Doing so would offer benefits in cooperation and awareness for road users (Avedisov, para. [0007]), thus improving safety.
Regarding claim 2, LEE in view of Avedisov teaches the system of claim 1. LEE and Avedisov further teaches wherein the plurality of communicatively connected vehicles in the driving environment comprise a cooperative vehicle platoon (LEE FIG. 1; LEE para. [0019]: “the vehicle 110 obtains CAN information of not only its own CAN information but also surrounding vehicles 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127 through communication. Therefore, it is possible to develop applications such as route prediction of other cars (121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127)”; Avedisov para. [0115]: “Some groups of vehicles (e.g., cliques, platoons, etc.) might appear to be a vehicular micro cloud”, wherein communication with surrounding vehicles indicate cooperative vehicle platoon).
Regarding claim 13, it recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform (LEE para. [0054]: “The method according to the embodiment may be implemented in the form of program instructions that can be executed through various computer means and recorded in a computer-readable medium. The computer-readable medium may include program instructions, data files, data structures, etc. alone or in combination. The program instructions recorded on the medium may be specially designed and configured for the embodiment, or may be known and available to those skilled in the art of computer software. Examples of the computer-readable recording medium include magnetic media such as hard disks, floppy disks and magnetic tapes, optical media such as CD-ROMs and DVDs, and magnetic such as floppy disks. - includes magneto-optical media, and hardware devices specially configured to store and execute program instructions, such as ROM, RAM, flash memory, and the like”) claim limitations similar to those performed by the system of claim 1, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 14, it recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform claim limitations similar to those performed by the system of claim 2, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 3-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE, in view of Avedisov and further in view of Shuman (US20210264793A1).
Regarding claim 3, LEE in view of Avedisov teaches the system of claim 2. LEE teaches (FIG. 1; para. [0039]: “As shown in FIG. 3, congestion is determined based on the number of received BSM and the number of packets received from the communication physical layer”, wherein vehicles communicating with each other will receive number of received BSM comprises of driving environment downstream from the vehicles in the cooperative vehicle platoon), but fails to specifically teach the vehicle comprises a leading vehicle in the cooperative vehicle platoon.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shuman teaches the vehicle comprises a leading vehicle in the cooperative vehicle platoon (FIG. 5B-5C; para. [0023]: “The platoon control plan may be determined by a single vehicle, which may be referred to as the “leader.”[…] the leader vehicle need not be the lead vehicle in the platoon. Platooning allows vehicles to achieve a number of beneficial results”, where any vehicles within the group can be assigned as leader).
Shuman is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of vehicle maneuver based on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LEE in view of Avedisov and incorporate the teachings of Shuman and assign a leader. Doing so would offer benefits of efficient V2V communication by reducing unnecessary and redundant messages, thus preventing network congestion.
Regarding claim 4, LEE in view of Avedisov and further in view of Shuman teaches the system of claim 3. LEE further teaches wherein the processor device detects whether the communication messages transmitted by the vehicles attenuate the traffic disturbance for vehicles in the cooperative vehicle platoon (FIG. 1; FIG. 2; para. [0046]: “The determination unit 420 determines whether vehicles are congested in the downtown area using the vehicle speed and GPS. The determination unit 420 checks the state of the V2V channel through which the BSM is currently transmitting and receiving, and determines whether the vehicle is congested based on the number of received BSMs and the number of packets received from the communication physical layer”; para. [0032]: “When it is not a congestion situation (232)”, wherein when not a congestion situation indicates attenuate the traffic disturbance for vehicles in the cooperative vehicle platoon).
Regarding claim 5, LEE in view of Avedisov and further in view of Shuman teaches the system of claim 4. LEE further teaches wherein the processor device determines to dynamically change from transmitting the communication messages at the initial transmission rate to transmitting the communication messages at the updated transmission rate in the cooperative vehicle platoon (FIG. 1; para. [0046]-[0047]: “determination unit 420 determines whether vehicles are congested in the downtown area […] The controller 430 changes the BSM transmission period according to the congestion situation”).
Regarding claim 15, it recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform claim limitations similar to those performed by the system of claim 4, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 16, it recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform claim limitations similar to those performed by the system of claim 5, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE, in view of Avedisov and further in view of Dieckmann (US20210232157A1).
Regarding claim 11, LEE in view of Avedisov teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the controller device executes autonomous actions to maneuver the vehicle such that acceleration fluctuations at the tail of the cooperative vehicle platoon are bounded.
However, Dieckmann teaches wherein the controller device executes autonomous actions to maneuver the vehicle (para. [0034]: “the platooning control system may cause automated control of a brake system and/or a drive system of the vehicle and the platooning control system is further designed, on meeting a limitation criterion, to cause limitation of the vehicle deceleration of the vehicle to a limit deceleration as described”) such that acceleration fluctuations at the tail of the cooperative vehicle platoon are bounded (para. [0044]: “it is provided that the vehicle deceleration a1, a2, a3 for each vehicle 1, 2, 3 is limited to a limit deceleration aG”; para. [0016]: “so that the vehicle as a leading guide vehicle or as a leading following vehicle can be decelerated as much as any following vehicle of the platoon travelling behind the vehicle in a braking situation”; para. [0017]: “even if the maximum deceleration of at least one vehicle is not known. This means that even in a platoon in which individual vehicles provide no information or only very inaccurate information about the maximum deceleration, a safe driving operation can nevertheless be guaranteed”).
Dieckmann is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of vehicle maneuver based on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LEE in view of Avedisov and incorporate the teachings of Dieckmann and perform limitation of the vehicle deceleration. Doing so will ensure that no rear-end collisions occur in a braking situation (Dieckmann para. [0024]) as vehicles can coordinate in any braking situation, even if the maximum deceleration of at least one vehicle is not known (Dieckmann, para. [0017]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE, in view of Avedisov and further in view of SABAU (US20170227972A1).
Regarding claim 12, LEE in view of Avedisov teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the controller device executes autonomous actions to maneuver the vehicle such that a peak deceleration decreases between each of the successive vehicles in the cooperative vehicle platoon.
However, SABAU wherein the controller device executes autonomous actions to maneuver the vehicle such that a peak deceleration decreases between each of the successive vehicles in the cooperative vehicle platoon (FIG. 4; FIG. 14; para. [0013]: “controller can generate a control action to be implemented by the throttling and braking system to maintain a desired distance behind the predecessor vehicle.”; para. [0163]-[0166]: “Peak-to-Peak Disturbance Attenuation-Homogeneous Strings […] The regularization information for the entire string for the level of disturbances and noises may be made available to each vehicle through communications protocols.”; para. [0086]: “One of the objectives of the control mechanism in various embodiments is to attenuate the effect of the disturbances”; para. [0159]: “The simulation results are given in FIG. 14. The simulation results illustrated for distributed leader information control for platooning in FIG. 14 include (from top left): disturbances for vehicle k/acceleration at the leader; Inter-vehicle spacing errors z(t); Position y(t) (absolute value); and Velocity v(t).”, wherein the slope of velocity is decreasing as it goes to the tail thus indicating peak deceleration decreases between each of the successive vehicles in the cooperative vehicle platoon).
SABAU is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of vehicle maneuver based on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified LEE in view of Avedisov and incorporate the teachings of SABAU and perform peak-to-peak disturbance attenuation to achieve string stability. Doing so will tackle the undesired and potentially risky oscillatory phenomena inherent to the dynamics of vehicle platooning (the so-called Forrester effect, or bullwhip effect) while maximizing the throughput of highway traffic by reducing the accordion effect on the behavior of the platoon (SABAU, para. [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. GOGIC (US20200118436A1) teaches changing a transmission rate in response to detecting an event.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/ANDREW SANG KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights