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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, “in which the group master randomly selects respective service-specific masters for specific services.” should be “in which the group master randomly selects respective service-specific masters for the specific services.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations that use the word “means” are:
In claim 14, “wherein the management server is configured to communicate with communication means provided in the plurality of vehicles…”
Paragraph [0056] discloses: “The communication section 240 serves to send and receive data through a communication connection with the communication network 120. To this end, the communication section 240 may include a modem, a microprocessor, a microcomputer, a communication circuit, a memory, and the like.” Therefore, the communication section 240 of the vehicles is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as the communication means provided in the plurality of vehicles. That is, the communication means are being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as a communication section which may include a modem, a microprocessor, a microcomputer, a communication circuit, a memory, or the like.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 2, “collecting, by an information collection part, the vehicle member information…”
Paragraph [0059] discloses: “Referring to FIG. 3, the management server 130 may include an information collection section 310…” Paragraph [0060] further discloses: “The information collection section 310 serves to collect vehicle member information from the first (110-1) to n-th (110-n) vehicles.” Paragraph [0071] even further discloses: “The information collection section 310, the group configuration section 320, the service configuration section 330, and the service controller 340 illustrated in FIG. 3 each refer to a unit that processes at least one function or operation, which may be implemented in software and/or hardware. The hardware may be implemented as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), digital signal processing (DSP), a programmable logic device (PLD), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a processor, a microprocessor, other electronic unit, or a combination thereof designed to perform the functions described above.” Therefore, the information collection part is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as a unit that process at least one function or operation, which may be implemented in software and/or hardware.
In claim 2, “determining, by a service setting part, available services…”
Paragraph [0059] discloses “Referring to FIG. 3, the management server 130 may include… a service configuration section 330…” Paragraph [0071] further discloses: “The information collection section 310, the group configuration section 320, the service configuration section 330, and the service controller 340 illustrated in FIG. 3 each refer to a unit that processes at least one function or operation, which may be implemented in software and/or hardware. The hardware may be implemented as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), digital signal processing (DSP), a programmable logic device (PLD), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a processor, a microprocessor, other electronic unit, or a combination thereof designed to perform the functions described above.” Therefore, the service setting part is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as a unit that process at least one function or operation, which may be implemented in software and/or hardware.
In claim 3, “assigning, by a group setting part, a time-limited schedule…”
Paragraph [0059] discloses: “Referring to FIG. 3, the management server 130 may include… a group configuration section 320…” Paragraph [0062] further discloses: “The group configuration section 320 sets a time-limited schedule and allows group services to be provided between group members only during that time period.” Paragraph [0071] even further discloses: “The information collection section 310, the group configuration section 320, the service configuration section 330, and the service controller 340 illustrated in FIG. 3 each refer to a unit that processes at least one function or operation, which may be implemented in software and/or hardware. The hardware may be implemented as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), digital signal processing (DSP), a programmable logic device (PLD), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a processor, a microprocessor, other electronic unit, or a combination thereof designed to perform the functions described above.” Therefore, the group setting part is being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation as a unit that process at least one function or operation, which may be implemented in software and/or hardware.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 4-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “updating the group member service database to a new group member service database for on-site vehicles within the specific communication distance according to the determination results.” However, it is unclear which determination “the determination results” intend to refer to, as antecedent basis exists for “determining and providing specific services to the vehicle members” in claim 1, “determining, by a service setting part, available services…” in claim 2, and “determining whether the plurality of vehicles is within a specific communication distance…” in claim 4. As claim 4, is dependent upon both claims 1 and 2, it is unclear which determination results are intended to be used in claim 4 (or if all determination results are required to be used). For the purposes of this examination, “the determination results” of claim 4 are being interpreted as “determining whether the plurality of vehicles is within a specific communication distance…”, as claim 4 describes updating the group member service database for on-site vehicles within the specific communication distance according to the determination 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the determination results are obtained by using at least one of a location and an estimated arrival time…” However, it is unclear which determination “the determination results” intend to refer to, as antecedent basis exists for “determining and providing specific services to the vehicle members” in claim 1, “determining, by a service setting part, available services…” in claim 2, and “determining whether the plurality of vehicles is within a specific communication distance…” in claim 4. As claim 5 is dependent upon each of claims 1, 2, and 4, it is unclear which determination results are intended to be used in claim 5 (or if all determination results are required to be used). For the purposes of this examination, “the determination results” are being interpreted as “determining whether the plurality of vehicles is within a specific communication distance…”, as claim 5 allows for obtaining the determination results using a location, which appears to be associated with the determining of claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “and the at least one client is the remaining vehicles among the plurality of vehicles.” However, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the remaining vehicles”. For the purposes of this examination, “the remaining vehicles” is being interpreted as the vehicles among the plurality of vehicles which are not the group master.
Claims 9-12 are dependent upon claim 8 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 9-12 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “the authority of the respective service-specific masters is transferable from respective vehicles…” However, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the authority of the respective service-specific masters”. For the purposes of this examination, “the authority of the respective service specific-masters” is being interpreted as the checking of “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” of claim 9, upon which claim 10 depends, as “the authority” appears to refer to whether a vehicle is determined to be a respective service-specific master.
Claims 11-12 are dependent upon claim 10 and therefore inherit the above-described deficiencies. Accordingly, claims 11-12 are rejected under similar reasoning as claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “the 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.” However, there is a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the authority of a destination route sharing service… a playlist sharing service… or a vehicle control service…”. For the purposes of this examination “the authority” is being interpreted as whether a service-specific master for the claimed services is allowed and has been determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-14 are directed to generating vehicle member information, collecting vehicle member information, and determining and providing specific services to the vehicle members. Decision-making processes fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (mental processes or concepts performed in the human mind: i.e., an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-14 recite a method with at least one step. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (process).
Under step 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth the abstract idea of generating vehicle member information, collecting vehicle member information, and determining and providing specific services to the vehicle members in the following limitations:
generating… vehicle member information about vehicle members of a particular group in response to manipulation by drivers of the plurality of vehicles
and collecting… the vehicle member information,
and determining and providing specific services to the vehicle members.
The above-recited limitations establish the use of generic computing devices (i.e., “by a plurality of vehicles”, “a management server”) to perform a decision-making process. This arrangement amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. This concept has been considered ineligible as a mental process by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The act of generating vehicle member information is capable of being performed mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper (e.g., by visual observation and identification of information). Similarly, a human being is capable of collecting the vehicle member information (e.g., using pen and paper or memory) and determining and providing specific services to the vehicle members. The Examiner notes that “providing specific services” is quite broad, and could reasonably include services such as providing an opinion or determination of a human being to the vehicle members.
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
by a plurality of vehicles
by a management server
These additional elements merely amount to reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent, in this case “by a”) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The specification sets forth the general-purpose nature of the computing technology. Paragraphs [0050]-[0051] and FIG. 2 disclose a detailed configuration of vehicles 110-1 to 110-n, and note that “the vehicles 110-1 to 110-n may include a controller 210, an input section 220, an output section 230, a communication section 250, a storage section 250, and the like.” That is, the vehicles appear to rely on generic computing components. Similarly, [0059]-[0060] and FIG. 3 disclose a detailed configuration of a management server 130, and note that “the management server 130 may include an information collection section 310, a group configuration section 320, a service configuration section 330, a service controller 340, and the like.” That is, the management server appears to rely on generic computing components. In other words, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). In the instant case, the additional elements, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Collecting vehicle member information by a management server amounts to a manner of receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the limitations do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Regarding claim 2, which sets forth:
providing the vehicle member information comprises: collecting, by an information collection part, the vehicle member information to generate a group member service database;
and determining, by a service setting part, available services based on the group member service database.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of generating and collecting vehicle member information. A human being is capable of collecting vehicle member information to generate a group member service and determining available services based on the group member service database. The claim further applies the abstract idea to a generic information collection part, a service setting part, and a group member service database, with the well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information over a network. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, which sets forth:
providing the vehicle member information comprises: assigning, by a group setting part, a time-limited schedule to enable group services between the vehicle members during the assigned time-limited schedule interval.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of generating and collecting vehicle member information. A human being is capable of assigning a time-limited schedule to enable group services between the vehicle members during the assigned time-limited schedule interval. The claim further applies the abstract idea to a generic group setting part. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, which sets forth:
generating 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 the determination results.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of generating and collecting vehicle member information. A human being is capable of including determining whether the plurality of vehicles is within a specific communication distance in generating the group member service database, and is likewise capable of updating the group member service database to a new group member service database. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, which sets forth:
the determination 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.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of generating and collecting vehicle member information. A human being is capable of obtaining determination results by using at least one of a location and an estimated arrival time of a shared vehicle among the plurality of vehicles. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, which sets forth:
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;
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.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of generating and collecting vehicle member information by further describing the transmission of information over a network to the additional elements of at least one client and a master of the plurality of vehicles. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, which sets forth:
the master is either a group master of the particular group, or a service-specific master of the particular group determined for each of the group services.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the additional element of the master of the plurality of vehicles by further specifying what the master is. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, which sets forth:
the group master is a vehicle of a particular group’s organizer in the plurality of vehicles,
and the at least one client is the remaining vehicles among the plurality of vehicles.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the additional elements of the group master and the at least one client by specifying which vehicle(s) receive each label. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, which sets forth:
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 specific services.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the sharing of vehicle member information over a network. The claim further requires the determination of whether service-specific masters are allowed, which can be performed mentally or with the assistance of pen and paper. Similarly, the random selection of the claimed group master management mode can be performed by a human (e.g., by arbitrary random selection). As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, which sets forth:
the authority of the respective service-specific masters is transferable from respective vehicles acting as the service-specific master to vehicles acting as the client.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of the authority/allowability of the respective service-specific masters by allowing for transfer of authority. A human being is capable of transferring authority from one vehicle to another (e.g., via a mental decision-making process and noting which vehicle possesses which authority). As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, which sets forth:
the 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.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of transference of authority by further specifying services which are not transferred. A human being is capable of transferring authority from one vehicle to another (e.g., via a mental decision-making process and noting which vehicle possesses which authority). As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, which sets forth:
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.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of transference of authority by further specifying services which are transferred based on a highest score obtained among the vehicles. A human being is capable of transferring authority from one vehicle to another (e.g., via a mental decision-making process and noting which vehicle possesses which authority) and scoring the vehicles for a presence of specific components (e.g., by observation and mental or written ranking). As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, which sets forth:
the vehicle member information comprises chassis numbers, roles, modem numbers, wireless communication device information, end of life (EOL) information, video services, and streaming services of the vehicle members.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the abstract idea of generating and collecting vehicle member information by further specifying what the vehicle member information comprises. A human being is capable of obtaining and collecting the above-listed vehicle member information (e.g., by visual observation). As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, which sets forth:
the management server is configured to communicate with communication means provided in the plurality of vehicles or an application on a communication terminal provided by the drivers of the plurality of vehicles.
Such a recitation merely embellishes upon the additional element of transmitting information over a network with generic communication means provided in the plurality of vehicles. Transmitting information over a network is known to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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."
Regarding claim 2, Brugman discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1. Brugman further discloses:
providing the vehicle member information comprises: collecting, by an information collection part, the vehicle member information to generate 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 a service setting part, 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 the 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 the 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 limitation of claim 1. Brugman further discloses:
the management server is configured to communicate with communication means 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 a group setting part, 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 a group setting part, 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 a group setting part, 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 generating 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 the determination results. Brooks teaches a vehicle convoy control system and method, comprising:
generating 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 the determination 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 generating 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 the determination 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 determination 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 determination 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 determination 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) 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
Claims 9-12 are presently rejected over 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101. Nevertheless, these claims include subject matter which would be allowable if: (a) the claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; and (b) the claims are amended to overcome the present 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 101 rejections.
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 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 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, 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 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. Claims 10-12 are dependent upon claim 9 and therefore inherit the above-described allowable subject matter. Accordingly, claims 10-12 are likewise considered allowable under similar reasoning as claim 9 above.
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]).
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