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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference (FRANCHI et al. (US Pub. No.: 2022/0262257 A: hereinafter “FRANCHI”)) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-3, 8-13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of FRANCHI et al. (US Pub. No.: 2022/0262257 A: hereinafter “FRANCHI”).
Consider claims 1, 11, 16:
Hashimoto teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Fig. 1 elements 1-11), a management system (Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs), a computer-implemented method (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…allows processional travel with a group of vehicles including a leading vehicle and a following vehicle automatically following the leading vehicle…sending a request to separate from or join the processional travel, to the leading vehicle…permitting or rejecting the request from the object vehicle. When the leading vehicle permits the request, the object vehicle is switched by a mode switching device between automatic driving, in which the following vehicle automatically follows the leading vehicle, and manual driving by a driver…”, of Abstract, Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289), comprising: receiving, by one or more devices (Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs), a request from an independent moving object (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…An independent vehicle (E), which travels independently from the vehicle group (DG) traveling in a procession comprises a device…for sending a request to incorporate the independent vehicle into the procession to the leading vehicle. The leading vehicle comprises a device…for permitting or rejecting the incorporation request from the independent vehicle. When the leading vehicle permits the incorporation request from the independent vehicle, the independent vehicle is switched by a mode switching device…from manual driving by a driver to automatic driving in which this vehicle automatically follows the leading vehicle…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289); determining, by the one or more devices, based on the request, a route for the independent moving object and a group of moving objects including a leader moving object (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…the flow proceeds to step S1014, in which then it is determined whether the independent vehicle E requested the incorporation or not. When the determination is YES, that is, when the independent vehicle E requested the incorporation, the vehicle enters incorporation mode in step S1015 (until the permission of the incorporation from the leading vehicle D1). In step S1016, it is determined whether the vehicle is in incorporation mode or not. When in step S1016 the vehicle is in incorporation mode, the incorporation process…is performed in step S1017…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289), traveling along the route, for the independent moving object to join, the group of moving objects (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…receiving a procession incorporation request. When the incorporation request is sent from the independent vehicle and it starts to follow the end of the procession, a request permission button is pushed, and the vehicle waits for the change of the request vehicle to the following vehicle… the flow proceeds to step S1014, in which then it is determined whether the independent vehicle E requested the incorporation or not. When the determination is YES, that is, when the independent vehicle E requested the incorporation, the vehicle enters incorporation mode in step S1015 (until the permission of the incorporation from the leading vehicle D1). In step S1016, it is determined whether the vehicle is in incorporation mode or not. When in step S1016 the vehicle is in incorporation mode, the incorporation process…is performed in step S1017…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289).
and transmitting, by the one or more devices and to the leader moving object, group information to enable the independent moving object to join the group of moving objects (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…it is determined whether the independent vehicle E requested the incorporation or not. When the determination is YES, that is, when the independent vehicle E requested the incorporation, the vehicle enters incorporation mode in step S1015 (until the permission of the incorporation from the leading vehicle D1). In step S1016, it is determined whether the vehicle is in incorporation mode or not. When in step S1016 the vehicle is in incorporation mode, the incorporation process…is performed in step S1017…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289). However, Hashimoto does not explicitly teach receiving a request, by one or more devices of a management system, wherein the management system is separate from the independent moving object and the group of moving objects.
In an analogous field of endeavor, FRANCHI teaches receiving a request, by one or more devices of a management system (See FRANCHI, e.g., “…each transmit a notice of intent (PlatoonFormationRequest( )) to the vehicle platoon manager VPM using LTE PUSCH transmission…The navigation system (Navigation) then transmits traffic information, in particular traffic regulation information that includes the maximum permitted speeds along the route, via the Internet to the vehicle platoon manager VPM…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0090]-¶ [0096], Fig. 1 elements 1.1-1.3, VPM. BS, and internet, Figs. 4-9 elements Navigation, VPM, 1.1-1.1N), wherein the management system is separate from the independent moving object and the group of moving objects (See FRANCHI, e.g., “…each transmit a notice of intent (PlatoonFormationRequest( )) to the vehicle platoon manager VPM using LTE PUSCH transmission. The platoon formation request includes at least position details, target coordinates as vehicle-specific destination specifications, and vehicle-specific control parameters. The vehicle platoon manager VPM then specifies a route and transmits a route request via the Internet to a navigation system marked “Navigation” in FIG. 4. The navigation system (Navigation) then transmits traffic information, in particular traffic regulation information that includes the maximum permitted speeds along the route, via the Internet to the vehicle platoon manager VPM. The vehicle platoon manager VPM defines the kinematic targets by taking destination parameters and vehicle-specific control parameters into account…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0090]-¶ [0096], Fig. 1 elements 1.1-1.3, VPM. BS, and internet, Figs. 4-9 elements Navigation, VPM, 1.1-1.1N).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine “…An independent vehicle (E), which travels independently from the vehicle group (DG) traveling in a procession comprises a device…for sending a request to incorporate the independent vehicle into the procession to the leading vehicle. The leading vehicle comprises a device…for permitting or rejecting the incorporation request from the independent vehicle. When the leading vehicle permits the incorporation request from the independent vehicle, the independent vehicle is switched by a mode switching device…from manual driving by a driver to automatic driving in which this vehicle automatically follows the leading vehicle…”, as disclosed in Hashimoto with “transmitting, to the independent moving object, trip information to enable the independent moving object to join the group of moving objects, wherein the trip information identifies a speed of the group of moving objects and identifies a route traveled by the group of moving objects, and wherein the trip information is transmitted to cause the independent moving object to travel with the group of moving objects.”, as taught in FRANCHI with a reasonable expectation of success to yield a system, method for efficiently, robustly, and seamlessly proposing an efficient method with which particularly short headway distances between the vehicles in a vehicle platoon at simultaneously high speeds, while still ensuring string stability, as taught in ¶ [0005].
Consider claims 2, 12, and 17:
The combination of Hashimoto, FRANCHI teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 16. In addition, Hashimoto teaches wherein each of the independent moving object and the leader moving object is a vehicle (Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and Tus, the leading vehicle, the independent vehicle), wherein the request includes a trip request indicating at least one of an origin of the independent moving object, a destination of the independent moving object, and a speed of the independent moving object (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…During the processional travel, a part of the procession may wish to separate. No problems occur when the destination of the vehicles in the procession is identical. However, when there are some vehicles having a different destination, the procession must be divided…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289), and wherein determining the group of moving objects based on the request comprises determining the group of moving objects based on the at least one of the origin, the destination, and the speed (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…During the processional travel, a part of the procession may wish to separate. No problems occur when the destination of the vehicles in the procession is identical…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289).
Consider claims 3, 13:
The combination of Hashimoto, FRANCHI teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claims 2, 12. In addition, Hashimoto teaches wherein the group information includes information used to reorganize the group of moving objects and to reconfigure a formation of moving objects and a driving mode of moving objects (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…because the last following vehicle A7 has a destination different from that of the other vehicles A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6, the following vehicle A7 is independently separated from the procession, thus forming a new procession A in which the leading vehicle A1 leads the following vehicles A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6. Here, the leading vehicle A1 may be separated from the procession…permitting or rejecting the request from the object vehicle. When the leading vehicle permits the request, the object vehicle is switched by a mode switching device between automatic driving, in which the following vehicle automatically follows the leading vehicle, and manual driving by a driver…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289).
Consider claim 8:
The combination of Hashimoto, FRANCHI teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claim 2. In addition, Hashimoto teaches wherein the request includes a trip request (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…During the processional travel, a part of the procession may wish to separate. No problems occur when the destination of the vehicles in the procession is identical…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289) indicating at least one of a selected departure time of the independent moving object, a selected arrival time of the independent moving object, and a capability of the independent moving object (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…because the following vehicles A4, A5, A6, and A7 have the destination different from that of the following vehicles A2 and A3, a driver is in the following vehicle A4 to manually drive it after the separation…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289), and wherein determining the group of moving objects based on the request comprises determining the group of moving objects based on the at least one of the selected departure time, the selected arrival time, or the capability of the independent moving object (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…because the following vehicles A4, A5, A6, and A7 have the destination different from that of the following vehicles A2 and A3, a driver is in the following vehicle A4 to manually drive it after the separation. Therefore, the processional vehicle group A is separated between the following vehicles A3 and A4, thus forming a processional vehicle group B in which a leading vehicle B1 at the head of the procession leads the following vehicles B2 and B3, and a processional vehicle group C in which a leading vehicle C1 at the head of the procession leads the following vehicles C2, C3, and C4…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289).
Consider claim 9:
The combination of Hashimoto, FRANCHI teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Hashimoto teaches further comprising: determining driving conditions associated with the group of moving objects (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…because the last following vehicle A7 has a destination different from that of the other vehicles A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6, the following vehicle A7 is independently separated from the procession, thus forming a new procession A in which the leading vehicle A1 leads the following vehicles A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6. Here, the leading vehicle A1 may be separated from the procession…permitting or rejecting the request from the object vehicle. When the leading vehicle permits the request, the object vehicle is switched by a mode switching device between automatic driving, in which the following vehicle automatically follows the leading vehicle, and manual driving by a driver…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289); causing a formation of the group of moving objects to be adjusted based on the driving conditions (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…because the last following vehicle A7 has a destination different from that of the other vehicles A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6, the following vehicle A7 is independently separated from the procession, thus forming a new procession A in which the leading vehicle A1 leads the following vehicles A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6. Here, the leading vehicle A1 may be separated from the procession…permitting or rejecting the request from the object vehicle. When the leading vehicle permits the request, the object vehicle is switched by a mode switching device between automatic driving, in which the following vehicle automatically follows the leading vehicle, and manual driving by a driver…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289); and adjusting a speed of the group of moving objects to be adjusted based on the driving conditions (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…During the processional travel, a part of the procession may wish to separate. No problems occur when the destination of the vehicles in the procession is identical… When normal mode is changed to procession forming mode, the following vehicle is changed from manual driving to automatic driving, and this change is performed by switching a mechanism…This switching mechanism can switch three mechanisms, which are a torque producing mechanism T, a brake pressure producing mechanism B, and a steering mechanism S, between automatic/manual operations so that the vehicle can be manually driven as the leading vehicle and is automatically driven as the following vehicle…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 S1150-S1289).
Consider claim 10:
The combination of Hashimoto, FRANCHI teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Hashimoto teaches further comprising: determining a position for the independent moving object in a formation of the group of moving objects (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…sending information regarding an object vehicle position to another vehicle (the vehicle 1), and allows processional travel with a group of vehicles including a leading vehicle (D1) and a following vehicle (D2, D3, and D4) automatically following the leading vehicle, based on the information…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289), wherein the group information includes information identifying the position for the independent moving object (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…the processional travel control apparatus has a communication device for sending information regarding an object vehicle position to another vehicle…”, of Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Col. 17:3-67, Col. 19:7-28, Col. 21:29-67, Col. 22:1-7, Col. 23:10-55, Col. 31:3-60, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289).
Claim(s) 4-7, 14-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto, in view of FRANCHI, and further in view of YUAN.
Consider claims 4, 14, and 18:
The combination of Hashimoto, FRANCHI teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claims 2, 12, and 16. In addition, Hashimoto teaches “…allows processional travel with a group of vehicles including a leading vehicle and a following vehicle automatically following the leading vehicle…sending a request to separate from or join the processional travel, to the leading vehicle…permitting or rejecting the request from the object vehicle. When the leading vehicle permits the request, the object vehicle is switched by a mode switching device between automatic driving, in which the following vehicle automatically follows the leading vehicle, and manual driving by a driver…”, of Abstract, Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 steps S1150-S1289. However, the combination of Hashimoto, FRANCHI does not explicitly teach further comprising: transmitting, to the independent moving object, trip information to enable the independent moving object to join the group of moving objects, wherein the trip information identifies a speed of the group of moving objects and identifies a route traveled by the group of moving objects, and wherein the trip information is transmitted to cause the independent moving object to travel with the group of moving objects.
In an analogous field of endeavor, YUAN teaches further comprising: transmitting, to the independent moving object, trip information to enable the independent moving object to join the group of moving objects (See YUAN, e.g., “…a sending unit, for if the travel destination of the free vehicle is consistent with the destination on the travel route of the fleet, then sending the history travel record and the hardware operation state information to the cloud end, wherein the cloud end is used for according to the history travel record and the hardware operation state information, analyzing the reliability that the free vehicle will not affect the operation safety of the vehicle team after the free vehicle is added into the vehicle team… a receiving unit for receiving the reliability of the free vehicle fed back by the cloud end; and a control unit for controlling the free vehicle to join in the fleet if the reliability satisfies the preset reliability condition…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0020]-¶ [0045], ¶ [0060]-¶ [0080], ¶ [0090]-¶ [0100], ¶ [00115]-¶ [0130], Figs. 1-2 steps 101-104, Fig. 3 Steps 201-203), wherein the trip information identifies a speed of the group of moving objects and identifies a route traveled by the group of moving objects (See YUAN, e.g., “…control the travelling speed and the travelling state of the whole vehicle team, so as to ensure the optimal route safety pushed by the vehicle team according to the cloud end, The destination is efficiently reached…obtaining the driving destination, history driving record and hardware operation state information of the free vehicle; if the driving destination of the free vehicle is consistent with the destination on the driving route of the fleet…if the reliability satisfies the preset reliability condition, controlling the free vehicle to join the fleet…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0020]-¶ [0045], ¶ [0060]-¶ [0080], ¶ [0090]-¶ [0100], ¶ [00115]-¶ [0130], Figs. 1-2 steps 101-104, Fig. 3 Steps 201-203), and wherein the trip information is transmitted to cause the independent moving object to travel with the group of moving objects (See YUAN, e.g., “…obtaining the driving destination, history driving record and hardware operation state information of the free vehicle; if the driving destination of the free vehicle is consistent with the destination on the driving route of the fleet…if the reliability satisfies the preset reliability condition, controlling the free vehicle to join the fleet…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0020]-¶ [0045], ¶ [0060]-¶ [0080], ¶ [0090]-¶ [0100], ¶ [00115]-¶ [0130], Figs. 1-2 steps 101-104, Fig. 3 Steps 201-203).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine “…An independent vehicle (E), which travels independently from the vehicle group (DG) traveling in a procession comprises a device…for sending a request to incorporate the independent vehicle into the procession to the leading vehicle. The leading vehicle comprises a device…for permitting or rejecting the incorporation request from the independent vehicle. When the leading vehicle permits the incorporation request from the independent vehicle, the independent vehicle is switched by a mode switching device…from manual driving by a driver to automatic driving in which this vehicle automatically follows the leading vehicle…”, as disclosed in the combination of Hashimoto, FRANCHI with “transmitting, to the independent moving object, trip information to enable the independent moving object to join the group of moving objects, wherein the trip information identifies a speed of the group of moving objects and identifies a route traveled by the group of moving objects, and wherein the trip information is transmitted to cause the independent moving object to travel with the group of moving objects.”, as taught in YUAN with a reasonable expectation of success to yield a system, method for efficiently, robustly, and seamlessly controlling the free vehicle to join the vehicle team so as to ensure the safe operation of the whole vehicle team.
Consider claims 5, 15, and 19:
The combination of Hashimoto, FRANCHI, and YUAN teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claims 4, 14, and 18. YUAN teaches wherein transmitting the trip information to the independent moving object (See YUAN, e.g., “…a sending unit, for if the travel destination of the free vehicle is consistent with the destination on the travel route of the fleet, then sending the history travel record and the hardware operation state information to the cloud end, wherein the cloud end is used for according to the history travel record and the hardware operation state information, analyzing the reliability that the free vehicle will not affect the operation safety of the vehicle team after the free vehicle is added into the vehicle team… a receiving unit for receiving the reliability of the free vehicle fed back by the cloud end; and a control unit for controlling the free vehicle to join in the fleet if the reliability satisfies the preset reliability condition…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0020]-¶ [0045], ¶ [0060]-¶ [0080], ¶ [0090]-¶ [0100], ¶ [00115]-¶ [0130], Figs. 1-2 steps 101-104, Fig. 3 Steps 201-203) comprises: transmitting the trip information to cause the independent moving object to adjust the speed of the independent moving object to the speed of the group of moving objects (See YUAN, e.g., “…control the travelling speed and the travelling state of the whole vehicle team, so as to ensure the optimal route safety pushed by the vehicle team according to the cloud end, The destination is efficiently reached…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0020]-¶ [0045], ¶ [0060]-¶ [0080], ¶ [0090]-¶ [0100], ¶ [00115]-¶ [0130], Figs. 1-2 steps 101-104, Fig. 3 Steps 201-203), wherein the speed of the independent moving object is adjusted to enable the independent moving object to travel with the group of moving objects (See YUAN, e.g., “…control the travelling speed and the travelling state of the whole vehicle team…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0020]-¶ [0045], ¶ [0060]-¶ [0080], ¶ [0090]-¶ [0100], ¶ [00115]-¶ [0130], Figs. 1-2 steps 101-104, Fig. 3 Steps 201-203).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hashimoto, FRANCHI with the teachings of YUAN so as to, with a reasonable expectation of success, yield a system, method for efficiently, robustly, and seamlessly maintaining the speed of the fleet to mitigate the collisions, thereby, preserving precious lives.
Consider claims 6, 20:
The combination of Hashimoto, FRANCHI, and YUAN teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claims 4, 19. YUAN teaches wherein, prior to transmitting the group information, the independent moving object is traveling on a first portion of a traveling path and the group of moving objects are traveling on a second portion of the traveling path (See YUAN, e.g., “…a sending unit, for if the travel destination of the free vehicle is consistent with the destination on the travel route of the fleet, then sending the history travel record and the hardware operation state information to the cloud end, wherein the cloud end is used for according to the history travel record and the hardware operation state information, analyzing the reliability that the free vehicle will not affect the operation safety of the vehicle team after the free vehicle is added into the vehicle team… a receiving unit for receiving the reliability of the free vehicle fed back by the cloud end; and a control unit for controlling the free vehicle to join in the fleet if the reliability satisfies the preset reliability condition…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0020]-¶ [0045], ¶ [0060]-¶ [0080], ¶ [0090]-¶ [0100], ¶ [00115]-¶ [0130], Figs. 1-2 steps 101-104, Fig. 3 Steps 201-203), wherein the speed of the independent moving object is a speed associated with the first portion of the path (See YUAN, e.g., “…control the travelling speed and the travelling state of the whole vehicle team, so as to ensure the optimal route safety pushed by the vehicle team according to the cloud end, The destination is efficiently reached…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0020]-¶ [0045], ¶ [0060]-¶ [0080], ¶ [0090]-¶ [0100], ¶ [00115]-¶ [0130], Figs. 1-2 steps 101-104, Fig. 3 Steps 201-203), wherein the speed of the group of moving objects is a speed associated with the first portion of the travel path (See YUAN, e.g., “…control the travelling speed and the travelling state of the whole vehicle team, so as to ensure the optimal route safety pushed by the vehicle team according to the cloud end, The destination is efficiently reached…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0020]-¶ [0045], ¶ [0060]-¶ [0080], ¶ [0090]-¶ [0100], ¶ [00115]-¶ [0130], Figs. 1-2 steps 101-104, Fig. 3 Steps 201-203), and wherein transmitting the trip information to the independent moving object comprises: transmitting the trip information to cause the independent moving object to travel at the speed associated with the second portion of the traveling path (See YUAN, e.g., “…control the travelling speed and the travelling state of the whole vehicle team, so as to ensure the optimal route safety pushed by the vehicle team according to the cloud end, The destination is efficiently reached…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0020]-¶ [0045], ¶ [0060]-¶ [0080], ¶ [0090]-¶ [0100], ¶ [00115]-¶ [0130], Figs. 1-2 steps 101-104, Fig. 3 Steps 201-203). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hashimoto, , FRANCHI with the teachings of YUAN so as to, with a reasonable expectation of success, yield a system, method for efficiently, robustly, and seamlessly maintaining the speed of the fleet to mitigate the collisions.
Consider claim 7:
The combination of Hashimoto, FRANCHI, and YUAN teaches everything claimed as implemented above in the rejection of claim 6. In addition, Hashimoto teaches wherein the first portion of the traveling path includes a sidewalk or a bicycle lane, and wherein the second portion of the traveling path includes a roadway (e.g. it is commonly known that roadways comprise all the features as claimed) (See Hashimoto, e.g., “…allows processional travel with a group of vehicles including a leading vehicle and a following vehicle automatically following the leading vehicle…sending a request to separate from or join the processional travel, to the leading vehicle…permitting or rejecting the request from the object vehicle. When the leading vehicle permits the request, the object vehicle is switched by a mode switching device between automatic driving, in which the following vehicle automatically follows the leading vehicle, and manual driving by a driver…”, of Abstract, Col. 1:63-67, Col. 2:1-67, Col. 3:1-63, Figs. 1-2 elements 1-11, A1-A5, K, and TUs, Figs. 8, 10-16 Steps S10-S127, Figs. 19-32 elements B1-D4, Steps S1010-S1138, D1-F5, and Figs. 36-42 elements S1150-S1289, Steps S610-S740). YUAN teaches also teaches (See YUAN, e.g., “…control the travelling speed and the travelling state of the whole vehicle team, so as to ensure the optimal route safety pushed by the vehicle team according to the cloud end, The destination is efficiently reached…”, of Abstract, ¶ [0020]-¶ [0045], ¶ [0060]-¶ [0080], ¶ [0090]-¶ [0100], ¶ [00115]-¶ [0130], Figs. 1-2 steps 101-104, Fig. 3 Steps 201-203). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hashimoto, FRANCHI with the teachings of YUAN so as to, with a reasonable expectation of success, yield a system, method for efficiently, robustly, and seamlessly maintaining the formation of the fleet to function in an appropriate fashion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (US Pat. No.: 12,361,832 B2) teaches “This application provides a method for controlling vehicles to drive as a platoon performed by an electronic device. The method includes: transmitting, from a leading vehicle, a first platoon disbanding message to a target non-tail following vehicle and a second platoon disbanding message to the other remaining following vehicles, the second message including a temporary disbanding instruction for instructing to temporarily disband the current vehicle platoon, so that the target non-tail following vehicle adjusts a status thereof to a free status and drives away from the current vehicle platoon; transmitting, from the leading vehicle, a re-team up invitation message to each of the remaining following vehicles according to the second platoon disbanding message; receiving, at a leading vehicle, a re-team up confirmation message; and reorganizing each of the remaining following vehicles according to the re-team up confirmation message to form a new vehicle platoon.”
Eriksson (US Pat. No.: 11,981,330 B2) teaches “The invention relates to a method for controlling a platoon (10) of vehicles (1, X), wherein the platoon (10) comprises a leading vehicle (1) and at least one following vehicle (X) following the leading vehicle (1), wherein the leading and the following vehicle (1, X) at least to a certain extent are commonly controlled by a platoon control system (500) so as to drive at a common speed, wherein the method comprises the steps of: —transmitting data (200) from each vehicle (1, X) to the control system (500) comprising information on a current maximum engine torque output and a potential maximum torque output of respective vehicle (1, X); —identifying (300) which one of the lead and the at least one following vehicle (1, X) that limits an average speed (Va) of the platoon (10); and —increasing (400) the setting of the maximum engine torque output for the vehicle (1, X) identified to limit the average speed (Va) of the platoon (10).”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BABAR SARWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-5584. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris S. Almatrahi can be reached on (313)446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BABAR SARWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights