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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 6, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to claim 9 correct the previously-raised informalities. Accordingly, the objection to claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 6-7, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to the claims remove language which previously invoked interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation(s) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 7-8, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 4-5 and 8-12 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
Regarding claims 4-5 and 8, the Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to the claims remove language directed towards “the determination results” and “the remaining vehicles”. However, the amendments to the claims introduce further indefiniteness concerns (see corresponding 35 USC 112(b) rejection below).
Regarding claims 9-12, the Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to the claims correct the previously-raised indefiniteness concerns.
Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 4-5 and 8-12 has been withdrawn. However, due to the modified claim language, new ground(s) of rejection are made for claims 4-5 and 8 (see 35 USC 112(b) rejection below)
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 8-10, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Examiner is in agreement that the amendments to independent claim 1 now recite additional elements (i.e., “wherein the vehicle members of the particular group are controlled to carry out the corresponding roles.”) which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot be reasonably performed reasonably in the human mind. Accordingly, the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pgs. 10-12, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) of independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims have been fully considered and but are not persuasive.
With respect to independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Brugman fails to teach or suggest “wherein corresponding roles in the particular group are assigned based on the group member information, and wherein the vehicle members of the particular group are controlled to carry out the corresponding roles.” In particular, Applicant alleges that “Brugman merely discloses that each task to each vehicle traveling in a convoy is delegated and processed information between vehicles is shared.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of Brugman, and asserts that Brugman does teach “wherein corresponding roles in the particular group are assigned based on the group member information, and wherein the vehicle members of the particular group are controlled to carry out the corresponding roles.” in at least paragraphs [0046] and [0048]. In particular, [0046] teaches that “the delegation of the first task to the first vehicle may be based on the presence of a sensor or system configured in the first vehicle but not in the second vehicle… Therefore, results of the task of around view monitoring processed by the first computing device of the first vehicle may be relevant and useful to the second vehicle while traveling in a convoy together”, and [0048] teaches that “The computing device may further delegate the collection and processing of information for a second task to the second vehicle, at block 230. For example, the delegation of the second task to the second vehicle may be based on the presence of a sensor or system configured in the second vehicle but not in the first vehicle… Therefore, weather conditions may be determined and provided to another vehicle in the convoy, for example the first vehicle, which may not be equipped with weather sensors.” In other words, [0046] and [0048] teach both the assignment of the corresponding roles in the particular group and the controlling of the vehicle members of the particular group to carry out the corresponding roles.
Accordingly, the prior art rejection(s) of independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims has been maintained to account for the modified scope of the claim language.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, the limitation “the master is either a group master of the particular group, or a service-specific master of the particular group determined for each of group services.” is grammatically incorrect. The Examiner recommends amending “for each of group services” to “for each of one or more group services”, “for each of two or more group services”, “for each of a plurality of group services” or similar language depending on the amount of group services intended to be claimed by Applicant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “providing the vehicle member information comprises: collecting, by a processor, the vehicle member information to confirm a group member service database;” However, the written description does not sufficiently describe the amended features of confirming a group member service database. Referring to the written description, paragraphs [0091]-[0092] at best teach confirming group members and updating a confirmed member in a group member system database (“The master vehicle then performs a group member search to confirm the group members, and inter-vehicle communication is established (an operation S530). The tailgate of each vehicle is opened and the master vehicle starts searching for vehicles in the vicinity (short range). The "group member system database" is updated once again with the information of the vehicles within a communication distance. That is, the users who will actually use the service are selected.”, [0091]; “ In addition, the master vehicle checks the location and/or estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the shared group member vehicles that have not been searched in the short range, and if there is a vehicle arriving within about 5 minutes, the vehicle is confirmed as an available member and is updated in the "group member system database".”, [0092]); however, this does not amount to confirming the group member service database itself. Instead, [0091]-[0092] appear to teach confirming vehicles and subsequently updating a group member system database. Therefore, these amendments to claim 2 amount to new matter.
Claims 3-5 and 13 are dependent upon claim 2 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 3-5 and 13 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “confirming the group member service database comprises: determining whether the plurality of vehicles is within a specific communication distance; and updating the group member service database to a new group member service database for on-site vehicles within the specific communication distance according to confirmation results.” However, as discussed above with respect to claim 2, upon which claim 4 depends, the written description does not sufficiently describe the amended features of confirming a group member service database. Therefore, for similar reasons to claim 2 above, these amendments to claim 4 amount to new matter. The Examiner notes that “confirmation results” does not specifically refer to confirmation of the group member service database and therefore does not amount to new matter, as [0091]-[0092] does teach confirming vehicles and subsequently updating the group member service database (i.e., confirmation results).
Claim 5 is dependent upon claim 4 and therefore inherits the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected under similar reasoning as claim 4 above.
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 2-5, 8, and 13 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 2-5 and 13, as discussed in the corresponding 35 USC 112(a) rejection above, the written description fails to disclose confirming a group member service database. As neither the claims nor the written description disclose confirming a group member service database, claims 2-5 and 13 are rendered indefinite because the scope of confirming a group member service database is unclear. Therefore, claims 2-5 and 13 are likewise rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Here, claims 3-5 and 13 are dependent upon claim 2 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 2 and are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 2. Similarly, claim 5 is dependent upon claim 4 and inherits the deficiencies of claim 4 and is rejected under similar reasoning as claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “and the at least one client is remaining vehicles among the plurality of vehicles.” Here, the claim recites “the at least one client”, while also reciting “is remaining vehicles among the plurality of vehicles”. The limitation “the at least one client” allows for a single client; however, “is remaining vehicles” would necessitate a plurality of vehicles. Therefore, claim 8 is rendered indefinite because it is not possible for a single client vehicle to correspond to a plurality of vehicles.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brugman et al. (US 2020/0160722 A1), hereinafter Brugman.
Regarding claim 1, Brugman discloses a method of providing a group member service to multiple vehicles, the method comprising:
generating, by a plurality of vehicles, vehicle member information about vehicle members of a particular group in response to manipulation by drivers of the plurality of vehicles;
Brugman discloses ([0004]): "The machine-readable instruction set causes the vehicle convoy management system to perform at least the following when executed by the processor: determine a first vehicle and a second vehicle form a convoy, delegate a first task to the first vehicle based on a first set of sensor resources of the first vehicle, and delegate a second task to the second vehicle based on a second set of sensor resources of the second vehicle, where the first task is distinct from the second task. The machine-readable instruction set further causes the vehicle convoy management system to: receive, from the first vehicle, a first information generated in response to the first vehicle completing the first task with the first set of sensor resources, receive, from the second vehicle, a second information generated in response to the second vehicle completing the second task with the second set of sensor resources, and transmit at least one of the first information or the second information to at least one vehicle." Brugman further discloses ([0049]): "The tasks that may be delegated may further include, for example, but not limited to, tasks related to navigation, determining weather conditions, monitoring lanes around, behind, and/or in front of the convoy in order to coordinate convoy maneuvers, or the like... For example, the computing device may delegate a first task to the first vehicle and further instruct the first vehicle to be the lead vehicle of the convoy (e.g., as secondary condition). The computing device may subsequently delegate a second task to the second vehicle and further instruct the vehicle to follow the first vehicle within a predefined distance from the first vehicle." The Examiner has interpreted the completion of tasks by vehicles of the convoy as manipulation by drivers of the plurality of vehicles.
and collecting, by a management server, the vehicle member information,
Brugman discloses ([0004]): " The machine-readable instruction set further causes the vehicle convoy management system to: receive, from the first vehicle, a first information generated in response to the first vehicle completing the first task with the first set of sensor resources, receive, from the second vehicle, a second information generated in response to the second vehicle completing the second task with the second set of sensor resources, and transmit at least one of the first information or the second information to at least one vehicle." Brugman further discloses ([0040]): "In some embodiments, one or more remote computing device 192 and/or one or more server 193 may determine whether a vehicle belongs to a convoy, delegate and manage the tasks delegated to vehicles of the convoy, and coordinate the communication of the results of the delegated tasks among the vehicles of the convoy. In some embodiments, one of the vehicles, for example, the computing device 130A of the first vehicle 102 may determine whether a vehicle belongs to a convoy, delegate and manage the tasks delegated to vehicles of the convoy, and coordinate the communication of results of the delegated tasks among the vehicles of the convoy."
and determining and providing specific services to the vehicle members,
Brugman discloses ([0040]): "In some embodiments, one or more remote computing device 192 and/or one or more server 193 may determine whether a vehicle belongs to a convoy, delegate and manage the tasks delegated to vehicles of the convoy, and coordinate the communication of the results of the delegated tasks among the vehicles of the convoy. In some embodiments, one of the vehicles, for example, the computing device 130A of the first vehicle 102 may determine whether a vehicle belongs to a convoy, delegate and manage the tasks delegated to vehicles of the convoy, and coordinate the communication of results of the delegated tasks among the vehicles of the convoy."
wherein corresponding roles in the particular group are assigned based on the vehicle member information,
Brugman discloses ([0046]): "The computing device may then delegate the collection and processing of information for a first task to the first vehicle, at block 220. For example, the delegation of the first task to the first vehicle may be based on the presence of a sensor or system configured in the first vehicle but not in the second vehicle. The first vehicle may include around view monitoring through the implementation of cameras, proximity sensors, and/or the like, while the second vehicle may not include such a system." Brugman further discloses ([0048]): "The computing device may further delegate the collection and processing of information for a second task to the second vehicle, at block 230. For example, the delegation of the second task to the second vehicle may be based on the presence of a sensor or system configured in the second vehicle but not in the first vehicle. The second vehicle may include weather sensors configured to determine whether it is raining, whether the roads may be icy, the temperature outside, a visibility distance, or the like. Therefore, weather conditions may be determined and provided to another vehicle in the convoy, for example the first vehicle, which may not be equipped with weather sensors."
and wherein the vehicle members of the particular group are controlled to carry out the corresponding roles.
Brugman discloses ([0046]): "The computing device may then delegate the collection and processing of information for a first task to the first vehicle, at block 220. For example, the delegation of the first task to the first vehicle may be based on the presence of a sensor or system configured in the first vehicle but not in the second vehicle. The first vehicle may include around view monitoring through the implementation of cameras, proximity sensors, and/or the like, while the second vehicle may not include such a system. Therefore, results of the task of around view monitoring processed by the first computing device of the first vehicle may be relevant and useful to the second vehicle while traveling in a convoy together." Brugman further discloses ([0048]): "The computing device may further delegate the collection and processing of information for a second task to the second vehicle, at block 230. For example, the delegation of the second task to the second vehicle may be based on the presence of a sensor or system configured in the second vehicle but not in the first vehicle. The second vehicle may include weather sensors configured to determine whether it is raining, whether the roads may be icy, the temperature outside, a visibility distance, or the like. Therefore, weather conditions may be determined and provided to another vehicle in the convoy, for example the first vehicle, which may not be equipped with weather sensors."
Regarding claim 2, Brugman discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Brugman further discloses:
providing the vehicle member information comprises: collecting, by a processor, the vehicle member information to confirm a group member service database;
Brugman discloses ([0040]): "In some embodiments, one or more remote computing device 192 and/or one or more server 193 may determine whether a vehicle belongs to a convoy, delegate and manage the tasks delegated to vehicles of the convoy, and coordinate the communication of the results of the delegated tasks among the vehicles of the convoy. In some embodiments, one of the vehicles, for example, the computing device 130A of the first vehicle 102 may determine whether a vehicle belongs to a convoy, delegate and manage the tasks delegated to vehicles of the convoy, and coordinate the communication of results of the delegated tasks among the vehicles of the convoy." The Examiner has interpreted the delegation and management of tasks delegated to vehicles of the convoy by remote computing device 192 and/or one or more server 193 as generating a group member service database for the convoy.
and determining, by the processor, available services based on the group member service database.
Brugman discloses ([0040]): "In some embodiments, one or more remote computing device 192 and/or one or more server 193 may determine whether a vehicle belongs to a convoy, delegate and manage the tasks delegated to vehicles of the convoy, and coordinate the communication of the results of the delegated tasks among the vehicles of the convoy. In some embodiments, one of the vehicles, for example, the computing device 130A of the first vehicle 102 may determine whether a vehicle belongs to a convoy, delegate and manage the tasks delegated to vehicles of the convoy, and coordinate the communication of results of the delegated tasks among the vehicles of the convoy." Brugman further discloses ([0050]): " For example, if the first vehicle is delegated the task of monitoring the roadway in front of the vehicle for hazards such as objects in the roadway or potholes and the first vehicle is overtaken by the second vehicle in the convoy, the computing device may transfer the delegated task to the second vehicle while the second vehicle maintains the lead position of the convoy." The Examiner has interpreted the remote computing device's management of delegated tasks (including transferring a delegated task from one vehicle to another) as determining available services based on the group member service database.
Regarding claim 6, Brugman discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Brugman further discloses:
generating the vehicle member information comprises: sending, by at least one client of the plurality of the vehicles, an acceptance response to a group participation request from the management server;
Brugman discloses ([0004]): "The machine-readable instruction set causes the vehicle convoy management system to perform at least the following when executed by the processor: determine a first vehicle and a second vehicle form a convoy, delegate a first task to the first vehicle based on a first set of sensor resources of the first vehicle, and delegate a second task to the second vehicle based on a second set of sensor resources of the second vehicle, where the first task is distinct from the second task. The machine-readable instruction set further causes the vehicle convoy management system to: receive, from the first vehicle, a first information generated in response to the first vehicle completing the first task with the first set of sensor resources, receive, from the second vehicle, a second information generated in response to the second vehicle completing the second task with the second set of sensor resources, and transmit at least one of the first information or the second information to at least one vehicle." The Examiner has interpreted the first information and second information received by the vehicle convoy management system as an acceptance response to a group participation request (i.e., the delegation of tasks) from the management server.
and based on the acceptance response, performing a vehicle information sharing operation to allow the client to share the vehicle member information with a master of the plurality of vehicles.
Brugman discloses ([0004]): "The machine-readable instruction set further causes the vehicle convoy management system to: receive, from the first vehicle, a first information generated in response to the first vehicle completing the first task with the first set of sensor resources, receive, from the second vehicle, a second information generated in response to the second vehicle completing the second task with the second set of sensor resources, and transmit at least one of the first information or the second information to at least one vehicle." Brugman further discloses ([0054]): "The computing device has further delegated a second task of around view monitoring and blind spot monitoring for the convoy to the second vehicle 104. In the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the second vehicle 104 includes at least one camera 144B positioned to view portions of an environment in front of the second vehicle 104. Since the first vehicle 102 is tasked with monitoring the environment in front of the convoy, the task delegated to the second vehicle 104 specifies two field-of-views 145B and 145C for which the second vehicle is responsible for monitoring, collecting image data from, and processing the image data to determine the presence of other vehicles and/or objects... Furthermore, the second task that is delegated to the second vehicle 104 provides the first vehicle 102 with around view monitoring and/or blind spot monitoring." Paragraph [0053] indicates that the first vehicle 102 is designated as the lead vehicle. The Examiner has interpreted the first information and second information received by the vehicle convoy management system as an acceptance response to a group participation request (i.e., the delegation of tasks) from the management server.
Regarding claim 7, Brugman discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 6. Brugman further discloses:
the master is either a group master of the particular group, or a service-specific master of the particular group determined for each of group services.
Brugman discloses ([0053]): "In the illustrative example, the first vehicle 102 is traveling as the lead vehicle with respect to the second vehicle 104 in the convoy. The computing device has delegated a first task of monitoring the environment in front of the convoy for object, hazards, and traffic." Brugman further discloses ([0054]): "The computing device has further delegated a second task of around view monitoring and blind spot monitoring for the convoy to the second vehicle 104."
Regarding claim 8, Brugman discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 7. Brugman further discloses:
the group master is a vehicle of a particular group’s organizer in the plurality of vehicles,
Brugman discloses ([0004]): "The machine-readable instruction set further causes the vehicle convoy management system to: receive, from the first vehicle, a first information generated in response to the first vehicle completing the first task with the first set of sensor resources, receive, from the second vehicle, a second information generated in response to the second vehicle completing the second task with the second set of sensor resources, and transmit at least one of the first information or the second information to at least one vehicle." Brugman further discloses ([0053]): "In the illustrative example, the first vehicle 102 is traveling as the lead vehicle with respect to the second vehicle 104 in the convoy. The computing device has delegated a first task of monitoring the environment in front of the convoy for object, hazards, and traffic." The Examiner has interpreted the particular group's organizer as the computing device responsible for delegating tasks to vehicles of the convoy. As the first vehicle 102 receives tasks delegated by the computing device, the first vehicle 102 can be considered as being associated with the organizer.
and the at least one client is remaining vehicles among the plurality of vehicles.
Brugman discloses ([0053]): "In the illustrative example, the first vehicle 102 is traveling as the lead vehicle with respect to the second vehicle 104 in the convoy." Brugman further discloses ([0054]): "The computing device has further delegated a second task of around view monitoring and blind spot monitoring for the convoy to the second vehicle 104."
Regarding claim 14, Brugman discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Brugman further discloses:
the management server is configured to communicate with a processor provided in the plurality of vehicles or an application on a communication terminal provided by the drivers of the plurality of vehicles.
Brugman discloses ([0036]): "Still referring to FIG. 2, vehicles are now more commonly equipped with vehicle-to-vehicle communication systems. Some of the systems rely on network interface hardware 170. The network interface hardware 170 may be coupled to the communication path 120 and communicatively coupled to the computing device 130. The network interface hardware 170 may be any device capable of transmitting and/or receiving data with a network 180 or directly with another vehicle (e.g., vehicle 104 or 106) equipped with a vehicle-to-vehicle communication system." Brugman further discloses ([0037]): "In some embodiments, the vehicles 102, 104 and 106 of a convoy may communicate with each other through a network 180. In yet some embodiments, the vehicles 102, 104 and 106 of a convoy may communicate with one or more remote computing device 192 and/or one or more server 193." Brugman even further discloses ([0038]): "Accordingly, the vehicles 102, 104 and 106 of a convoy and the one or more remote computing device 192 and/or one or more server 193 may be communicatively coupled to each other through the network 180 via wires or wireless technologies, via a wide area network, via a local area network, via a personal area network, via a cellular network, via a satellite network, or the like."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brugman in view of Vladimerou et al. (US 2019/0220037 A1), hereinafter Vladimerou.
Regarding claim 3, Brugman teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 2. However, Brugman does not outright teach that providing the vehicle member information comprises: assigning, by the processor, a time-limited schedule to enable group services between the vehicle members during the assigned time-limited schedule interval. Vladimerou teaches responsibilities and agreement acceptance for vehicle platooning, comprising:
providing the vehicle member information comprises: assigning, by the processor, a time-limited schedule to enable group services between the vehicle members during the assigned time-limited schedule interval.
Vladimerou teaches ([0040]): "With continued reference to the platoon coordination system 170, in one embodiment, the platoon coordination system 170 can include the database 250. The database 250 is, in one embodiment, an electronic data structure stored in the memory 210 or another data store." Vladimerou further teaches ([0041]): "The platoon coordination system 170 can include the initiation module 220. The initiation module 220, as stored in the memory 210, can include instructions that function to control the one or more processors, such as processor 110, to transmit formation information 260 for joining the platoon to the platoon-capable vehicle. The formation information 260 can be stored in the database 250." Vladimerou even further teaches ([0042]): "The formation information 260 is information that can be used in relation to and/or as a prerequisite to the formation of a platoon. The formation information 260 can include positions available in the platoon, requirements for entering and exiting the platoon, the time period that the platoon is intended for, the destination of the platoon, any intermediate stops for the platoon, an agreement, and combinations thereof. In another embodiment, the formation information 260 can be stored in a remote database, the remote database being referenced by the initiation module 220. The formation information 260 can provide information for the formation of a platoon under a number of circumstances, such as based on vehicle type, weather conditions, type of road, local laws and regulations or others. As such, the initiation module 220 can use a portion of the formation information 260, as applicable to the current situation of the vehicle 100 or applicable to the potential platoon-capable vehicles sought." The Examiner has interpreted the formation of the platoon according to formation information 260 (including the time period that the platoon is intended for) as assigning a time-limited schedule to enable group services between the vehicle members during the assigned time-limited schedule.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brugman to incorporate the teachings of Vladimerou to provide assigning, by the processor, a time-limited schedule to enable group services between the vehicle members during the assigned time-limited schedule interval. Brugman and Vladimerou are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle platoon/convoy service management. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Vladimerou, as incorporating the time-limited schedule of Vladimerou advantageously allows for communicating the time period that the platoon is intended to operate for the purposes of forming a platoon (or as a prerequisite for forming a platoon), as recognized by Vladimerou (see at least [0040]-[0042]). Paragraph [0042] in particular teaches that the use of such formation information in forming a platoon is advantageous in seeking potential platoon-capable vehicles appropriate to the formation information.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brugman in view of Brooks et al. (US 2018/0322791 A1), hereinafter Brooks.
Regarding claim 4, Brugman teaches the aforementioned limitation of claim 2. However, Brugman does not outright teach that confirming the group member service database comprises: determining whether the plurality of vehicles is within a specific communication distance; and updating the group member service database to a new group member service database for on-site vehicles within the specific communication distance according to confirmation results. Brooks teaches a vehicle convoy control system and method, comprising:
confirming the group member service database comprises: determining whether the plurality of vehicles is within a specific communication distance;
Brooks teaches ([0380]): "Optionally, the onboard controllers of the vehicle systems 1902 can engage in multi-communication mode shifting based on how far the neighboring vehicle systems 1902 in a convoy 1904 are from each other. This shifting can involve changing a wireless communication mode based on the separation distance between the vehicle systems 1902 within a convoy 1904. For example, the onboard controllers can direct the communication units to use a first type or mode of wireless communication (e.g., cellular communication) while the communication units in neighboring vehicle systems 1902 in the convoy 1904 are farther apart that the designated separation threshold, and can direct the communication units to use a different, second type or mode of wireless communication (e.g., BLUETOOTH communication) while the communication units in neighboring vehicle systems 1902 in the convoy 1904 are no farther apart that the designated separation threshold."
and updating the group member service database to a new group member service database for on-site vehicles within the specific communication distance according to confirmation results.
Brooks teaches ([0380]): "Optionally, the onboard controllers of the vehicle systems 1902 can engage in multi-communication mode shifting based on how far the neighboring vehicle systems 1902 in a convoy 1904 are from each other. This shifting can involve changing a wireless communication mode based on the separation distance between the vehicle systems 1902 within a convoy 1904. For example, the onboard controllers can direct the communication units to use a first type or mode of wireless communication (e.g., cellular communication) while the communication units in neighboring vehicle systems 1902 in the convoy 1904 are farther apart that the designated separation threshold, and can direct the communication units to use a different, second type or mode of wireless communication (e.g., BLUETOOTH communication) while the communication units in neighboring vehicle systems 1902 in the convoy 1904 are no farther apart that the designated separation threshold."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brugman to incorporate the teachings of Brooks to provide that confirming the group member service database comprises: determining whether the plurality of vehicles is within a specific communication distance; and updating the group member service database to a new group member service database for on-site vehicles within the specific communication distance according to confirmation results. Brugman and Brooks are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle platoon/convoy service management. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Brooks, as incorporating the specific communication distance and new group member service database of Brooks beneficially allows for the selection of an appropriate communication protocol (i.e., a communication service) to be used by vehicles of the platoon based on the specific communication distance, as recognized by Brooks (see at least [0380]).
Regarding claim 5, Brugman and Brooks teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 4. However, Brugman does not outright teach that the confirmation results are obtained by using at least one of a location and an estimated arrival time of a shared vehicle among the plurality of vehicles. Brooks further teaches:
the confirmation results are obtained by using at least one of a location and an estimated arrival time of a shared vehicle among the plurality of vehicles.
Brooks teaches ([0380]): "Optionally, the onboard controllers of the vehicle systems 1902 can engage in multi-communication mode shifting based on how far the neighboring vehicle systems 1902 in a convoy 1904 are from each other. This shifting can involve changing a wireless communication mode based on the separation distance between the vehicle systems 1902 within a convoy 1904. For example, the onboard controllers can direct the communication units to use a first type or mode of wireless communication (e.g., cellular communication) while the communication units in neighboring vehicle systems 1902 in the convoy 1904 are farther apart that the designated separation threshold, and can direct the communication units to use a different, second type or mode of wireless communication (e.g., BLUETOOTH communication) while the communication units in neighboring vehicle systems 1902 in the convoy 1904 are no farther apart that the designated separation threshold."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brugman and Brooks to further incorporate the teachings of Brooks to provide that the confirmation results are obtained by using at least one of a location and an estimated arrival time of a shared vehicle among the plurality of vehicles. Brugman and Brooks are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle platoon/convoy service management. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Brooks, as incorporating the specific communication distance and new group member service database of Brooks beneficially allows for the selection of an appropriate communication protocol (i.e., a communication service) to be used by vehicles of the platoon based on the specific communication distance, as recognized by Brooks (see at least [0380]).
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brugman in view of Lekutai (US 2022/0277653 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Brugman teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 7. However, Brugman does not outright teach that an authority of the respective service-specific masters is transferable from respective vehicles acting as the service-specific master to vehicles acting as the client. Lekutai teaches network assisted platooning for self-driving vehicles, comprising:
an authority of the respective service-specific masters is transferable from respective vehicles acting as the service-specific master to vehicles acting as the client.
Lekutai teaches ([0047]): "In some embodiments, the platooning platform 116 may be configured to reassign a lead vehicle role based on a signal strength (e.g., a cellular signal strength of a base station that is detected by the radio transceiver of the vehicle) for one or more vehicles. For example, upon determining that a signal strength associated with a particular vehicle is stronger than the signal strength associated with other vehicles, the platooning platform 116 may assign that particular vehicle as the lead vehicle."
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brugman to incorporate the teachings of Lekutai to provide that an authority of the respective service-specific masters is transferable from respective vehicles acting as the service-specific master to vehicles acting as the client. Brugman and Lekutai are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle platoon/convoy service management. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Lekutai, as doing so beneficially allows for the selection of a service-specific master as a vehicle having a strongest signal strength, as recognized by Lekutai (see at least [0047]).
Regarding claim 12, Brugman and Lekutai teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 10. However, Brugman does not outright teach that an authority of any one of a party mode-support service, a video mode-support service, and a music listening-support service, among the specific services, is transferred to a vehicle having a highest score obtained by scoring the vehicles for a presence of specific components. Lekutai further teaches:
an authority of any one of a party mode-support service, a video mode-support service, and a music listening-support service, among the specific services, is transferred to a vehicle having a highest score obtained by scoring the vehicles for a presence of specific components.
Lekutai teaches ([0047]): "In some embodiments, the platooning platform 116 may be configured to reassign a lead vehicle role based on a signal strength (e.g., a cellular signal strength of a base station that is detected by the radio transceiver of the vehicle) for one or more vehicles. For example, upon determining that a signal strength associated with a particular vehicle is stronger than the signal strength associated with other vehicles, the platooning platform 116 may assign that particular vehicle as the lead vehicle." Lekutai further teaches ([0053]): "At 502, the process 500 comprises obtaining sensor data from one or more sensors installed upon a lead vehicle. In some embodiments, the one or more sensors comprises at least a camera device. In those embodiments, the sensor information comprises at least an image of the environment in which the computing device is located." The Examiner has interpreted the sharing of image data obtained by a camera device as a video mode-support service.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brugman and Lekutai to further incorporate the teachings of Lekutai to provide that an authority of any one of a party mode-support service, a video mode-support service, and a music listening-support service, among the specific services, is transferred to a vehicle having a highest score obtained by scoring the vehicles for a presence of specific components. Brugman and Lekutai are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle platoon/convoy service management. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Lekutai, as doing so beneficially allows for the selection of a service-specific master as a vehicle having a strongest signal strength, as recognized by Lekutai (see at least [0047]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brugman and Lekutai in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0324184 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 11, Brugman and Lekutai teach the aforementioned limitations of claim 10. However, Brugman does not outright teach that an authority of a destination route sharing service in which a destination is set in advance, a playlist sharing service in which a playlist currently playing in the master is shared, or a vehicle control service in which control is only allowed during vehicle stopping, which are not affected by vehicle equipment options, among the specific services, is not transferred. Wang teaches system, vehicles, and methods for creating a vehicle network, comprising:
an authority of a destination route sharing service in which a destination is set in advance, a playlist sharing service in which a playlist currently playing in the master is shared, or a vehicle control service in which control is only allowed during vehicle stopping, which are not affected by vehicle equipment options, among the specific services, is not transferred.
Wang teaches ([0006]): "The system may further include an electronic control unit (ECU) of the master vehicle and the follower vehicle. The ECU may determine navigation directions based on the travel route, to the travel destination, or to the travel stop. The system may further include an input/output unit of the master vehicle or the follower vehicle. The input/output unit may prompt a user of the master vehicle or the follower vehicle to agree to the change to the travel route, the travel destination, or the travel stop before the ECU of the master vehicle and the follower vehicle changing the travel route or the navigation directions to the travel destination or the travel stop." Thus, either of the master vehicle and the follower vehicle do not agree to the change to the travel destination, authority of a destination route sharing service is not transferred to the leader vehicle.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brugman and Lekutai to incorporate the teachings of Wang to provide that an authority of a destination route sharing service in which a destination is set in advance, a playlist sharing service in which a playlist currently playing in the master is shared, or a vehicle control service in which control is only allowed during vehicle stopping, which are not affected by vehicle equipment options, among the specific services, is not transferred. Brugman, Lekutai, and Wang are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle platoon/convoy service management. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to incorporate the teachings of Wang, as doing so beneficially improves platooning by requiring that a master vehicle and a follower vehicle agree to a change to the travel route, travel destination, or travel stop, before implementing the change, as recognized by Wang (see at least [0006]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brugman in view of Zhao (US 2020/0342768 A1), and in further view of Vladimerou, and in even further view of Sydir et al. (US 2021/0110326 A1), hereinafter Sydir.
Regarding claim 13, Brugman teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 2. Brugman further teaches:
the vehicle member information comprises chassis numbers,
Brugman teaches ([0045]): "When joining a convoy, a vehicle may provide a vehicle identification number (VIN) or specifications for the vehicle so that the convoy management system may delegate tasks to the vehicle according to the set of sensor resources configured in the vehicle."
roles,
Brugman teaches ([0045]): "When joining a convoy, a vehicle may provide a vehicle identification number (VIN) or specifications for the vehicle so that the convoy management system may delegate tasks to the vehicle according to the set of sensor resources configured in the vehicle." Brugman further teaches ([0049]): "The tasks that may be delegated may further include, for example, but not limited to, tasks related to navigation, determining weather conditions, monitoring lanes around, behind, and/or in front of the convoy in order to coordinate convoy maneuvers, or the like... For example, the computing device may delegate a first task to the first vehicle and further instruct the first vehicle to be the lead vehicle of the convoy (e.g., as secondary condition). The computing device may subsequently delegate a second task to the second vehicle and further instruct the vehicle to follow the first vehicle within a predefined distance from the first vehicle."
wireless communication device information,
Brugman teaches ([0051]): "For example, where the system in managed by a computing device of a vehicle of the convoy, the computing device may provide an address (e.g., such as an internet protocol or other communication identification number) for each vehicle traveling in the convoy with all of the vehicles in the convoy so that each vehicle may send a communication with the results of their delegated task directly to the other vehicles of the convoy. "
However, Brugman does not outright teach that the vehicle member information comprises modem numbers. Zhao teaches a vehicle platoon communications method, apparatus, and system, comprising:
modem numbers,
Zhao teaches ([0007]): "In a possible implementation of the first aspect, a device identifier of the first platoon member is determined as a sending device identifier, and at least one corresponding receiving device identifier is obtained from a first communication quality table based on the sending device identifier. Signal quality of a communication link from a platoon member corresponding to a sending device identifier stored in each record in the first communication quality table to a platoon member corresponding to a receiving device identifier stored in the record is less than the first preset quality threshold. A platoon member corresponding to each of the at least one receiving device identifier is determined as the second platoon member. In this way, after the first platoon member sends data, the first platoon member can determine, through the first communication quality table, each second platoon member that cannot receive the data." Zhao is modified such that the device identifiers of Zhao are included in the vehicle member information of Brugman for communication purposes.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brugman to incorporate the teachings of Zhao to provide that the vehicle member information comprises modem numbers. Brugman and Zhao are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle platoon/convoy service management. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Zhou, as including sending/receiving device identifiers (i.e., modem numbers) in the vehicle member information advantageously allows for determining whether members of the platoon are receiving communicated data by tracking communication quality associated with particular sending/receiving device identifiers, as recognized by Zhao (see at least [0007]).
However, Brugman does not outright teach that the vehicle member information comprises end of life (EOL) information. Vladimerou teaches responsibilities and agreement acceptance for vehicle platooning, comprising:
end of life (EOL) information,
Vladimerou teaches ([0042]): "The formation information 260 is information that can be used in relation to and/or as a prerequisite to the formation of a platoon. The formation information 260 can include positions available in the platoon, requirements for entering and exiting the platoon, the time period that the platoon is intended for, the destination of the platoon, any intermediate stops for the platoon, an agreement, and combinations thereof. In another embodiment, the formation information 260 can be stored in a remote database, the remote database being referenced by the initiation module 220." The Examiner has interpreted "the time period that the platoon is intended for" as end of life information for the platoon. Vladimerou is modified such that the remote database of Vladimerou is included in the vehicle member information of Brugman.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brugman and Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Vladimerou to provide that the vehicle member information comprises end of life (EOL) information. Brugman, Zhao, and Vladimerou are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle platoon/convoy service management. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Vladimerou, as including the formation information (which includes end of life information for the platoon) of Vladimerou in the vehicle member information advantageously allows for communicating the time period that the platoon is intended to operate for the purposes of forming a platoon (or as a prerequisite for forming a platoon), as recognized by Vladimerou (see at least [0040]-[0042]). Paragraph [0042] in particular teaches that the use of such formation information in forming a platoon is advantageous in seeking potential platoon-capable vehicles appropriate to the formation information.
However, Brugman does not outright teach that the vehicle member information comprises video services and streaming services of the vehicle members. Sydir teaches route-based digital service management, comprising:
video services,
Sydir teaches ([0022]): "Services can be passenger-oriented or vehicle or fleet-oriented, such as fleet management applications… In an example, the user can request specific services to be available to them… Services can include low-latency communication, such as for gaming or video conferencing, or audio or video streaming, data transfer, etc." Sydir is modified such that the requested services of Sydir are included in the vehicle member information of Brugman.
and streaming services of the vehicle members.
Sydir teaches ([0022]): "Services can be passenger-oriented or vehicle or fleet-oriented, such as fleet management applications… In an example, the user can request specific services to be available to them… Services can include low-latency communication, such as for gaming or video conferencing, or audio or video streaming, data transfer, etc." Sydir is modified such that the requested services of Sydir are included in the vehicle member information of Brugman.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Brugman, Zhou, and Vladimerou to incorporate the teachings of Sydir to provide that the vehicle member information comprises video services and streaming services of the vehicle members. Brugman, Zhao, Vladimerou, and Sydir are each directed towards similar pursuits in the field of vehicle platoon/convoy/fleet service management. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Sydir, as incorporating the fleet management techniques of Sydir advantageously allows the user to request specific services be made available to them (including video services and streaming services), as recognized by Sydir (see at least [0022]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “sharing the vehicle member information comprises: checking, when specific services are selected by the group master, whether respective service-specific masters for the specific services are preset to be allowed; in response to determining that the service-specific masters are allowed, determining the respective service-specific masters; and in response to determining that the respective service-specific masters are not allowed, performing a group master management mode in which the group master randomly selects respective service-specific masters for the specific services.” Brugman teaches checking, when specific services are selected by the group master, whether respective service-specific masters for the specific services are preset to be allowed and determining the respective service-specific masters in response to determining that the service specific masters are allowed in at least [0046], which teaches the delegation of responsibilities to vehicles of a convoy based on whether the vehicle(s) include systems necessary to be a service-specific master (e.g., in order to be a service-specific master of collection and processing of information, the vehicle must possess the necessary cameras, proximity sensors, or the like in order to be designated as a service-specific master).
However, Brugman does not outright teach “and in response to determining that the respective service-specific masters are not allowed, performing a group master management mode in which the group master randomly selects respective service-specific masters for the specific services.” While Brugman does teach teaches the delegation of responsibilities to vehicles of a convoy based on whether the vehicle(s) include systems necessary to be a service-specific master, including determining that a vehicle cannot function as a respective service-specific master (see above), Brugman is silent regarding randomly selecting respective service-specific masters for specific services in response to determining that the respective service-specific masters are not allowed. Vladimerou, Brooks, Lekutai, Wang, Zhao, and Sydir fail to cure this deficiency.
Further search for the above-discussed features proved unfruitful, yielding no results which teach or suggest alone or in combination, in combination with the other claimed elements, “and in response to determining that the respective service-specific masters are not allowed, performing a group master management mode in which the group master randomly selects respective service-specific masters for the specific services.” Yi et al. (US 2023/0379664 A1) teaches (see at least [0105]) that, when determining a next group leader, members of the group may have a same high group leader selection score. In such cases, Yi et al. teaches that the next group leader may be selected randomly from those having the same high group leader selection score. However, Yi et al. fails to teach randomly selecting respective service specific masters in response to determining that the respective service-specific masters are not allowed. Similarly, Liao et al. (US 9,754,493 B2) teaches allocation of tasks to vehicles by a central controller, wherein tasks may be assigned based on a random distribution of the tasks. However, Liao et al. likewise fails to teach randomly selecting respective service specific masters in response to determining that the respective service-specific masters are not allowed.
Therefore, claim 9 is considered to include allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yi et al. (US 2023/0379664 A1) and Liao et al. (US 9,754,493 B2) are discussed above with respect to Allowable Subject Matter.
Yen et al. (US 2019/0086914 A1) teaches systems and methods for collaboration between autonomous vehicles, including a role determination module configured to assign leading functions to one or more vehicles based on the relative strength of each vehicle’s software, controller, and sensors, wherein assigning leading functions comprises assigning one leader vehicle to perform all leading functions or assigning different leading functions to different vehicles in the group (see at least [0093]).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK T GLENN III whose telephone number is (571)272-5078. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM - 4:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights