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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner’s Response re: 101 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-6, filed 14 Jul 2026, with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 Rejection of Claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response re: 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6-10, filed 14 Jul 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Park, Jeong, Wada, and Spa.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 20200184827 A1 (herein, Park) in view of Jeong et al., US 20240176357 A1 (herein, Jeong), and in further view of Wada et al., US 20220277651 A1 (herein, Wada).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses, a server (FIG. 10, #100 – server) that transmits a control signal based on predicted moving body information (FIG. 10 and ¶[0137] – “The vehicle control device 100 may correspond to a server, a base station or an infrastructure of V2I, perform communication with one or more vehicles 1010a to 1010c and generate a control message for controlling each vehicle.”), the predicted moving body information being generated based on moving body information that is information of a vehicle in a real world (FIG. 10 and ¶[0139] – “The control message may be associated with various control functions such as a function of configuring a destination of the first vehicle 1010a, a function of changing a driving mode,”), following a point in time of acquiring the moving body information (FIG. 10 and ¶[0139] – “…a function of controlling a brake or an engine/motor to change a speed (i.e. - a point in time), and a function of controlling a steering device to change a driving direction.”), to a traffic rule display device (¶[0006] – “a head up display (HUD)”)that is configured to display different traffic rules by changing a display state of the traffic rule display device, (¶[0082] – “… the processor 130 may control the communication unit 110 to display information corresponding to the satisfied condition on one or more displays…”), the server comprising a processor (FIG. 1 and #130 – “processor”) configured to:
identify a first group and a second group different from the first group (FIG. 3A) as groups each in which a plurality of vehicles travels in a group (FIGS. 3A-B illustrate the plurality of vehicles traveling in groups), based on the predicted moving body information (¶[0094] – “…if the vehicle should turn to the left by receiving a left-turn signal at the intersection, the processor 130 may extract the time allocated to the left-turn signal….”);
calculate, for each of the groups identified, an influence degree (¶[0019] – “…the processor may extract a time allocated to a driving direction of the vehicle from the traffic signal, and may calculate vehicles, which can pass through the intersection within the time, as the number of vehicles..”), the influence degree indicating a degree of influence imparted on a traffic network if the group stops at the traffic rule display device (¶[0020] – “… the processor may configure the platoon such that one or more of the vehicles predicted to move to the driving direction of the vehicle, among the other vehicles which stop at the same lane as that of the vehicle, are included in the platoon”).
Park discloses the first and second group, a vicinity range and a range of travel (FIGS. 3A-C) and a display of the traffic rule display device (HUD displays the traffic rule display device)
determine, when the first group and the second group are located within a vicinity range (FIGS. 3A-C) of a display of the traffic rule display device (“HUD” -displays the traffic rule display device), which group of the first group and the second group has the influence degree that is higher, and (FIG. 3A and ¶[0094] – “…as shown in FIG. 3A, if the vehicle should turn to the left by receiving a left-turn signal at the intersection, the processor 130 may extract the time allocated to the left-turn signal. If the time allocated to the left-turn signal corresponds to 20 seconds, the processor may search for the other vehicles, which can turn to the left within 20 seconds through platooning…” – i.e. the vehicles turning do so at a higher influence degree than the vehicles not making the turn).
Park discloses the display state and traffic rule display device, but does not disclose,
transmit a request, to the traffic rule display device to display on the display the display state in which the group of the first group and the second group having the influence degree that is higher can continue traveling and the group of the first group and the second group having the influence degree that is lower cannot continue traveling.
However, Jeong teaches,
transmit a request to the traffic rule display device (¶[0117] – “… requests driving permission from the control server 200 by transmitting a signal to the control server 200, and controls the first vehicle 101 to start its driving when receiving a driving signal from the control server 200…”) to display on the display the display state in which the group of the first group and the second group having the influence degree that is higher can continue traveling and the group of the first group and the second group having the influence degree that is lower cannot continue traveling (¶[0140] – “Furthermore, the control server 200 designates a driving sequence of the plurality of vehicles having a collision possibility (S430) so that each vehicle can drive through a corresponding zone without a collision. When the driving sequence is designated, the control server 200 sequentially transmits driving signals to the collision avoidance systems 100 of the plurality of vehicles according to the sequence (S440)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed by Park to include the transmission of a request and influence degree so as to prevent collisions as taught by Jeong. Doing so, enhances the capability of the server by providing the function of transmitting a request to the traffic rule display device, such as a traffic signal, and collision avoidance so as to improve the movement of the two groups of vehicles.
Modified Park discloses body moving information and first group but does not disclose,
the predicted body moving information corresponding to the first group includes a first indication that the first group is approaching the traffic rule display device in a first direction;
the predicted body moving information corresponding to the second group includes a second indication that the second group is approaching the traffic rule display device in a second direction different from the first direction.
However, Wada teaches,
the predicted body moving information corresponding to the first group includes a first indication that the first group is approaching the traffic rule display device in a first direction ([0120] – “…a traveling state of a vehicle peripheral to the low priority coinciding vehicle, a state of a traveling road in the periphery of the low priority coinciding vehicle, and the like, are included in the peripheral traveling situation. When a peripheral vehicle is a vehicle whose target travel route has been received,… A road monitoring system is a system that monitors a road state, a traffic light state, a traveling vehicle state, and the like, based on various kinds of information.”);
the predicted body moving information corresponding to the second group includes a second indication that the second group is approaching the traffic rule display device in a second direction different from the first direction (¶[0151] – “…when there is an impediment to travel such as an obstacle, a lane decrease, roadworks information, or another vehicle in the target travel route as the peripheral traveling situation,… When there is traffic information such as traffic jam information, sign information, or traffic light information in the target travel route as the peripheral traveling situation, the traveling situation consideration unit 48 changes the target travel route…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed by modified Park to include the first indication and direction along with second indication and direction as taught by Wada. Doing so, enhances the capability of the server that includes the first indication and direction along with the second indication and direction that allows the better control of the groups during the movement of the traffic.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Park further discloses, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the greater a count of the vehicles making up the group, the greater the influence degree of that group (FIG. 3A illustrates a greater count of vehicles that’s in the first group that are making the left turn).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 20200184827 A1 (herein, Park) in view of Jeong et al., US 20240176357 A1 (herein, Jeong), and in further view Okazaki et al., US 20210312807 A1 (herein, Okazaki).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Park does not disclose, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the higher an average speed of the plurality of vehicles making up the group, the greater the influence degree of that group.
However, Okazaki teaches, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the higher an average speed of the plurality of vehicles making up the group, the greater the influence degree of that group (Claim 12 – “…generating a timetable of each of the plurality of vehicles such that a higher average speed of the vehicle between the stops and a longer dwell time of the vehicle at the stop are set for a longer boarding and alighting time estimate; and sending the timetable to the plurality of vehicle.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed by modified Park to include and average speed that’s greater in the calculation of influence as taught by Okazaki. Doing so, enhances the capability of the server by providing the calculation of the average speed has the greater influence of the respective group.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., US 20200184827 A1 (herein, Park) in view of Jeong et al., US 20240176357 A1 (herein, Jeong), and in further view of Spasovski US 20240311943 A1 (herein, Spa).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Park discloses the influence degree, the group, and the object of the calculation but does not disclose, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the influence degree is determined to be greater when the group includes an emergency vehicle, than when not including the emergency vehicle.
However, Spa teaches, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the influence degree is determined to be greater when the group includes an emergency vehicle, than when not including the emergency vehicle. (¶[0293] – “…granting higher priority to urgent trip requests and halting traffic to permit passage of emergency vehicles….”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed by modified Park to include the emergency vehicle as taught by Spa. Doing so, enhances the capability of the server by providing the calculation of the influence degree pertaining to an emergency vehicle.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Park discloses the influence degree, the group, and the object of the calculation but does not disclose, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the influence degree is determined to be greater when the group includes a large-sized vehicle, than when not including the large-sized vehicle.
However, Spa teaches, wherein, when calculating the influence degree, the influence degree is determined to be greater when the group includes a large-sized vehicle, than when not including the large-sized vehicle (¶[0044] – “…to allow passage of extra-large vehicles such as large construction, commercial or military vehicles…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed by modified Park to include the large-sized vehicle as taught by Spa. Doing so, enhances the capability of the server by providing the calculation of the influence degree pertaining to the large-sized vehicle.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Park discloses the influence degree and first and second group but does not disclose, wherein the influence degree of the first group is higher than the influence degree of the second group.
However, Spa teaches, wherein the influence degree of the first group is higher than the influence degree of the second group (¶[0248] – “…in some embodiments, a later time is selected, such as where an emergency occurs or where the scheduling of a higher priority vehicle must first be accommodated.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed by modified Park to include that the first group is higher than the second group as taught by Spa. Doing so, enhances the capability of the server by providing an orderly method to manage the traffic of the groups.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Park discloses the influence degree and first and second group but does not disclose, wherein the influence degree of the second group is higher than the influence degree of the first group (¶[0228] – “Optionally, customers making trip reservations have the option of entering an urgency for their trip request. Where a high priority or an emergency for the trip request is indicated by the customer, scheduling systems herein may assign a higher priority to that customer's trip request and may thus allow the scheduling of that trip request to take priority over the scheduling of other trip requests.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server as disclosed by modified Park to include that the second group is higher than the first group as taught by Spa. Doing so, enhances the capability of the server by providing an orderly method to manage the traffic of the groups.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights