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. Priority is being given to 07/15/2022.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 12/24/2024.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-7 are currently rejected.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a position of the preceding moving body” in both lines 3 and 10. It is unclear if the inventor is referring to the same “position” or two different “positions”. To overcome this rejection the examiner suggest changing the second recitation of “a position of the preceding moving body” to “the position of the preceding moving body”. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the recitations to be referring to the same “position of the preceding moving body”.
Claims 2 and 5 have the same recitation of “a position of the preceding moving body” and are dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a position of the preceding moving body” in both lines 5 and 15. It is unclear if the inventor is referring to the same “position” or two different “positions”. To overcome this rejection the examiner suggest changing the second recitation of “a position of the preceding moving body” to “the position of the preceding moving body”. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the recitations to be referring to the same “position of the preceding moving body”.
Claims 2-6 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 1, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amla et. al. (US 2017/0168503), herein Amla and Yonushonis et. al. (US 11,772,673), herein Yonushonis.
Regarding claim 1:
Amla teaches:
A moving body (fig. 3, follow vehicle 221) that follows a preceding moving body (fig. 3, lead vehicle 201), the moving body comprising:
a position calculator (fig. 1, a computing unit (or electronic controller) 124) that identifies a position of the preceding moving body based on an output value (a follow vehicle it may be more advantageous to have certain forward-facing sensors for determining the position or other attributes of the lead vehicle [0038]) from a sensor that acquires information around the moving body (sensors 108 or 128 may include radar, lidar, sonar, optical distance, alignment, laser, GPS, Doppler, infrared, ultraviolet, audio, various RF, acceleration, deceleration, engine heat, gyroscopic, magnetic, microphone, and other sensors both discussed herein and not discussed herein but known in the art [0041]);
a receiver (fig. 1, wireless receiver 122a) that receives displacement information (Computing unit 104 may process some or all of the received information and determine which information and commands to send to vehicle 120 or another vehicle via wireless transmitter 102b. Wireless transmitter 102b then transmits a transmission intended for receipt by at least wireless receiver 122a [0042])
an operation controller (fig. 1, a steering and powertrain control unit (or momentum control system) 127) that performs control to move the moving body (In vehicle 120, information sensed by sensors 128, inputs from sensors 123, feedback from control unit 127 and guidance transmissions including information and commands received by wireless receiver 122a may be transmitted to computing unit 124. Computing unit (or electronic controller) 124 may process some or all of the received information and determine which commands to output to control unit 127 in the form of control data to control the vehicle 120 [0043]) based on an identified position of the preceding moving body (Sensors 308 and 328 are each configured to sense an input and provide information that is relevant to the ability of the follow vehicle 221 to follow lead vehicle 201 [0051])
Amla teaches the ability to coordinate control via wireless communication when out of line of sight but does not explicitly teach that the information shared is displacement information although shared locations of each vehicle would be expected for coordinated control.
Amla does not explicitly teach, however Yonushonis teaches:
a receiver that receives displacement information (collecting, via at least one wireless communications network, movement data pertaining to each subsystem in a plurality of subsystems, wherein the plurality of subsystems comprises at least one slow-moving subsystem and/or at least one fast-moving subsystem categorized as such based at least in part on a capability for fast movement, a current movement characteristic, and/or recent movement characteristic [claim 1]) indicating a displacement amount of a position of the preceding moving body due to movement of the preceding moving body (The MDM 510 may receive movement vectors and/or other movement data from and/or reflective of the movement of one or more subsystems [col 9, lines 50-52]); and
the displacement information in a state of losing sight in which the position calculator cannot identify a position of the preceding moving body (a compromised line of sight in which there is an intervening subsystem physically obstructing a line of sight to an otherwise unobstructed line of sight to another subsystem so as to block sight of the another subsystem [claim 1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amla to include the teachings as taught by Yonushonis with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of tracking multiple vehicles locations. Yonushonis teaches the benefits of “safety warnings are triggered by one or more of what are referred to herein as computing-and-communication systems (CCSs) detecting the occurrence, presence, and/or the like of one or more of what are referred to herein as warning-triggering conditions (e.g., states of one or more measured parameters, one or more occurrences of one or more events, and/or the like), and responsively issuing one or more safety warnings. In various different embodiments, the issuing of a given safety warning takes the form of one or more CCSs transmitting one or more warning messages to one or more other CCSs, one or more CCSs presenting (e.g., visually, audibly, tactilely, and/or the like) one or more safety-warning indications, and/or one or more CCSs taking one or more other suitable warning-related actions. [Yonushonis, col 1, lines 50-63]”.
Regarding claim 6:
Amla in view of Yonushonis teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Amla further teaches:
wherein the operation controller performs control to reduce a speed of the moving body and move the moving body when transition is made to the state of losing sight (vehicle 221 may be directed by its controller to slow to a lower rate of travel or stop at a safe distance from obstacle 694 until vehicle 695 and any other oncoming vehicles that pose a threat have safely passed vehicle 221).
Regarding claim 7:
Amla teaches:
A moving body system (fig. 3, lead vehicle 201 and follow vehicle 221) comprising:
a preceding first moving body (fig. 3, lead vehicle 201); and
a second moving body that follows the first moving body (fig. 3, follow vehicle 221),
wherein the first moving body transmits displacement information indicating a displacement amount of a position of the first moving body per unit time to the second moving body (lead vehicle 201 wirelessly transmits information regarding its movement, position, attitude, and/or sensed surroundings or circumstances to one or more follow vehicles and may wirelessly receive data regarding the same or similar information from one or several follow vehicles [0072]), and
the second moving body includes:
a position calculator (fig. 1, a computing unit (or electronic controller) 124) that identifies a position of the first moving body based on an output value (a follow vehicle it may be more advantageous to have certain forward-facing sensors for determining the position or other attributes of the lead vehicle [0038]) from a sensor that acquires information around the second moving body (sensors 108 or 128 may include radar, lidar, sonar, optical distance, alignment, laser, GPS, Doppler, infrared, ultraviolet, audio, various RF, acceleration, deceleration, engine heat, gyroscopic, magnetic, microphone, and other sensors both discussed herein and not discussed herein but known in the art [0041]);
a receiver (fig. 1, wireless receiver 122a) that receives the displacement information from the first moving body (Computing unit 104 may process some or all of the received information and determine which information and commands to send to vehicle 120 or another vehicle via wireless transmitter 102b. Wireless transmitter 102b then transmits a transmission intended for receipt by at least wireless receiver 122a [0042]); and
an operation controller (fig. 1, a steering and powertrain control unit (or momentum control system) 127) that performs control to move the first moving body (In vehicle 120, information sensed by sensors 128, inputs from sensors 123, feedback from control unit 127 and guidance transmissions including information and commands received by wireless receiver 122a may be transmitted to computing unit 124. Computing unit (or electronic controller) 124 may process some or all of the received information and determine which commands to output to control unit 127 in the form of control data to control the vehicle 120 [0043]) based on an identified position of the first moving body (Sensors 308 and 328 are each configured to sense an input and provide information that is relevant to the ability of the follow vehicle 221 to follow lead vehicle 201 [0051]) and the displacement information in a state of losing sight where the position calculator cannot identify a position of the first moving body.
Amla teaches the ability to coordinate control via wireless communication when out of line of sight but does not explicitly teach that the information shared is displacement information although shared locations of each vehicle would be expected for coordinated control.
Amla does not explicitly teach, however Yonushonis teaches:
a receiver that receives displacement information (collecting, via at least one wireless communications network, movement data pertaining to each subsystem in a plurality of subsystems, wherein the plurality of subsystems comprises at least one slow-moving subsystem and/or at least one fast-moving subsystem categorized as such based at least in part on a capability for fast movement, a current movement characteristic, and/or recent movement characteristic [claim 1]) indicating a displacement amount of a position of the preceding moving body due to movement of the preceding moving body (The MDM 510 may receive movement vectors and/or other movement data from and/or reflective of the movement of one or more subsystems [col 9, lines 50-52]); and
the displacement information in a state of losing sight in which the position calculator cannot identify a position of the preceding moving body (a compromised line of sight in which there is an intervening subsystem physically obstructing a line of sight to an otherwise unobstructed line of sight to another subsystem so as to block sight of the another subsystem [claim 1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amla to include the teachings as taught by Yonushonis with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of tracking multiple vehicles locations. Yonushonis teaches the benefits of “safety warnings are triggered by one or more of what are referred to herein as computing-and-communication systems (CCSs) detecting the occurrence, presence, and/or the like of one or more of what are referred to herein as warning-triggering conditions (e.g., states of one or more measured parameters, one or more occurrences of one or more events, and/or the like), and responsively issuing one or more safety warnings. In various different embodiments, the issuing of a given safety warning takes the form of one or more CCSs transmitting one or more warning messages to one or more other CCSs, one or more CCSs presenting (e.g., visually, audibly, tactilely, and/or the like) one or more safety-warning indications, and/or one or more CCSs taking one or more other suitable warning-related actions. [Yonushonis, col 1, lines 50-63]”.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amla et. al. (US 2017/0168503), herein Amla and Yonushonis et. al. (US 11,772,673), herein Yonushonis in further view of Chen et. al. (US 2023/0400863), herein Chen (from IDS).
Regarding claim 2:
Amla in view of Yonushonis teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Yonushonis further teaches:
and the displacement information from a time point at which a position of the preceding moving body is last identified to a current time point (The MDM 510 may receive movement vectors and/or other movement data from and/or reflective of the movement of one or more subsystems [col 9, lines 50-52]).
Amla in view of Yonushonis does not explicitly teach, however Chen teaches:
further comprising an estimation unit that estimates, in the state of losing sight, a current position of the preceding moving body (in “(State 2) State immediately before tracking target loss” and “(State 3) Tracking target lost state”, estimation processing of a current position of the tracking target is executed using the sensor detection information and the like of the camera and the like in immediately preceding “(State 1) Tracking target confirmable state” or “(State 2) State immediately before tracking target loss”, and tracking target estimated position information 55 acquired as an estimation processing result is output to the robot drive information generation unit 107 [0172]) based on a position of the preceding moving body that is last identified by the position calculator (the tracking target position estimation processing executed by the tracking target position estimation unit 104 in “(State 2) State immediately before tracking target loss” [0177])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amla and Yonushonis to include the teachings as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of having a vehicle follow a target. Chen teaches the benefit of “to provide an information processing device, an information processing system, a method, and a program capable of efficiently rediscovering a lost tracking target and continuing tracking in a case where the tracking target deviates from a field of view of a robot at an intersection and the like, for example, in a configuration in which tracking is performed while checking the tracking target with a sensor such as a camera and the like of the robot [Chen, 0014]”.
Regarding claim 3:
Amla in view of Yonushonis and Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 2, upon which this claim is dependent.
Amla further teaches:
further comprising a target point setting unit that sets a target point to which the moving body is moved based on a position identified by the position calculator (To resolve the problems of boundary-crossing in such instances, it may be necessary to transmit a very granular set of coordinates, guidance instructions, or other data to set vehicle 221 along a path of travel that consistent with path 611 taken by vehicle 201 and that remains within the boundaries 691 and 692 of the desired path [0067])
wherein the operation controller performs control to move the moving body toward the target point (Computing unit (or electronic controller) 124 may process some or all of the received information and determine which commands to output to control unit 127 in the form of control data to control the vehicle 120 [0043]).
Chen further teaches:
or a position estimated by the estimation unit in the state of losing sight (tracking target estimated position information 55 acquired as an estimation processing result is output to the robot drive information generation unit 107 [0172]),
Regarding claim 4:
Amla in view of Yonushonis and Chen teaches all the limitations of claim 3, upon which this claim is dependent.
Amla further teaches:
further comprising a distance calculator that calculates a distance between the moving body and the preceding moving body at a current time point based on a position identified by the position calculator (Sensor 308, for example, may sense the distance to vehicle 221, the speed of vehicle 221, the direction of travel of vehicle 221, the acceleration or deceleration of vehicle 221, the attitude of vehicle 221, the position of visible [0051]) or a position estimated by the estimation unit, and generates stop request information for requesting the preceding moving body to stop moving based on the distance (vehicle 221 may be directed by its controller to slow to a lower rate of travel or stop at a safe distance from obstacle 694 until vehicle 695 and any other oncoming vehicles that pose a threat have safely passed vehicle 221 [0070]).
Regarding claim 5:
Amla in view of Yonushonis teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Amla in view of Yonushonis does not explicitly teach, however Chen teaches:
wherein the state of losing sight is a state where the position calculator does not identify a position of the preceding moving body, the state continuing for predetermined time (State immediately before tracking target loss is a state in which a state in which a tracking target cannot be confirmed has occurred for a prescribed time (t1) or longer on the basis of sensor detection information of a camera and the like [0299]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Amla and Yonushonis to include the teachings as taught by Chen with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of having a vehicle follow a target. Chen teaches the benefit of “to provide an information processing device, an information processing system, a method, and a program capable of efficiently rediscovering a lost tracking target and continuing tracking in a case where the tracking target deviates from a field of view of a robot at an intersection and the like, for example, in a configuration in which tracking is performed while checking the tracking target with a sensor such as a camera and the like of the robot [Chen, 0014]”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshino (US 2021/0394755) discloses a target track generation apparatus (10), a preceding vehicle position acquisition unit (1) acquires a relative position of a preceding vehicle. A subject vehicle state quantity acquisition unit (2) acquires a state quantity of a subject vehicle. A subject vehicle movement amount calculator (3) calculates a movement amount of the subject vehicle, based on the state quantity of the subject vehicle. A subject vehicle reference preceding vehicle position calculator (4) calculates a point group of subject vehicle reference preceding vehicle positions representing a history of the relative position of the preceding vehicle in a coordinate system using a current position of the subject vehicle as a reference, based on the relative position of the preceding vehicle and the movement amount of the subject vehicle. A target track generator (5) generates a target track of the subject vehicle, based on the point group of the subject vehicle reference preceding vehicle positions. A target track correction determination unit (6) determines whether or not correction of the target track is necessary, based on the point group of the subject vehicle reference preceding vehicle positions or the target track. A correction target track generator (7) generates a correction target track obtained by correcting the target track, based on the point group of the subject vehicle reference preceding vehicle positions or the target track, when it is determined that correction of the target track is necessary.
Horiuchi (US 2023/0266133) discloses An information processing apparatus includes: a risk area identification unit configured to identify a risk area outside a moving object; a transmission control unit configured to control sending risk area information indicating the risk area identified by the risk area identification unit to a server for retaining information indicating a risk area; and a reception control unit configured to control receiving the information indicating the risk area retained in the server in relation to a planned traveling route of the moving object, wherein the transmission control unit is configured to control sending evaluation information regarding evaluation of the risk area indicated by the information received from the server when the risk area identification unit could not identify, on the planned traveling route, the risk area indicated by the information received from the server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665