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 . Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the 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. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a different off-road vehicles” but should instead recite --a different off-road vehicle--.
Claim 6 recites “wherein plurality of devices are” but should instead recite --where the plurality of devices are--.
Claim 6 recites “LoRaWAN (i.e., LoRa)” but should instead recite --LoRaWAN (LoRa)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to because the text is difficult to read (see at least Figs. 3, 4A-4B, and 5-8). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a processor operable to determine…” It is unclear if one of the devices comprises the processor, if there should be a processor comprised in each device, or if the processor is separate/remote from the devices. The metes and bounds of the claim limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that the claim is referring to one or more processors, either part of or separate from the devices.
Claim 1 recites “at least one sensor operable for determining the proximity and speed of the devices associated with the group.” It is unclear if one sensor is capable of determining proximity and speed, or if this actually requires more than one sensor. The specification does not appear to disclose a single type of sensor that can determine both proximity and speed. Therefore it would appear that more than one sensor would be required to determine proximity and speed. Furthermore, how does the at least one sensor determine both proximity and speed of a device that is not directly in front of or behind it? The metes and bounds of the claim limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such one or more sensors determines proximity and one or more sensors determines speed.
Claim 1 recites “the at least one sensor operable to identify a collision risk and alert at least one member of the group accordingly in response to the identified collision risk.” It is unclear if the sensor is performing processing on the sensed data to identify a collision risk and is performing the actual alert, if the processor is performing these functions, or something else. The metes and bounds of the claim limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted broadly such that in response to the proximity and speed, a collision risk is identified and at least one member of the group is alerted in response.
Regarding claims 2-4, the phrase "can" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to mean configured to instead of can.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "LoRaWAN (i.e., LoRa)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim requires LoRaWAN or only requires LoRa technology. Although LoRaWAN requires LoRa technology, LoRaWAN and LoRa are not necessarily one and the same. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to only be referring to LoRaWAN.
Claim 8 recites “a potential collision risk” and it is unclear if this is referring to the same collision risk introduced in claim 1 or a different one. The metes and bounds of the claim limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to be referring to the same collision risk.
Claim 8 recites “the proximity” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to read --a proximity--.
Claim 11 recites “each device in a group” but these limitations were already introduced in claim 1 and therefore it is unclear if these are referring to the same devices and the same group, or different ones. The metes and bounds of the claim limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to be referring to the same devices and the same group.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "may" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to mean configured to instead of may.
Claim 13 recites “a group” but these limitations were already introduced in claim 1 and therefore it is unclear if these are referring to the same group, or a different one. The metes and bounds of the claim limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to be referring to the same group.
Claim 14 recites “a particular range” but these limitations were already introduced in claim 13 and therefore it is unclear if these are referring to the same particular range, or a different one. The metes and bounds of the claim limitations are vague and ill-defined, rendering the claim indefinite. As best understood, the claim will be interpreted to be referring to the same particular range.
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“A vehicle proximity and alert system for use with off-road vehicles, comprising: a. a plurality of devices operable for communication with each other, each device secured to a different off-road vehicles; b. a processor operable to determine whether at least some of the plurality of devices are connected together, and if so to define a group; c. at least one sensor operable for determining the proximity and speed of the devices associated with the group; d. the at least one sensor operable to identify a collision risk and alert at least one member of the group accordingly in response to the identified collision risk.”
The limitations of determining whether at least some of the plurality of devices are connected together, and if so to define a group, and identify a collision risk, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor operable to”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “a processor operable to” language, determining whether at least some of the plurality of devices are connected together, and if so to define a group, in the context of the claim encompasses a person identifying devices which are in communication and labeling them as part of a group (i.e., an observation and a decision). The limitations of determining a collision risk, in the context of the claim, encompasses a person observing sensor data to determine if two devices might collide. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of using a processor to perform the recited steps. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The limitation of a plurality of devices operable for communication with each other, each device secured to a different off-road vehicles is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic devices such as smartphones, GPS, or the like secured to off-road vehicles). The limitation of at least one sensor operable for determining the proximity and speed of the devices associated with the group is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a general means of gathering data used for the determining step) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations of alert at least one member of the group accordingly in response to the identified collision risk is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic output in response to the determination step) and is considered insignificant post-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements claimed amount to insignificant extra-solution activities. See 2106.05(g) for more details. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, cannot provide an inventive concept- rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 2-14 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim 2 encompasses a person mentally deciding based whether to add or remove members of the group.
Claims 3-4 encompass a person mentally making a determination based on sensor data whether a member is leaving or joining the group based on distance.
Claim 5 encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., a generic button providing an indication).
Claim 6 encompasses well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of using BLE, LoRa, or GPS technologies.
Claim 7 encompasses a person using sensor data (insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering) to make a determination about the proximity of devices.
Claims 8-10 encompass making a determination based on sensor data (insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering) and triggering different alerts (insignificant post-solution activity in response to a determining step).
Claim 11 encompasses an indication of a number of members within a group, which is considered insignificant post solution activity in response to a step of identifying or determining a number of members, which can be performed mentally.
Claim 12 encompasses associating devices together, which could be done mentally by a person labeling which devices are in communication or are driving in a group together.
Claims 13-14 encompass a person mentally making a determination based on sensor data whether a member is leaving or joining the group based on distance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Post (US 2018/0077524 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Post discloses a vehicle proximity and alert system for use with off-road vehicles (see at least [0002, 0018, 0043-0047]), comprising: a. a plurality of devices operable for communication with each other, each device secured to a different off-road vehicles (see at least [0031] – system 10 provided vehicles 100, 200, 300, 400); b. a processor operable to determine whether at least some of the plurality of devices are connected together, and if so to define a group (see at least [0031] – processor 12… forming a mesh network); c. at least one sensor operable for determining the proximity and speed of the devices associated with the group (see at least [0029] – GPS module 20 gathers information about the current geographical position of the system 10 and thus the vehicle 100… data from accelerometer 16 provides information about the speed); d. the at least one sensor operable to identify a collision risk and alert at least one member of the group accordingly in response to the identified collision risk (see at least [0034, 0039, 0045] – Considering location, speed, and acceleration type data for determining a likely future position... determines if the likely paths ever intersect and further whether multiple vehicles are ever likely to attempt to inhabit the same real estate. If such a condition is determined to exist, system 10 further considers the period of time (how long) from a current time in which such intersection would occur. As the time to such an intersection decreases, the likelihood of issuing an alert to one or more riders increases.).
Regarding claim 12, Post discloses wherein members may be added to the group by associating their devices together (see at least [0022, 0031] – forming a mesh network when in range with other vehicles).
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.
Claims 1 and 12 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (US 2013/0300581 A1) in view of Post.
Regarding claim 1, Jenkins discloses a vehicle proximity and alert system for use with off-road vehicles (see at least [0012-0015] – system for collision avoidance of snowmobiles), comprising: a. a plurality of devices operable for communication with each other, each device secured to a different off-road vehicles (see at least [0018, 0020-0021] – transceivers 10); b. a processor operable to determine whether at least some of the plurality of devices are connected together, and if so to define a group (see at least [0018-0021] – microprocessor 30… transceivers 10 join in a group).
Jenkins does not appear to explicitly disclose c. at least one sensor operable for determining the proximity and speed of the devices associated with the group; d. the at least one sensor operable to identify a collision risk and alert at least one member of the group accordingly in response to the identified collision risk.
Post, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: c. at least one sensor operable for determining the proximity and speed of the devices associated with the group (see at least [0029] – GPS module 20 gathers information about the current geographical position of the system 10 and thus the vehicle 100… data from accelerometer 16 provides information about the speed); d. the at least one sensor operable to identify a collision risk and alert at least one member of the group accordingly in response to the identified collision risk (see at least [0034, 0039, 0045] – Considering location, speed, and acceleration type data for determining a likely future position... determines if the likely paths ever intersect and further whether multiple vehicles are ever likely to attempt to inhabit the same real estate. If such a condition is determined to exist, system 10 further considers the period of time (how long) from a current time in which such intersection would occur. As the time to such an intersection decreases, the likelihood of issuing an alert to one or more riders increases.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Post into the invention of Jenkins with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of determining whether paths are likely to intersect and issuing an alert to drivers (Post – [0045]). Doing so would improve safety and yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Jenkins discloses wherein members may be added to the group by associating their devices together (see at least [0025] – transceivers 10 enter or join the group).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the alternative rejection of Jenkins in view of Post, and further in view of Jang (US 2022/0180754 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Jenkins does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a lead user of the system can add and remove members of the group.
Jang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein a lead user of the system can add and remove members of the group (see at least [0046-0047] – a new vehicle that joins platooning or a vehicle that separates from platooning can transmit a message requesting joinder or separation to the leader vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Jang into the invention of Jenkins with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is that the leader vehicle may be designated to manage and control the platooning, including when a vehicle separates from or joins the platoon (Jang – [0047, 0084]). Designating the leader vehicle as the one that manages the group avoids confusion and mixed messaging which could occur if multiple vehicles have the ability to manage the platoon, and doing so would yield predictable results.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the alternative rejection of Jenkins in view of Post, and further in view of Nakamura (JP 2015-22420 A, a machine translation is attached and being relied upon).
Regarding claim 3, Jenkins does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the members of the group can leave the group by physically exceeding a distance from the other members of the group for a particular period of time.
Nakamura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the members of the group can leave the group by physically exceeding a distance from the other members of the group for a particular period of time (see at least [0027, 0038, 0041, 0044] - when a discontinuity in the inter-vehicle distance Dr detected by a radar device is detected, it is determined that the leading vehicle is leaving the platoon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Nakamura into the invention of Jenkins with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of communicating to the other vehicles that the vehicle is leaving the convoy (Nakamura – [0027]). This will indicate to the other vehicles that the vehicle which has left the platoon is no longer sharing information and allow the other vehicles to maintain real-time awareness of which vehicles are part of the group.
Regarding claim 4, Jenkins does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein when a member exits the group, one or more other members of the group will receive an indication regarding the exiting group member.
Nakamura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein when a member exits the group, one or more other members of the group will receive an indication regarding the exiting group member (see at least [0027] - when a vehicle determines that the preceding vehicle is leaving, it communicates to other vehicles in the convoy via communication device 14 that the vehicle traveling in front of it is leaving and the ID number of that vehicle).
The motivation to combine Jenkins and Nakamura is the same as in the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the alternative rejection of Jenkins in view of Post, and further in view of Burke (US 2014/0302774 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jenkins does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each member of the group can press a request button to ask the group to stop or slow down.
Burke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein each member of the group can press a request button to ask the group to stop or slow down (see at least [0127] – button requesting that other vehicles belonging to the group 120 also stop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Burke into the invention of Jenkins with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of allowing the vehicles to communicate with one another when travelling in a group so that the vehicles can stick together when one of the vehicles needs to stop for a given reason, such as refueling which demonstrated by Burke. Other reasons for stopping are for restroom breaks and medical emergencies.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the alternative rejection of Jenkins in view of Post, and further in view of Shuman (US 2023/0403595 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Jenkins does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein plurality of devices are in communication using at least one of Bluetooth low energy (BLE), LoRaWAN (i.e., LoRa) technologies, and global positioning system technologies.
Shuman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein plurality of devices are in communication using at least one of Bluetooth low energy (BLE) (see at least [0089, 0168] – Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE)), LoRaWAN (i.e., LoRa) technologies, and global positioning system technologies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Shuman into the invention of Jenkins with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of communicating between the vehicles by offering fast connection times and also consuming significantly less power, which enables longer battery life for connected devices.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over the alternative rejection of Jenkins in view of Post, and further in view of Nachnolkar (US 2021/0171034 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Jenkins does not appear to explicitly disclose further adapted to detect other devices outside of the group and use acquired information about those other devices to calculate proximity of their associated vehicles.
Nachnolkar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: further adapted to detect other devices outside of the group and use acquired information about those other devices to calculate proximity of their associated vehicles (see at least [0074, 0088, 0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Nachnolkar into the invention of Jenkins with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of ensuring the safety of the vehicles by providing a safe relative distance and collision mitigation (Nachnolkar – [0002, 0006]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the alternative rejection of Jenkins in view of Post, and further in view of Hattori (JP 2020-160942 A, a machine translation is attached and being relied upon).
Regarding claim 8, Jenkins does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein, when a potential collision risk is determined, the processor checks whether the proximity of the collision risk is less than a first range, and if so triggers a first critical alert.
Hattori, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein, when a potential collision risk is determined, the processor checks whether the proximity of the collision risk is less than a first range, and if so triggers a first critical alert (see at least Figs. 2, 8, [0037-0038, 0057-0061, 0074-0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Hattori into the invention of Jenkins with a reasonable expectation of success because it is desirable to appropriately notify the driver of situations in order to assist the driver in avoiding collisions (Hattori – [0004, 0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Jenkins does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein, if the proximity of the collision risk is not less than the first range, then the processor checks whether the proximity of the collision risk is less than a second range, and if so triggers a secondary alert.
Hattori, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein, if the proximity of the collision risk is not less than the first range, then the processor checks whether the proximity of the collision risk is less than a second range, and if so triggers a secondary alert (see at least Figs. 2, 8, [0037-0038, 0057-0061, 0074-0075]).
The motivation to combine Jenkins and Hattori is the same as in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Jenkins does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein, if the proximity of the collision risk is not less than the second range, then the processor triggers a further alert.
Hattori, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein, if the proximity of the collision risk is not less than the second range, then the processor triggers a further alert (see at least Figs. 2, 8, [0037-0038, 0057-0061, 0074-0075]).
The motivation to combine Jenkins and Hattori is the same as in the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the alternative rejection of Jenkins in view of Post, and further in view of Dev (US 2020/0209889 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Jenkins does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each device in a group indicates a number of members within that group.
Dev, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein each device in a group indicates a number of members within that group (see at least [0049] – vehicle display module 209 is configured to provide a simulated view of the vehicle platoon to each of the vehicles in the vehicle platoon, the simulated view includes the vehicles in the vehicle platoon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Dev into the invention of Jenkins with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a surround view for the vehicles to address blind-spots and avoid accidents (Dev – [0004-0005]).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the alternative rejection of Jenkins in view of Post, and further in view of Loo (US 9,141,112 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Jenkins does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein when a member of a group exceeds a particular range away from the remaining group members, that member is determined to have left the group.
Loo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein when a member of a group exceeds a particular range away from the remaining group members, that member is determined to have left the group (see at least column 19, lines 10-20 - GPS positions of vehicles 202 may be monitored to determine whether a person strays too far from the generated route or the rest of the caravan (e.g., takes an exit that other vehicles in the caravan do not take). If the caravan management detects this scenario, it may send an alert to the departing vehicle 202 (or devices therein).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Loo into the invention of Jenkins with a reasonable expectation of success because as the vehicles join the group their preferences may be taken into account and when the vehicles leave the group their preferences are no longer taken into account (Loo – column 19, lines 10-35), thereby improving the experience for participants in the caravan (Loo – column 2, lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 14, Jenkins does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein when that member returns within a particular range of the remaining group members, that member is determined to have rejoined the group.
Loo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein when that member returns within a particular range of the remaining group members, that member is determined to have rejoined the group (see at least column 19, lines 25-35 - In comparison, the caravan management system may also monitor Surrounding vehicles 202 and/or computing devices (e.g., within a certain proximity to the caravan) to determine whether other participants would like to join the caravan. For example, if a vehicle 202 that was expected to be in the caravan (but perhaps was running late and did not make it for the start) comes within a certain radius of at least one vehicle 202 in the caravan, that vehicle 202 may be joined to the caravan.).
The motivation to combine Jenkins and Loo is the same as in the rejection of claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Hashimoto (US 6,285,929 B1) is directed to a processional travel control apparatus that allows processional travel with a leading vehicle driven by a driver and a plurality of succeeding vehicles automatically following the leading vehicle, each of the vehicles is provided with: an input device for entering the total number of vehicles in a procession and the sequence number of each vehicle in the procession; a vehicle setting device for setting each vehicle as either a leading vehicle or a succeeding vehicle according to the sequence number of each vehicle in the procession set by the input device; and a vehicle travelling control device for instructing each vehicle to travel in a procession according to the set sequence number in the procession. Hence a procession or the like can be formed essentially anywhere, including outside of conventional parking ports.
Fields (US 2008/0201022 A1) is directed to a novel warning and identification system for use on recreational vehicles of various types, such as snowmobiles or ATVs, is disclosed as comprising a housing with a display that projects a digital number that is mounted and oriented to provide oncoming riders with information concerning the number of participants in the user's group. The digital display may be set by the user using inputs that allow the entry of the desired number. In addition, the warning and identification system of the present invention includes a beacon for transmitting a select radio signal from the recreational vehicle and which can be recognized by an oncoming rider using a corresponding warning and identification system. Signal differentiation is generated by the unit and like-kind signals are filtered out to avoid confusion amongst the users within a group of riders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669